Sorry!! The article you are trying to read is not available now.
Thank you very much;
you're only a step away from
downloading your reports.

Patent Overreaction Follows Samsung Verdict


The jury verdict that Samsung violated Apple patents isn't the end of the smartphone world as we know it.

MINYANVILLE ORIGINAL Ah. So, it seems that Apple (AAPL) owns the whole concept of intuitive device design. Or, at least it owns that pinch-and-zoom action that has become second nature to users of smartphones.

Or not. At the risk of being disrespectful to nine angry jurors who happen to have been sitting 10 miles from Apple headquarters, maybe the company's victory against Samsung (SSNLF) in a patent dispute battle isn't the show-stopper it seems.

Samsung investors freaked out so bad that the stock dropped 7% on Monday, its worst loss since October 2008. In the US later, Google (GOOG) lost 1.39% on a pretty good day for technology stocks in general, because the devices in question use its Android operating system.

A second look suggests that Samsung, and by extension Google, may walk away practically unscathed if not actually strengthened by the jury's ruling that Samsung swiped Apple's technology.

First of all, what's a $1 billion penalty between enemies these days? Samsung has $21 billion in cash, and the company brings in about a billion dollars every 2.4 days.

And, if Samsung makes a deal to pay royalties to Apple for certain functions or features of some smartphones, that apparently adds about $5 to each device, based on what it already pays Microsoft (MSFT) for other technology in other devices.

Also not a giant-killer.

Second, there's the flaw that is inherent in the all-American practice of suing the pants off your technology industry competition for patent infringement: By the time a verdict comes down, the technology has moved on.

A patent attorney told Reuters that most of the smartphones covered by the ruling are "legacy products" anyway. This isn't to say that Samsung's newer models are or aren't too much like the iPhone, but they're too new to be covered by the suit that this jury just ruled on.

Adding insult to injury, Samsung may even benefit if the GSII is yanked off the market by court injunction, ZDNet suggests. Its GSIII, which isn't named in the suit, is more expensive and newer. The company's Galaxy Note product line isn't affected either.

The smartphone industry is moving fast, and Samsung has been successful in part because its turnaround is faster than anybody else's.

The case is seen as the opening salvo in an Apple patent war against Google and its Android operating system-the start of the "thermonuclear war" that the late Apple founder Steve Jobs vowed to wage against Google for what he saw as a copycat of Apple's mobile operating system.

Google's statement claims that the ruling is more about Samsung's hardware than about the Android operating system software that runs it. Google would say that, but it seems to be true. The five major issues that the jury said violated Apple patents all appear to be inherent to the look and feel of the handset, not the operating system. Presumably, Apple's thermonuclear war on Google will be scheduled for a later date, in another courtroom.

< Previous
Position in MSFT.
The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.

Copyright 2011 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Featured Videos