Search the Community

Finally the verdict given in accordance to the trial in San Jose, Calif made Apple a clear winner against the battle with Samsung. But this case can govern future disputes arising amongst companies over intellectual property.Samsung is being blamed for imitating the user interface of Apple like for instance the "bounce back feature " when a user scrolls to the end image or the zooming of text just by a finger tap.The question is to what extent a company can benefit from having a similar user interface or similar look and feel product as that of their competitor's ? Or is it the uniqueness of a product that drive the customer crazy about a new product?Price certainly governs a majority of product popularity. If with a lesser price one gets to use the same look and feel of a product, certainly it makes the costlier product a little bit unpopular. But then a blame like this certainly puts Samsung in a disadvantageous position as every company would like to create animage of being an innovator and not of being a copycat.Although design is not at all an invention of any sort.But it requires a certain amount of creativity to visualise a product in a complete different way as that of the current one.This case may seemingly benefit Apple $1 billion as this is the price Samsung had to pay as penalty but a different view too coexists in the air that says Samsung has gotten a free word of mouth publicity as this dispute puts Samsung and Apple as truly same with no difference.Apple is a smartphone market leader and defined the way the phones look and if that very company states that Samsung is Apple in disguise then it would take a few more minutes by customers to reach to conclusion that Apple is Samsung.Thus such an impression wouldn't benefit Apple in the long run.As paying a huge amount for an Apple product will seem to be vague when the same product can be bought with much lesser price if it is Samsung one.So this case turns out to be as the biggest ad campaign done by Samsung to popularise its product in lieu of $1 billion.