ference. This might be a bit of an overstatement;
an insult to people who spend hundreds of dollars and thousands of pesos on their phones.
There are a whole slew of charges – from copying the
‘rubber band’ feature on the iPhone, wherein a list snaps
back after you have hit the end webpage, to the tap and
zoom feature, even to the rectangular and rounded edge
design of the phone. The charges are based around one
idea – which company has the right to call its products innovative? Or bigger yet – what is innovation?
In the MacBook commercial, Apple argued that innovation means, “disconnect[ing] from the past” and
starting from the blueprint. Innovation, to Apple,
means going back to the drawing board and finding
an original and creative solution. To Samsung, innovation means improving upon existing technology,
(such as what has been created by apple) which to it
requires just as much work as creating a new product.
What can be called ‘fresh’ – in the modern sense?
Is it something out of the box and creative, or
something that makes better what is already there?
It seems that the jury’s ruling in favor of Apple is trying to say that originality – what Apple strives to have in every product – is innovation. But can it really be innovation if disadvan
tages the consumer and for the technology industry?
There’s potential for the market to go stale in Apple’s attempt to preserve its freshness. Its win over