1. A total of 21 Samsung devices, were found to infringe on Apple patents. Should protecting intellectual property ever come at the cost of ceasing innovation? Why or why not? Defend your answer.
The intellectual property is all positive and benefits for companies to show that how they are creative. Somehow, competitors did not understand language of patent and they can violate issues related best competitor over there. The situation is same and it is against legal laws and regulation that violated by companies. The innovation is lies under one only aspect and that aspect is about treating with creativity. Creativity as Apple has provided to its customer has no substitution in market. The cost of research and development is biggest costs in companies as Apple is. It is a best and creative way in which companies got and sustain competitive advantage.
2. In the video, What did Steve Jobs mean when he referenced, “Good artists copy, Great artists steal, Steve Jobs is quoted as saying, “Good artists copy, great artists steal. And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.” Based on Steve Jobs own statements in the video and the Press Release from 2010, are his words contradicting his own philosophy, or are they congruent in their meaning? If no, why? If yes, specifically how? Is this a case of Subjective Relativism or that of Ethical Egoism or Is Jobs portraying a double-standard? Why or why not? Defend your answer.
The answer was entirely about way in which reality is being given to psychological victory, and enhanced level of confidence in market. The market has double standards and that standard is not exactly related with little aspect to follow and best in creativity. The creativity has chooses by company and creativity as endorsed by owner has same evaluation. This behavior achieved consumer ability. The selling technique is to grasp attention of customer and patents over design and design related things in company is relevant with purpose of creativity. Further high costs design is best one in which it is possible to work and ability happened exactly in same way as customers argue.
3. According to the article, Apple and Samsung Respond to Verdict in Patent Case, Samsung is viewing Apple as being a monopoly in the market. Do you agree or disagree with their perspective? Why? Is the American consumer the loser in this case even though Apple won? Specifically Why? Defend your answer.
Yes, I am agreeing because Integrated circuit was invention of Apple and even info graphics and selection of color theme for backend is entirely depends upon selection. Research and development of Smartphone market enhances its credibility. The research was original accomplished by Apple and it did best to reserve its creativity in terms of action plan. The planning aspect is important and there are monopoly ion terms of Samsung design and functionalities. The market evaluation is all about way adopted by Smartphone and show what is relevant or irrelevant.
4. Do you believe that an injunction is going to stop other innovators in this technology from infringing upon Apple patents? Why or why not? Based on your findings, what are the implications from this case for those markets? Defend your answer.
Yes, I have believes that this is bad and negative impacts over feelings and aspect not entirely best for Apple patents. The patents and market innovation is way in which injunction can grow but never appeal anything bad. In this thing harm for creativity and patents, are not suitable in any sense. This is not an ethical approach to harm other business by doing such activity. The design is base of brand and it should not get harm from any other aspect.
5. If you were a judge in this case, what would be your verdict based on your research.
The research should be neutral in any sense because neutral verdict is only possible o provide what is needed and how it represents harm to other business. The business harm and way of innovation is not possible in any sense and only model evaluation is best one that can help in this case. The case was entirely about how to react with model and design. If culprit launched same design that company should lose its license. The licensee related with creativity best in approach and shows why it is best and how it can reveal anything related with research. The case is clear threat of creativity to other company and related with corporation act.