So we are once again immersed in yet another trial involving Apple and Samsung over intellectual property. Each company accuses the other of patent violations. But it’s not a crime and the offender doesn’t go to prison. It’s a civil action, and the loser may be ordered to pay the winner a sum of money, and may even be ordered not to sell the allegedly infringing products.

Yet these two companies have been embroiled in expensive legal battles for several years. There have been wins, losses, draws, but you can still buy iPhones and iPads, and you can certainly buy Samsung smartphones and phablets. Maybe Samsung has done a little interface tweaking here and there, but at the end of the day, despite all the skirmishes, nothing much has changed.

Well, unless you are one of the lawyers representing either party, in which case you are earning huge fees, and can only wish for those huge fees to continue.

Now I’m not about to discuss the ins and outs of patent law. One popular site, Foss Patents, has argued that at least some of Apple’s patents aren’t terribly significant or even necessarily original, and that there is prior art even on the so-called “data detectors” feature. That’s the one where you click on a link in, say, an email, and you access related content, such as the tracking information on an item you just ordered.

It will be up to the juries or the judges to make the final determination. But that isn’t really final. The losing site will appeal, and, with the help of those expensive litigators, use every means possible to delay the inevitable, or even get a new trial. As time goes by, the products that allegedly contain infringing components or features will no longer even be available. The profits will have been made and spent, and yet the claims will go on and on.

Don’t get me wrong. Apple and any other company with an original invention should have the right to protect those inventions via a patent. And companies who infringe on those patents should be forced to stop building the infringing products or services, and pay an appropriate fee for damages.

As you probably know, when the iPhone was announced at a Macworld Expo in 2007, Steve Jobs famously boasted that it was patented. The word was used on the Keynote presentation too, to drive home the point. Jobs also famously talked of going nuclear against Google because of Android and its close resemblance to the iPhone.

This is not to say that Samsung didn’t infringe on something, because their own internal documents show how closely the iPhone influenced their designs. But that’s nothing new for Samsung, which famously imitates popular gear with cheaper versions.

It doesn’t mean those products are necessarily bad, just imitative. So long as they can get away with it, the behavior continues, and Samsung’s executives don’t have a stellar reputation even in  South Korea for being honest brokers. This sort of behavior is built into the company’s DNA, in the same way that Apple’s own DNA enables them to pave new ground in building tech gear.

This also doesn’t mean that you can’t find influences for iOS features on other platforms. Consider the Notification Center and the influences from Palm OS and Android as examples. Apple wasn’t the first to produce a gadget with a touchscreen either. They do rely on prior art, but they manage to do it in a way that comes across as being original.

The courts will decide, once again, whether Samsung’s imitation is too blatant, or whether it should be toned down. Besides, I’m sure the company has many thousands of talented designers and engineers on staff, so why can’t they come up with something original — something original that actually works?

I do not mean the junkware that ended up on the Galaxy S4 smartphone, which wasn’t quite the smashing success many expected it to be. Most of those useless apps and features filled space rather than offer a superior experience for customers.

At the end of the day, however, what have all these lawsuits accomplished? The lawyers are earning huge paydays, but nothing seems to change, so why bother? Yes, a company must defend a patent or otherwise the infringement will simply continue.

Many suggest that the loose patent laws are responsible, that inventions that do not deserve a patent get one anyway, and thus a company earns the right to sue. Of all the tens of thousands of patents covering mobile and desktop computing gear, how many of them are so original that they deserve protection anyway? I don’t mean that everything should be open source, although some feel that way.

I’m sure you agree with me that, all over again, Apple’s legal skirmishes are becoming boring and old news real fast. I continue to hope that saner minds, particularly at Samsung, will take the hint and come up with a solution that actually makes sense for both companies and the customers. If the lawyers earn smaller, but still significant, paychecks, where’s the harm?

Windows Phone has been less than a success for Microsoft. With a low market share, only exceeding that of the fading BlackBerry brand, Microsoft’s mobile OS has basically gone nowhere. Indeed, the company’s purchase of Nokia’s smartphone division, which has seen better days, may be one the only possibility to save the platform, and it’s a risky one at that.

Not that Microsoft has helped. The company famously prevented devices shipping with Windows Phone 7 from being able to use Windows Phone 8. Imagine, for example, a new iPhone that came with iOS 6 being excluded from running iOS 7. Yes, older hardware isn’t compatible, but the iPhone 4, which shipped with iOS 4 in 2010, is.

Well, Microsoft has unveiled the latest update to Windows Phone, version 8.1. The key feature is Cortana, which is a voice assistant that is heavily influenced by Siri. The name comes from a character in Halo, a popular game, and is reportedly being voiced by the same performer.

But while it seems similar, the API for Cortana will be opened for third-party apps to tap its features, which is something that neither Siri or Google Now presently offers.

Now Siri and Cortana do have one thing in common, which is that both use Bing for searches.

An article from AppleInsider, however, indicated that it’s not at all clear just how many developers might take advantage of the feature, since Microsoft’s mobile app ecosystem is far smaller than Apple’s or Google’s.

The other key feature is Action Center, which, as the name implies, is similar to the Notification Center in iOS combined with Control Center. In that, it’s closer to the Google alternative.

Yet another feature, “shape writing,” is a keyboard scheme that is reminiscent of the Swype keyboard feature that has become popular for some users on the Google platform. There are Swype apps for iOS too, but they cannot fully integrate with Apple’s input system.

All this joy and other new features will roll out to Windows Phone users over the coming months, according to Microsoft, which seems to imply a fall introduction.

The real question is whether adding features already on the leading two platforms is sufficient to convince a reasonable number of customers to try the Windows Phone alternative. This game of catchup, however, can’t really demonstrate that Microsoft’s mobile platform is state of the art. At best, it shows that Microsoft is willing to borrow features from other platforms to enhance Windows Phone. At best.

At worst, you wonder whether Microsoft has any bright ideas on how to build a better mobile OS. Sure, I suppose allowing third parties to access Cortana might deliver some compelling new voice-driven apps. But until that happens, it remains a potential and not a reality.

But are there any truly innovative new features on the horizon for Microsoft? Will acquiring Nokia actually boost sales, or just stall promotion until the handset division is fully integrated? Certainly buying Motorola Mobility didn’t do anything for Google, except cost money, and it was sold to Lenovo for a fraction of what they paid for it.

Will Microsoft have to hand off Nokia to yet another company if Windows Phone fails to gain traction? In the past, Microsoft was able to spend loads of money and build new platforms into money-making enterprises. The Xbox is certainly an example of a success, although it took years of pouring cash and more cash into the venture to make it work. But if you consider the losses against the profits, Microsoft will take years to get out from under all that red ink if you count the accumulated costs. But since the company booked huge profits from other products and services during those years, on the whole it doesn’t really matter.

This is not to say Windows Phone is a bad OS. It’s not, and has received favorable reviews for working well and being different enough from the competition from Apple and Google to stand out among the crowd. That’s a positive, and if customers are satisfied, perhaps they will tell their friends, and buy more Windows Phone gear over the years. If Microsoft is willing to wait long enough to sustain losses, perhaps the market share will, some day, match or exceed that of one of the top players. Perhaps.

In fact, some industry analysts have suggested that Windows Phone will beat iOS in the next few years, but there’s little indication the platform has enough momentum to realize that far-fetched goal.

This doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like to see Windows Phone succeed. You see, iOS and Google are two variations on a theme, even though it’s clear Apple got there first. Rather than imitate the existing platforms, Microsoft’s tiled interface represents a very different approach. Some suggest it works better for those who only want to run a few apps and need quick access to their information. At least it’s different, and that might be a good thing for those who aren’t enamored of iOS or Android.

Time will tell whether Microsoft, by adding features already on other platforms, can substantially boost the prospects for Windows Phone. However, this week’s move, to make Windows licenses free on smaller screens, less than nine inches, may help. But doesn’t that decision have “fire sale” written all over it?

Apple’s decision to release iWork free with the purchase of a new Mac, iPhone or iPad surely had its impact on Microsoft. After existing in the world of rumors for several years, Office for iPad was finally released last week. It’s just the basic three: Word, Excel and PowerPoint. Microsoft made no effort to provide a version of Outlook on the iPad, and, after using the Mac version — or trying to — that makes perfect sense.

Certainly the demand seems to be there, or was. After a few days at the top of the Mac App Store’s free apps and among the top paid apps — for Office 365 subscriptions ordered within one of the apps — it has declined to what may be a more realistic level. Perhaps it was all about the early adopters.

Meantime, Apple continues to push iWork updates to restore lost features. Tuesday’s Pages update, for example, enhanced AppleScript support and added a handful of new features. This and previous updates to the suite begin to address concerns that iWork ’09 is the more powerful suite. The bill of materials also included improved compatibility with Microsoft Office.

Apple did promise to restore features as time goes by and add new ones, and that promise is being kept. Perhaps the arrival of Office for the iPad helped energize that decision, or maybe the iWork update was just ready for release.

But the big decision is which app suite you should use. Certainly the fact that iWork is now free for many users, except those without new hardware who never had a prior version, makes it a compelling acquisition. In contrast, Office for the iPad is free if you only want to open and read documents. When you need to create or edit documents, you need an Office 365 subscription. Most home users will consider Home Premium, at $9.99 per month or $99.99 per year. You get user licenses for five PCs or Macs and five iPads or Windows tablets.

Indeed, I suspect small business users might want to consider Home Premium if they want to stick with Microsoft. But remember you must pay and continue paying, year after year. Yes, you’ll get updates free, plus 20GB OneDrive storage and 60 Skype calling minutes. So if you actually have more than one user, the price begins to make sense.

On the other hand, how many Mac users need Word anymore? I started using Word in the early days in the late 1980s, and observed its ups and downs. I remember Word 6 back in the mid-90s, which delivered the dark, depressing look and feel of Windows and pathetic performance on a Mac app. After that debacle, Microsoft promised better Mac support, and mostly delivered. But the latest Office, version 2011, still doesn’t fully support some of Mavericks features, such as Auto Save and Version. One has hopes for the 2014 version, expected later this year.

Maybe Microsoft will even make Outlook usable.

Certainly, Word is a mainstay among writers and publishers. Recently I helped a colleague edit a large book. It was written in Word and had contributors who also used Windows, so I opted not to be the odd one out.

But Pages is quite capable of offering decent Word compatibility, including the mission critical Track Changes feature that lets you keep tabs on who edited what. But is the expected feature set of Word sufficient to make it the superior app? The fact is that most users probably don’t use them, or even know about them.

What’s more, Pages is not the only Word alternative on the Mac platform. Mellel, the product of a small software company in Israel, advertisers itself as “the word processor of choice for scholars, writers and long document writing…” because of its robust set of document creation tools. Nisus Writer Pro also offers an extensive range of document formatting capabilities, including mail merge. There’s even a slimmed version, Nisus Writer Express, which also offers a pretty wide range of features. Both promise superior search capabilities. Mariner Write is part of a suite of Office alternatives that include Mariner Calc, a spreadsheet app.

And a number of businesses have settled on Google Docs, which uses Google Drive for document sharing. I haven’t begun to consider the free Office alternatives such as Apache OpenOffice, which promises a high level of compatibility with Microsoft Office. There are no licenses to worry about. Just launch and use. What’s more, both are compatible with the Mac, PC and even Linux; the latter is something even Microsoft cannot match.

In fairness, OpenOffice comes across as a somewhat clumsy port that doesn’t always feel like a Mac app, which may be important for users unless free is the overriding consideration, or just avoiding anything from Microsoft.

While Office for the iPad has garnered favorable reviews, and may be the app of choice if you’re already using the Mac or PC versions, particularly if you have an Office 365 account, Microsoft is confronting a crowded office suite marketplace.

At one time, using Office was essential in the business world, and many people used Office at home to be compatible. But the delay in releasing Office for the iPad, and the fact that it’s been several years since Office for the Mac had a major upgrade, may be losses from which Microsoft cannot easily recover.

The never-ending court battles between Apple and Samsung over intellectual property resumed this week. The two go before a federal court in California for part two of a trial that, in the first case, got Apple an award of $930 million against Samsung for patent infringement.

But the check isn’t in the mail. The case is under appeal, and whoever loses the second trial will no doubt appeal the verdict too. Win or lose, this is the sort of drama that seems fated to play out forever. Well, unless or until the two companies can get together and cut a deal.

Going to trial, Apple is asking for $2 billion in damages and for Samsung to pay a $40 licensing fee for each phone. That, as you might expect, seems way over the top. But perhaps Apple is aiming high with the expectation that a final verdict in their favor would thus be more reasonable.

Now according to a Time magazine report, Samsung is, in large part, a proxy for Google, who created the Android OS and thus may be impacted by the decision, particularly if Samsung loses again. After all, isn’t Google responsible for this whole mess in the first place?

Samsung has taken two approaches to these lawsuits. First it was claimed that it was all about rounded corners, which is decidedly not the case when you actually look at the patents under dispute. Unfortunately, some members of the press went along with Samsung’s spin.

But going into the second trial, Samsung admits some infringement, but claims the patents aren’t really worth a lot anyway. But if you take that seriously, what’s the value of the patents Samsung claims Apple infringed?

The Time report suggests that Apple really doesn’t care about the money, since they have plenty of money. It’s more about the the courts confirming that Apple’s designers and engineers originated many of the features that ended up in the iPhone, and that these features were slavishly copied by Samsung and other companies.

As you might recall, when the iPhone was first launched during a Macworld Expo keynote in January 2007, Steve Jobs made a strong point of the fact that it was patented. His Keynote slide presentation used that word as a bullet point.

Indeed, Jobs later vowed, in a widely quoted statement, to wage “thermonuclear war” against the companies he felt ripped off the iPhone. Thus the lawsuits against Samsung and other companies. Yet Apple has already made deals with HTC and Nokia over intellectual property. Lawsuits against Apple filed by Motorola Mobility went nowhere, despite Google’s hopes that the huge patent portfolio they acquired when they bought the ailing handset maker would produce paydirt.

In order to drive home the point, Apple made software engineer Greg Christie available for a Wall Street Journal interview. Christie was one of the key members of the original iPhone team, and is named on some patents covering some product features. Although the article was all-too-brief, his story about how the iPhone came to be is compelling. One anecdote was particularly telling, that Jobs almost dismissed his team and was ready to assign another group when development fell behind schedule.

If you take the details at face value, you almost believe that the iPhone was built in an alternate universe with very little reference to existing smartphones, which had physical keyboards. It’s also interesting to see how, after the iPhone was released, other smartphones began to take on similar design characteristics, such as the use of a virtual keyboard.

Indeed, it was telling that, at one point in the original trial, Samsung’s lawyers couldn’t tell the difference between one of their tablets and the iPad. That surely didn’t go over well with the trial jury, who quickly found Samsung guilty, and Apple innocent of infringing on any of Samsung’s industry-standard patents.

But you wonder just where Google stands in all this. One published report suggests that some Google executives might actually testify, which would, one expects, bring home the search giant’s involvement in these matters.

Now Samsung still earns a bunch of cash by providing parts for the very products that are allegedly being infringed upon. So they are building the A7 processor that’s in the iPhone 5s, the iPad Air and the iPad mini with Retina display. While there are published reports that Apple has been working to take its business elsewhere, you’d think Samsung would like to keep that business. If all it took was a few design changes, why not? Would Samsung sell fewer Galaxy smartphones? Would Android have fewer users?

Some critics are suggesting that, at the end of the day, tech gear will cost more, and there will be fewer innovations if these lawsuits continue unabated. I wouldn’t presume to guess how all these legal skirmishes are impacting the industry, except for one thing: Would Samsung have sold fewer smartphones if they didn’t resemble the look and feel of the iPhone? Just asking.