One interesting outcome was that Apple was denied an injunction but did not have any of their claims invalidated by the court. This decision is problematic since there is a huge discrepancy between the decision of the USPTO and the court. Ultimately, it comes down to which decision will be considered more dominant and not necessarily on validity-arguments can be made for both sides. With something as broad as a pinch-to-zoom feature, does Apple's patent help only itself or is it beneficial to other people including consumers. Perhaps, is it important to reevaluate specific patents especially if the market changes to the point where it has become a common feature. It is possible that clinging on to the patent may not help the market evolve at a faster rate given companies would be focused on trying to resolve these litigation disputes.
Another important issue presented is the idea of causal nexus. Causal nexus generally means a link between the cause and effect. In patent infringement, it would be possible that the claims of patent violation would cause harm to the respective company. In this case, it would be very difficult to have strong evidence that harm has come to either Samsung or Apple from patent infringement (especially since the companies are so large). In fact, Samsung has so far not been required to pay damages for any of the claims in this case since it is going on to the third trial.
In light of the causal nexus argument, the issue could tie back to entitlement. The inventors granted patents are not necessarily guaranteed to injunction. And so, it has become a difficult issue to determine if some of the people are entitled to these claims whether through a legal or technical basis. It would be interesting to follow how the USPTO will continue to deal with this issue of entitlement and determination of what would be a "valid" patent claim.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/03/that-was-quick-samsung-appeals-final.html
I think it was a fair outcome that there was no injunction placed on Samsung, due to the fact that the infringement did not drive the consumer demand for the products. I do, however, think it is weird that either outcome was pretty inconsequential from the standpoint that none of the devices in question are really sold anymore.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that the outcome can be inconsequential but it may have been more of making a point. If an injunction was placed, it would provide an opportunity or prove devices from that company could be pursued in the future.
DeleteRoshan, I agree with you. It may be that I'm partial towards Samsung (because it turns out that the jury was biased towards Apple – as I mentioned in one of my previous posts), but I'm glad the injunction didn't go through.
DeleteNorman, how strong of a point do you think this outcome made, since there was no true consequence in this specific case?
I agree with Roshan. These companies are openly just trying to make money off one another thanks to loopholes in our patent laws. I also feel that companies keep going back to court to delay the process of making any payment to one another.
ReplyDeleteOsama, I completely agree with you. However, the more time these companies spent in court, the more time and money they waste. I feel like there's a trade-off in this situation. Maybe, since both firms see this case as a sunk cost, they continue to squeeze as much as they can out of their debate with one another.
DeleteHi Norman, in response to your question – "With something as broad as a pinch-to-zoom feature, does Apple's patent help only itself or is it beneficial to other people including consumers?" You bring up a good point in suggesting the idea of a company's patent possibly not helping its consumer-base. I believe that, since companies are so vague in what IP they are truly covering in their patents – and that the USPTO approves these types of applications – innovation is being dampened throughout the industry. If patents were more specific, other companies would be able to buy licenses and move on with their businesses. Instead, consumers' benefit decreases steadily as nice products, such as Samsungs', cease to be made because of lack of clarity.
ReplyDeleteHi Norman,
ReplyDeleteDo you agree that this injunction was denied though? If Apple did the same to Samsung, wouldn't you want to file the same thing though? I feel like the whole point of this is because Samsung wouldn't pay Apple the license fee. They know the copied some features of Apple, but they would rather go to trials for marketing purposes. It's really becoming a drag for everyone.