UBS hardware analyst Steven Milunovich this morning floated a non-intuitive idea about the Apple/Samsung trial: Maybe Apple would be better off in the long run if they lost the case.
Milunovich starts by pointing to a story in the New York Times this morning that notes that a Samsung win in the case could result in a consensus around Apple's designs for years to come - while an Apple win would result in a diversification of designs in the mobile device market.
"A standard view would be that allowing competitors to copy Apple designs will cut into Apple’s sales and margins," Milunovich writes in a research note. "In the short- to intermediate-term, an Apple win forcing competitors to come up with different designs should be positive because Apple is a better designer and could have a monopoly on key features. In the long run, however, it could hurt Apple because the real threat is not a competitor beating Apple at its own game but instead changing the game. The likelihood of Apple being leapfrogged or a rival creating a new category is greater if they have to think out of the box. If they just copy Apple, like Coke, Apple can claim to be 'the real thing.''"
That's a fascinating notion: He's saying that the risk is not that Apple's rivals will rip them off - the risk is that the competition will really think outside of the iBox and come up with something truly novel and maybe better than the products Apple offers.
Apple and Samsung will make closing statements in the case tomorrow. Barring a last minute settlement, the case will then go to the jury.
AAPL is up $13.25, or 2%, to $661.36.
