Given the underlying reason that Apple has been bringing these cases to court was to enable them to continue to innovate, it’s hard not to ask: if copying stops innovation, why didn’t Apple stop innovating last time they were copied?
One one hand, that’s the wrong way to look at it. The issue Apple has here is that they feel like they’ve lost revenue as a direct result of Samsung copying their products. This hasn’t hurt Apple in a major way because they’re a juggernaut (the most valuable company ever, even). But if they weren’t so powerful, that lost revenue could significantly hurt the company’s ability to operate, let alone innovate. See: Apple in the 1990s.
But almost inadvertently, the author brings up something interesting. Samsung’s copying may have forced Apple to innovate at a pace greater than they may have otherwise. Apple has little competition in terms of quality products on the market — the best are the ones by Samsung which are similar to Apple products. In other words, Apple may be indirectly bolstering its own rival — they’re running from their own shadow. And if they weren’t, they might grow complacent. And innovation would slow.
A stretch, perhaps. But interesting to think about.