Mobile User Preferences Habits and Expectations - Assignment Example

Most recently, Samsung was forced to pay a huge amount as fine, resulting from the court verdict on Apple’s sue regarding patent infringement. Thus, there arises a highly significant and immediate need to rethink Samsung’s strategies in order to ensure that they do not erroneously imitate others and also that their designs are not copied by other firms. Here, a study is conducted on the patent strategy of Samsung, with the intention to come out with a possible solution for infringement issues.

The cost incurred in this process is estimated to be around $1000. It is believed that by completing this research, it will be possible to reduce issues of patent infringement between smartphone makers. At this point, the second phase of the study has been completed. Firstly, the completed work 1-2 is discussed, and then the focus is thrown on future works 3-5. Mainly five stages are formed for the research and there is a prescribed deadline for completing each task. Investigate the extent of patent competition and infringement in the smartphone industry.

Based on the “2012 mobile user survey,” under smartphone user preferences category, Apple led the graph by holding the account for 38% of user interest and HTC came in the second position and Samsung came third with 15% of the market preference (Keynote, 2012, 1). The report indicates the intensity and stiffness of market competition. By analyzing “ITC’s” (International Trade Commission) article “Smart Phone patent battle,” it is revealed that patent infringement activity is a very common issue in the smartphone industry (Hynes & Sinnott, 2011, 39).

Identify the patent-related problems Samsung smartphones face with other competing firms as well as the defects of existing patent strategy in the current industrial scenario. Almost all infringement verdicts were taken against Samsung. So it is clear that their patent strategy has some default, recently forcing Samsung to pay “1 billion to Apple” Inc in a patent-related legislation case (Gardner, 2012).