What Does Apple's Patent Trial Victory Over Samsung Mean To You? Nothing.

Apple scored a big victory in its smartphone patent infringement case vs. Samsung late Friday afternoon as a jury awarded the victor $1.05 billion in damages. But does the closely watched verdict mean anything to consumers?

No–at least not for now. Why?

* This case no doubt will be appealed. That means little is likely to change anytime soon, at least until Apple files for injunctions against the Samsung products involved. And those are by no means all of Samsung’s products, let alone other Android smartphones.

* You won’t have to surrender your Samsung smartphones or tablets or worry that some court-induced software update will cause your device to stop working overnight. However, it’s quite possible an injunction that Apple surely will request could stop further sales of infringing devices such as the Samsung Galaxy S II in the U.S.

* Smartphone makers will find new ways to emulate (if not copy) Apple’s features. Patent infringements are often worked around by tweaks that are not very onerous for users, even if they’re a costly hassle for the infringer. So one way or another, it’s hard to imagine that nothing but the iPhone and iPad will have scroll-bounce, pinch-to-zoom, and tap-to-zoom, the features targeted in the case, or something very similar, forever into the future.

* The two companies, with Google lurking in the shadows, might go back to the bargaining table. Samsung won’t have many chips, of course. But it may still be worthwhile to Apple to find a way, perhaps by demanding a very large check or by getting Samsung to back off on other patent claims vs. Apple, to end the hostilities and avoid the costly appeal. Not least, Apple would avoid pissing off half or more of all smartphone owners who just wanted a good smartphone and got caught in the patent crossfire.

Still, since this is so clearly a “huge, crushing win for Apple,” says Brian Love, an assistant professor of law at Santa Clara University who has closely followed the case, Apple has little incentive to budge. So it’s likely Apple will keep a tight hold on its patents as long as they matter.

Longer-term, it’s tough to predict what the impact will be on us as consumers. The stakes are high for Apple, Samsung, and Google, whose Android operating software is the foundation for Samsung’s and many other smartphones, and which Apple cofounder Steve Jobs had vowed before his death last year to wage thermonuclear war against. For Apple, whose revenues depend largely on hardware sales, anything that challenges its ability to charge higher prices for its products endangers the advantage that has made it the world’s most valuable company. For its part, Google believes it needs control of a mobile platform if it’s to maintain its leadership in online advertising as consumers spend more and more time on mobile devices.

The verdict raises questions anew about how well the U.S. patent system works. Some say the decision strengthens patents because it shows that copying is not defensible. Others say it indicates how broken the system is because patents are too often used to pummel competition. ”Patent rights only benefit society when they encourage innovation that would not otherwise have taken place,” SCU’s Love wrote to me in an email. “Can Apple credibly claim that it would not have entered the smartphone market, where it is presently enjoying 50% profit margins even with competition from Android, had it not been able to obtain these broad patents?  I think the answer is no.”

But innovation has a way of escaping the clutches of a single company before long. If Apple keeps its current patents close to the vest, the worst that happens is that you may be more likely to buy an iPhone instead of an Android phone. Even more likely, though, the pace of improvements will continue on both platforms, because clearly neither side is going to back off on trying to field the best machines on which their business models depend. No single court decision, no matter how big, seems likely to stop that fundamental reality.

Indeed, once the case is ultimately upheld or otherwise settled, one might hold out hope–OK, a very small hope, given the many other pending cases between Apple and Samsung in various countries–that the companies involved might find it more advantageous to turn to innovation instead of litigation. Love says Apple and Google have spent an estimated $400 million in litigation expenses on the smartphone wars, not to mention the millions they’ve spent acquiring related patents.

Imagine what kind of wireless wonders might result from spending that money not on lawyers but on innovating new features.