A Samsung phone right next to an Apple iPhone 4. (Damien Meyer / AFPGetty…)
Re "Apple bites back," Opinion, Aug. 30
Brian J. Love, an assistant professor of law at Santa Clara University School of Law, did some math involving 250,000 "potentially applicable patents" to prove the legal system got it wrong in the Apple-Samsung infringement case, but he completely misses the point.
This case was not about esoteric technical patents, but rather creative design and interface innovation that made smartphones easy for people to use — innovation so desirable that it actually did "change the world" (or at least the world of smartphones).
Nokia and Microsoft eventually produced creative alternatives to Apple's designs. Samsung chose instead to copy Apple's innovations. Samsung cloned the look of iPhone so closely that Google became concerned, according to internal company documents released by the court.
Apple was right to defend its innovation against shameless copying, and the jury came to the right conclusion.
Letters: Talking trash collection
Letters: Who dealt the race card?
Letters: Funding research with fines