Since the verdict in the Apple vs. Samsung case was announced, there has been no shortage of articles written about the possible impact this will have on innovation. Below are several of those articles followed by comments about each of them.

Technology Review: Apple/Samsung: The Verdict on Innovation

With over 60% of 700 Million or so Android phones, what does the patent violation against Samsung really mean? Yes, there is penalty and Samsung will fight for years to come. Does it really change the Android offerings? Perhaps not.

Regarding the point about patents limiting innovation: I believe the contrary: patents inspire innovation. Without patents we would be innovating far less, right?!

Slate.com: Apple/Samsung and Two Models of Innovation

While Matthew makes strong points, I think there is a confusion around innovation & this lawsuit. The fact that there were patent violations (perhaps?) does not mean innovation did not happen or can not happen moving forward. This is simply an IP battle. Of course we can and will innovate again. Why are we having the wrong dialog?

New York Times: Apple Case Muddies the Future of Innovations

YES!!! Finally the NY Times speaks to my heart about the Apple Samsung IP battle. Let’s assume that the IP infringement is valid, and Samsung (Android phones) cannot use the innovation which belongs to Apple, so indeed there is a kick in the pants to innovate differently, better and change the world again! There is tons of room to innovate. So let’s start innovating!

Newsday.com: Apple, Samsung war over iPhone, Android likeness could smother innovation

Totally wrong conversation. With all due respect, if there is an infringement on Apple’s IP, protecting that IP does not in any way constitute stifling innovation. It just means that we have to be more creative and innovate better and differently. You would only view this as a negative for innovation, if you feared that you could not innovate on your own. If we had had this mentality 30 years ago in tech, we would have ONLY innovated based on a few initial ideas, vs. thousands of new ideas. I find this wrong correlation of the IP patent suit and impact on innovation giving rise to very wrong dialogs around why we cannot innovate? If it is a valid case, it means Samsung needs to innovate differently. What is wrong with that? Imagine if Apple had never innovated?! What do you think?