Apple was awarded $1 billion on Aug. 24 in a patent infringement lawsuit between Apple and Samsung regarding similarly designed smartphones.

Apple accused Samsung of stealing some of its patented ideas, most notably the “pinch-and-zoom” function, which allows a user to interact with the screen and maximize images by pinching it.

“Design patents deal with how something looks or feels to the user, not the underlying technology that makes it work that way,” Jason Dedrick, an associate professor in the School of Information Studies, said in an email.

The “pinch-and-zoom function” patent corresponds to simply opening or minimizing an application, which are generic operating system functions, said Janet Marsden, a Ph.D. candidate in the iSchool.

The lawsuit argued that Apple owns the idea of the finger motion itself, rather than just the exact software code that creates the motion, she said.

Scott Fay, associate professor of marketing in the Martin J. Whitman School of Management, said in an email that he expects Samsung to appeal the decision. But if the verdict remains, the ruling could have a very large impact on the smartphone industry, with huge benefits for Apple.

“(Apple) would effectively be able to limit their competition, either by forcing competitors to remove their products from the market or by charging competitors license fees in order to keep their products on the market,” Fay said. “Either way, Apple benefits by having higher market share and/or collecting royalties.”

Consumers may also be hurt by such strict enforcement of patent laws. The laws will limit the amount of product choices, which will force competitors to raise prices due to licensing fees. In order to remain competitive, Apple may also raise its prices, Fay said.

Fay said it was more difficult to predict the broader implications of the verdict. The ruling could indicate the court’s willingness to uphold tenuous patents, which would mean more patents would need to be secured, thus leading to even more lawsuits due to patent violations.

He said both of these factors would make working in the smartphone market more expensive and would also give consumers fewer products to choose from.

This could just be a single ruling that does not change the court’s policy on enforcement of patent laws, Fay said. Samsung has other smartphones on the market that did not violate patents, so it may just market those more extensively. Samsung could also develop smartphones with slight changes, such as changing the shape of the phone, thus avoiding patent infringement.

Said Fay: “Technology is constantly evolving, as are consumer preferences. So, the ‘best’ smartphone two years from now is likely to be quite different than the ‘best’ smartphone on the market today, regardless of what the court ruled in this case.”

Published on September 4, 2012 at 12:50 am

Contact Andrew: amfeld01@syr.edu