According to this article on by FOSS patents, I turned my attention back on these big corporations, Apple and Samsung. Knowing that they've been fighting over each other on the court for patent issues, now this article starts to give me a clearer picture on the intention behind the war.
The latest update for the legal case between Apple and Samsung is that Apple got denied for a permanent injunction request against Samsung.
The judge Koh said the following that I personally think reasonable: "Apple, in other words, cannot obtain a permanent injunction merely because Samsung's lawful competition impacts Apple in a way that monetary damages cannot remedy. To award an injunction to Apple in these circumstances would ignore the Federal Circuit’s warning that a patentee may not ''leverage its patent for competitive gain beyond that which the inventive contribution and value of the patent warrant.''"
The article also noted that "Apple's previous appeal related only to the denial of a permanent injunction, not to infringement, validity or damages issues", which not only it shows the only intend is to drive Samsung out of the market by all means.
This is pure greed, period. However I understand the reasonable reaction for Apple is to lower competition in the market by any possible legal action. If a permanent injunction is the only way Apple shows their competitiveness, it certainly does not work well in the long run. Samsung has been spending good fortune on marketing, revealing new products, making measurable incremental innovation. I wonder if Apple is making another investment on legal fees just to make this permanent injunction work.
The logic behind the decision seems valid, but it became irrelevant when President Obama overruled Judge Koh's ruling in the first place, which makes me question the purpose of making unfavorable judgements. It's obvious that if the judicial system's rulings are constantly overturned by the executive branch (for controversial rulings), there's really no purpose in having them in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't quite related to patents, but I think now would be a good time to bring up our legal system. The institution of the three branches of our government was for checks and balances. The downside to something like checks and balances is that it takes forever for anything to get passed. Take Obamacare for example. That was proposed in Obama's first term but didn't pass Congress until recently. I understand the need to make sure no branch of the government runs wild with their power, but you also make a good point about how these judicial rulings seem to have no effect when they can be easily overturned by the president. I think this all goes back to how we need to find a better system for patent litigation. How do we honor the contract given out to these patent holders without compromising the American capitalist system and suppressing innovation? Unfortunately, there doesn't really seem to be a good answer right now.
DeleteI think it's just a step for Apple to take. It would probably be a longshot, but they would have done it anyway. Although some may say Apple is going too far, I disagree. If someone copied your product, I say that the company should do whatever they can to crush them. If not, where's the justice in that?
ReplyDeleteI agree that it's a step that Apple has to take. They have to remain profitable but keeping their market share large, in order to pay the salaries of all their staff, and to be accountable to their shareholders. However, I think the pace at which they are going in these lawsuit cases might mean they are unable to present new innovative products that will actually wow the consumers. Otherwise, why the insistence on a permanent injunction which will probably not affect Apple as much in future as it has already done.
DeleteThen again, the legal department and R&D department within the company are not directly related, thus they may be fighting with other companies not because they are less innovative, but to show their power and also because they have so much spare cash.
I think Apple has the right to further appeal for a permanent injunction; in fact, I believe it is the right way to go about any patent infringement issues for tech giants in the highly chaotic patent realm. It is necessary for big corporations to be insistent as well as persistent with their stances in order to build a strong character in making it clear to other corporations that they will not take no for an answer. We discussed in class, Apple specifically has the reputation of retaliating against any patent lawsuits and I think that is beneficial for Apple in the long run. By establishing a unrelenting image, Apple is putting out there the message that they are not one to handle accusations in private; they will take everything to court. I think in the corporate world, it is important to come off as a unbending company in order to avoid being targeted or taken advantage of by others.
ReplyDelete