What the Apple vs. Samsung Lawsuit Means for the Future of Smartphone Design Samsung was ordered to pay Apple $1 billion for infringing on its patents. Will this change the way other mobile devices are made?

By Amy Gahran

Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

The jury in the much-hyped Apple vs. Samsung patent infringement lawsuit recently handed down a verdict which basically gave Apple everything it wanted: A billion-dollar payment from Samsung, plus the possibility of an injunction against sales of infringing Samsung smartphones and tablets.

Will this mega-lawsuit dramatically alter the way our devices are manufactured and, in turn, affect our decision-making process when buying a smartphone for personal or business use? Probably not.

The New York Times predicted that this decision would wreak design havoc in the mobile device landscape: "Consumers could end up with some welcome diversity in phone and tablet design -- or they may be stuck with devices that manufacturers have clumsily revamped to avoid crossing Apple."

The real outcome of the Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit is likely to be more lawsuits. And perhaps higher prices for non-Apple smartphones. But in the long run, I suspect the effects of this case will be negligible to consumers and business users of mobile devices.

Patent expert Thomas Frey of the Louisville, Colo.-based think tank the DaVinci Institute explains, "This is gamesmanship, it's all moving queens and rooks around the chessboard. In the end the legalities won't matter. All the solutions will be off the chessboard. The players will say to each other: 'If you pay me $X, I'll say you win.'"

The recent decision will likely be appealed, and it's possible that it may be struck down. But even if the decision stands, it's more likely that Samsung and all Android device makers will keep doing business mainly as usual.

Electronics manufacturers, especially mobile device makers, license patented technologies from each other all the time, for a fee. For instance, after a patent "misunderstanding" last year, Apple started paying Nokia an estimated $11.50 for every iPhone sold. Similarly, in a settlement agreement last year, Samsung agreed to pay Microsoft $10 to $15 for each smartphone or tablet it sells.

In the U.S. market, the vast majority of smartphones are at a price heavily subsidized by wireless carriers, along with a two-year service contract -- which further obscures the effect of licensing fees on phone prices.

So, for smartphone users, the changes likely won't be too noticeable and infringement lawsuits probably won't factor into their buying decisions.

Will this lawsuit affect which smartphone you buy for business? Let us know in the comments below.

Amy Gahran is an independent writer and mobile technology enthusiast based in Boulder, Colo. Her work has appeared at CNN.com. Gahran blogs at Contentious.com.

Want to be an Entrepreneur Leadership Network contributor? Apply now to join.

Buying / Investing in Business

Former Zillow Execs Target $1.3T Market

Co-ownership is creating big opportunities for entrepreneurs.

Business Ideas

70 Small Business Ideas to Start in 2025

We put together a list of the best, most profitable small business ideas for entrepreneurs to pursue in 2025.

Business News

These 5 States Have the Most Affordable Housing, According to a New Report

U.S. News & World Report's latest rankings found the top five states with the most housing affordability.

Business News

'They're the Backbone:' Walgreens Says Using Robots to Fill Prescriptions Helped It Save $500 Million. Here's How.

Walgreens says its robot-assisted centers fill 16 million prescriptions a month.

Business Solutions

Save $90 on the Microsoft Office Apps Your Business Needs

From emails to spreadsheets, this version has what every leader needs.

Business News

Elizabeth Holmes' Partner Raises Millions for New Blood Test Diagnostics Startup: 'We've Learned From Her Company's Mistakes'

The startup insists it isn't Theranos 2.0 and that Holmes, who's serving a prison sentence after being convicted of fraud, "has no role."