Eli Fennell originally shared this post:
Could Apple's Victory be Good for Google?
I'll start by saying, I believe the jury verdict was wrong (maybe not 100% wrong, but closer to 100% than 0%) in the Apple v. Samsung case. A non-savvy pool of jurors who live within miles of Apple's HQ, were inundated by the American media's love fest over the death of Steve Jobs, and have like most Americans likely been trained to believe all the great innovation in the world comes from American companies, was bored, exhausted, impressed by Apple's legal showmanship and ability to sell a narrative, and eager to get home handed a victory to Apple that will probably not stand up entirely on appeal (the damages, if nothing else, will almost surely be reduced considerably). There was no "justice" in this, no "nine angry men" arguing the merits of the case... their decision took about 90-seconds for each of the over 700 issues that clearly confused them. It was a decision above their paygrade, and they made it badly.
That said, Apple might have done Google a huge favor. Samsung's not going away tomorrow, nor is Android in general, it'll likely take years to suss out all of these issues and by then it might hardly matter, at least in the U.S. which is the only part of the world affected by this verdict. I know some people like think America is the world, or its center at least, but we're not, get over it.
So, in the short run (which is actually pretty long), American consumers will continue to buy Androids, probably still more than they buy iPhones. And any argument that this "harmed Samsung's image" is fanboi talk, no more realistic than that this harmed Apple's image. Most people just don't really care or even pay attention to these sorts of things.
What's interesting, though, about this verdict, is that Google largely squeaked out unscathed. Much of the patent infringement related to TouchWiz, Samsung's Custom UI Skin for Android, one reviled widely by hardcore fans of Android, who would be more than happy to see it go. Bounce back scrolling and square glossy icons are both TouchWiz specific and not part of stock Android. Consequently, Samsung may have to scale back some of their UI customizations. Customizing Android was Samsung's way of slowly forking Android away, until some day they might even have tried to "pull the rug out" from under Google and pull an Amazon on them. Now this may prove to be a much harder, perhaps impossible, goal.
Some other points of "infringement" involved outdated software, where more recent updates modified or dropped infringing features. The jury was specifically instructed not to update the OS on the devices they were evaluating for this reason; consequently Samsung may choose to re-release some of these devices with newer software versions pre-installed. That would be a win for consumers, some of whom may simply not install the latest updates, and lose out on the benefits.
On the issue of trade dress, it's now clear what has to be avoided: a perfectly rectangular phone with four evenly rounded corners (also, probably best to avoid a pronounced home button; in fact, since they're no longer necessary, it would make sense to dispense of the buttons entirely and simply use Android's on-screen buttons for versions 3.0+). In addition, if the device does not have a flat glass display, so much the better.
What's perhaps most interesting is that the Galaxy Nexus got a reprieve. It will ultimately face another lawsuit, but one not set to commence until 2014, by which time it shouldn't matter a whit. But there are reasons Judge Koh's injunction on the Nexus wasn't upheld: here we have a device that avoids nearly all of the infringing claims, and proves that such a device can still be really good, that something needn't suspiciously resemble an iPhone to be a great phone.
The Nexus does not use bounce back scrolling or square glossy icons (and the icons it does have are pretty clearly distinct from iPhone icons), does not violate Apple's rather specific version of slide to unlock, is not a perfect rectangle with four evenly rounded corners, and instead of a flat glass display, it has a contoured or "curved" glass display. And, depending on your tastes, these differences can be more than just patent and trade dress workarounds... they can actually be better. The improved slide-to-unlock lets you launch a camera, or even Google Now, from the lockscreen. The icons come in more diverse shapes. The contoured glass is ergonomic for a phone, as it mimics the natural curvature of the face from ear to mouth. The universal search feature has been stripped, which is not good, but also not a point most people would base their purchases on.
In other words.. the pure Google Android smartphone appears different enough to survive litigation, both on the hardware and software end. I promise you there are already folks at Samsung and other Android OEM's, taking note of this. It is Google's ultimate "I Told You So" to the good folks at Sammie, and if they hadn't been so busy pushing their own stuff that they let the Nexus languish, it might have been as big as the Galaxy S II. In addition, Google has a portfolio of pending patents they've filed, such as the mobile notification center patent, a patent for launching apps from the lock screen, and more, which Apple either does or could (now or in the future) infringe upon. That's leaving aside patents they've acquired, and between IBM, Motorola, and some other sources, Google has a more robust portfolio of design patents for smartphone software than Samsung.
From now on, Samsung may have to take a lighter touch, or no touch at all, with their Android customizations, and may have to follow Google's vision of device design more closely. They can focus on areas of hardware where Apple's patents are weaker, and leave the software patents and some areas of designing around Apple's trade dress to be dealt with by Google, which is not only better at that, but doesn't suffer the deadlines Samsung has to deal with as an OEM. Google can wait to release a new version of Android, on a new Nexus, when they are confident it does a good job of avoiding patent infringement, and only has to deal with one, maybe two, a handful at most of device designs per year. And they can focus more narrowly on filing design patents, for which they have loads of talent and need focus almost exclusively on software.
So, Apple's "victory", which probably won't entirely stand on appeal, may have the following consequences: newer software pre-installed on older devices, a purer Android OS experience, and more innovative device designs. And Samsung's transparent ambitions to some day fork Android, a real risk given their dominant position, is weakened. Samsung's patent troubles may well be the reason they have seemingly abandoned both Bada (their home grown OS), and Tizen (the Linux Foundation's mobile OS). Now they'll also have lost leverage to fork Android, and be more dependent on Google for the OS, for their input on how to design devices, and for their patent protection.
Android's not going away. Nor is this "the rise of Windows Phone"... apart from the fact that no one wants Windows Phones (as AT&T, MS, and Nokia's launch of the Luminia 900 proved), it would just be trading one devil for another. OEM's haven't forgotten or forgiven MS for their monopolistic abuse of power over them, nor have carriers forgiven MS for purchasing Skype, having poor relations with them in general, and repeatedly Osbourning their products. Android can make gradual changes to their OS where necessary, and the OEM's can be more cautious about designing devices, and at some point patent settlements will take place that will bring peace, through a combination of product differentiation and Mutually Assured Destruction, with perhaps some degree of licensing or cross-licensing.
It's entirely possible that Apple has, ironically, united the OEM's more strongly around Google's vision of Android. It's not as though they're likely to have a better option; the patent wars pretty much assure no other open source mobile OS will rise soon. Free, or paid for through licensing fees, Android is still open source, and Google isn't an overbearing partner to work with (except maybe on the Nexus, and even then they're easier to work with than Microsoft).

http://bit.ly/eA8V8J vía http://bit.ly/IoruUb