via 9to5 Mac. James Allworth, Harvard Business Review:
Now, if youâ€™re with me so far, then I donâ€™t think itâ€™s a leap to suggest that having these companies duke it out in court over â€œwho might have copied whoâ€ is counterproductive. Letâ€™s have these companies solely focused on duking it out in the marketplace â€” where consumers, not courtrooms, make the decisions about innovation. In such a world, the best defense against copying isnâ€™t lawsuits, but rather, to innovate at such a rate that your competition canâ€™t copy you fast enough. That, to me, sounds like an ideal situation not just for consumers â€” but for the real innovators, too.
Real innovation takes time and copying takes considerably less time. Real innovation takes resources: the world’s bests and lots of financial capital. Copying doesn’t. To think Apple could innovate at a rate faster than a copying competition is naÃ¯ve; it simply is not possible. Because copying requires significantly less resources the copying company can charge much less for something that is essentially the same. This can’t be good for real innovators and real innovators are the ones who care if Samsung copied Apple.
Update 2012.08.25: Nilay Patel, The Verge:
The company spent most of the past month telling the jury that the iPhone was a revolution five years in the making, and that Samsung had taken just three months to copy it, without bearing any of the costs or risks involved. The jury clearly agreed […]