Litigation is often good only for one party , lawyers. Unless litigation is absolutely necessary it is better to avoid it. A company’s worth is decided not by how much it can litigate but by how much it is perceived to be innovative.
Apple is known to be the most innovative company in smart phone space. It has been innovating since quite a number of years. I have two apple iPods and one Macintosh . They are fine devices.
I somehow missed the iPhone wagon somehow and was hooked first to Blackberry, Sony Ericsson and finally Samsung. The perception of the market plays an important role in why a consumer buys a product. Apple ruled ( and probably rule) the perception of a smart phone having created the beautiful and amazing iPhone.
However with litigation, Apple seems to forget one very important point that it has till now remained the largest phone not on the basis of suing rivals but on “innovation”. That it has got huge competition from other cellphone makers need not deter it from innovating further. In the “Schadenfreude” of winning over a 1 billion dollar litigation, innovation seems to have taken a back seat.
As Al Ries said in his book “Marketing Warfare”(affiliate link), the leader just needs to take steps to keep competition at an arms length. However in a very competitive area such as smartphone, innovation needs to be very fast paced to win over the competition. Wrangling over size of the icon should not be matter of litigation. It is often a tendency of second in competition to try to copy things and be like a leader . That is proof of leadership and its reputation, not a sign of weakness.
Litigation probably takes time away from innovation. Time is a commodity that is very precious in high end technology where innovations appear to become old in a few months. If one is targeting the geek crowd , one has to be one up on the competition always. It needs to elicit a wow every time.
Otherwise target those people who are happy with their normal mobiles ( not smartphones).
In my opinion, litigation decides compensation while market decides fate.