[spreaker episode_id=1413773 type=standard width=100% color=0068c9 autoplay=false]
Almost karma like, as reported by All Things Digital, on the one year anniversary of Steve Jobs stepping down as Apple’s CEO, he got some vindication in his threat of “thermonuclear war” on Android. A jury found largely guilty Samsung in willfully copying Apples patents and awarded almost 1.5 billion.
I was amazed at how many people where watching this and engaging the topic on Social Media. There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about the trial. If you look at the above photo you can see the definite likeness’ that Samsung copied. I remember seeing that phone years ago and wondering why Apple hadnt sued over it as it was an almost exact copy.
In the trial they found damning evidence in communications of Samsung working to copy the Apple product. It was the “smoking gun.” You have to remember there is a difference between “accidental” and “willful intent.” Willful Intent is the intentional performance of an unreasonable act in disregard of a known risk, making it highly probable that harm will be caused. The jury found Samsung as intent on copying Apple. Theft is the act of taking someone else’ property for gain. Apple also attempted to work out an agreement before the lawsuit and Samsung refused.
In the end it all may be lost in appellate courts for the next 10 years and one billion is a drop in the bucket for these companies. Samsung didnt care enough to send over from Asia its management to defend itself at trial. But, it will do some very defining things. Is it a loss for consumers as stated by Samsung? I dont think so. This will force Android makers to work harder at innovation and making newer and better products. It will give them a better chance to make something better than Apple or at least drive Apple to also innovate more. I do have to say the newest phone Samsung Galaxy S3 comes very close to having something innovative and better than the iPhone product without copying it. Better phones for you and I. Less copying, more innovating.
I know a patent attorney with a client letter framed on his wall, thanking him because they “only” had to pay $1.x million in a settlement, and they had been afraid it would cost them a lot more ‡¡‡
Hi Chris. I disagree
This is reminiscent of the “look and feel” Apple v Microsoft lawsuits of the 80’s.
Technology most certainly can be patented, and should be protected. Appearance is a different matter. Current smartphones all have some basic similarities in appearance. They have a screen. They have buttons for functions like on-off, navigation, home menu, volume, etc… They have icons to fulfill certain functions. The screen in particular, plus the form factor that makes these devices more useful – thinness, pocketable, etc – dictates that they will be rectangular. Having rounded corners on those rectangles is no particularly amazing idea that is unique or should be protectable by patent law.
When it comes to appearance, the phones are distinguishable by having the brand name and logo embedded on the device, having different operating systems which work in quite different ways, and by providing different ancillary services which further make it obvious which brand is providing the service.
Technology, on the other hand, most certainly is patentable. Here, it seems, both parties have transgressed. Samsung have copied some of the features like slide to unlock and bounce back on reaching end of scrolling. Mind you, these are still fairly much in the realm of appearance – though perhaps the concept at least should be protected by patent law. Apple, it seems, have utilised specific technologies that Samsung holds patents for in regard to cellular transmission and Wi-Fi transmission. I would have thought that these are far more important things that should be protected by patent law and should be licensable and compensable for non-licensed use.
I, for one, thought that South Korea’s court rulings was much more balanced in its findings. It found fault on both sides, though largely in keeping with my reflections above – i.e. that there is only a certain amount of protection for appearance, and that technologies are far more important things to protect. Samsung were found culpable for copying Apple’s slide to unlock and bounce back on scrolling, while Apple were found culpable for implementing Samsung’s electronic technologies without licensing arrangements.
Unfortunately, the damages awarded to each party in the South Korean case were absolutely trivial. The US case is a far different matter (given, admittedly, your remark that even 1.5 billion US dollars is easy money for these companies to handle). I do, however, think that this amount of damages (in the US case) is significant enough to make it difficult for Samsung to recover, and difficult to put more funds into R&D to come up with alternatives.
In so far as the impact on the market, I think it is extremely significant if we give what is now the most valuable company in the world a monopoly on “look and feel” factors. This will further entrench Apple’s stranglehold on the market.
Having said that, I found it interesting to discover that Microsoft have paid both lump sums and ongoing royalties to Apple for the right to use some of the appearance and functionality features such as the slide to unlock and the bounce back on scroll. Whether this is a recognition by Microsoft of Apple’s genuine legal right to such payment, or simply a recognition of current market and legal realities (the notion of being best to play safe than battle it out in court) is difficult to say.
The recent outcome will no doubt continue with further appeals, and it will be interesting to see whether Google (who, let’s face it, is the real intended target by Apple) will strike back at Apple with technology patents they have acquired from Motorola. Again, in my opinion, transgression of technology patents without arrangements for licensing should be far more valuable and compensable than this huge sum of money that has been awarded for “look and feel” transgressions.
If the current Apple v Samsung outcome holds, my guess is that Android, which has been experiencing an even more meteoric rise in market share (given the amount of time on market) than Apple, will face a rapid decline. Microsoft, with it’s legal protection will suddenly find itself with at least the opportunity (though some might argue not the reality) to become the second major player in the market. Other manufacturer’s – predominantly of course those who have put their eggs into the Android basket – will have to go back to the drawing board. It will be difficult for them to come up with something that is drastically different enough to avoid further lawsuit, yet appealing enough to recapture market share.
I do think that the market and the consumer loses with this outcome – at least in the short term. Competition will go down, the ability to innovate against Apple’s increased lead will go down, and Apple will be in the market dominance position that it once complained bitterly that Microsoft “unfairly” held on the desktop arena.
Some of this may go away as the result of appeals (though I imagine that in the US a positive legal outcome for Apple will be more strongly favoured than for a foreign company). If not, we are in for interesting times ahead. Hopefully “interesting” will eventually turn into a better outcome for the market and the consumer, though that will no doubt take some time.
I do think that the market and the consumer loses with this outcome – at least in the short term. Competition will go down, the ability to innovate against Apple’s increased lead will go down, and Apple will be in the market dominance position that it once complained bitterly that Microsoft “unfairly” held on the desktop arena.
Ungrammatical, mis-spelled waffle.