Next month will inevitably see a spike in sales of smartphone and tablet devices as consumers rush to snap up the handsets in time for Christmas.
Despite it being a lucrative period for smartphone suppliers there is a certain lack of holiday spirit among the world's technology giants as lately the battle for market supremacy in smartphones has turned rather nasty, with patent lawsuits being filed in various courtrooms around the world. The lawsuits and countersuits involve all of the biggest manufacturers - Google, Microsoft and Apple, to name a few - and despite months of bitter disputes, it appears that the struggle is far from resolved.
Google finds itself at the center of the issue, having developed the contentious Android operating system, which rival firms have suggested is the upshot of blatant intellectual theft.
A recent report produced by respected technology research firm Nielsen found that the Android operating system accounts for 43 per cent of the smartphone market, compared with 28 per cent for the iPhone and 18 per cent for RIM, the firm behind the BlackBerry handset.
But according to the likes of Microsoft and Apple, the Android system has been developed from technology protected by their patents. The firms have, therefore, demanded injunctions against companies that are selling devices or charging licensing fees.
Biting back, Google recently argued that intellectual property is now being used to quash rather than promote innovation. Tim Porter, Google's patent counsel, expressed fears that as more "people get distracted with litigation, the less they'll be inventing".
"You can look at the development of the software industry and see a point when (software wasn't being patented) and it was a period of intense innovation. You didn't see Microsoft's first software patent until 1988. By that time it had come out with Word, not to mention DOS," Mr Porter told the San Francisco Chronicle.
"So there's just no question you can look back and see that innovation happens without patents."
Expanding on this point, Mr Porter questioned whether the current patent system makes sense, suggesting that introducing copyright and other legal protections may be - a more appropriate course of action.
If that is not possible, however, Google's patent counsel called for the introduction of an industry-standard definition of what is and is not patentable. Mr Porter argued that clear boundaries must be brought in to ensure that the patent issue is resolved.