(image via Engaget.com)
Nowadays, it seems like Apple, the maker of the all-popular iPhone and iPad, is always wrapped up in a lawsuit against another company over a patent.? If that is the case, then why was the most recent lawsuit such a big deal?? To sum up the latest legal battle, Apple sued Samsung over six patents?alleging that Samsung had infringed on those patents by copying designs from the iPhone and iPad.
What was strikingly different about this lawsuit was the type of patent sued upon.? Generally, when Apple was suing or being sued, it was on a ?utility patent,? or due to a copyright.? For example, when Apple sued Microsoft in 1994, it was due to Microsoft?s infringement of an Apple copyright.? When Apple sued HTC in 2010, it was due to infringements on twenty Apple utility patents.
A utility patent is issued for something that performs a function in a novel way and, in most cases, these were Apple?s software patents on the iPhone.? The way you swipe your finger to unlock an iPhone?? Utility patent.? The way that the screen ?bounces back? once you?ve scrolled to the bottom and nothing is left?? Utility patent.? These are different from what is called a ?design patent.?? Now, a design patent is issued for the look of the thing.? It has nothing to do with how the underlying device functions; it?s all based on ?ornamental reasons.?? This brings us to why this lawsuit is different.
In the past, Apple had rarely, if at all, sued upon their design patents.? This time, half of the patents they sued on were design patents.? Bluntly put, Apple sued Samsung because Samsung?s phones looked like Apple?s phones.? The real nuance in the case lies in the damages.
Damages awarded for utility patent infringement are royalties that would have been paid for that utility patent, or ?damages adequate to compensate for that infringement.?? Either way, the damages relate specifically to the function of the utility patent.? However, for design patent infringement, the infringer is liable for total profit that the owner has lost because of the infringement.? As you can imagine, this is incredibly difficult to determine and sets a very high ceiling for damages in design patent infringement lawsuits.? Perhaps it was because of the possibility for unlimited damages, and the difficulty and/or arbitrariness of obtaining the damage number that led the jury in Apple v. Samsung to reach its $1.05 billion verdict (if it stands, it will be the largest patent verdict in US history) for Apple in only three days of deliberation..
What does this design patent ruling mean for everyone that isn?t Apple or Samsung?? The reaction has been mixed.? On one hand, the limitation on designing something that looks like an iPhone might lead to more creative and innovative designs that might even work better.? On the other hand, the limitation on design might be so stifling that Apple might have come close to creating a design monopoly.? For small businesses and product designers, the verdict means they must be more cautious about creating something that even looks very similar to another product.
Moreover, Apple v. Samsung may open floodgates for other lawsuits based on design patents.? But how closely alike does an allegedly infringing design have to be in order for remedies?? This remains unclear, and the courts will have to parse their way through the facts in specific cases until the Supreme Court takes a hard look at the question.
If the case stands, you can bet that Apple will have significant leverage to attack other mobile companies based on their design patents.? You can also bet that Samsung?s lawyers are throwing everything they have at getting this decision overturned.? Until then, an Apple lawsuit a day not only keeps infringement away, but it also keeps Google at bay.
Source: http://www.jlpp.org/2012/09/18/an-apple-lawsuit-a-day-keeps-infringement-away/
the killing eli young band wrestlemania country music awards 2012 wrestlemania 28 results earl scruggs game of thrones
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.