A vast number of people on earth have technological items which are based on one or more patents. Patents are a form of intellectual property. For the term of the patent, the patent’s owner has the full right to control its use as he sees fit. Sometimes companies will devise their own technology as a way of getting around having to license a patent. Sometimes the patent holder will refuse to license the use of the patent in order to keep the technology to themselves and stifle competition. Nonetheless, it is common business practice for companies to license their patents. After all if you devised a technology that billions of people might want, wouldn’t it be logical to benefit from that want through licensing and cross-licensing? In addition to receiving compensation for the investment in research and development in creating the technology, the company will often have an eye out to improve the product or create new products.
Beginning in April 2011, there has been an ongoing “Patent War” between Apple and Samsung. Apple started this War, by using the courts in the United States and the European Union to block the importation and sale of Samsung’s latest flagship Smartphones and Tablets. Samsung in turn has countersued Apple and has also tried a similar tactic against Apple’s phones and tablets throughout Asia the European Union and the United States.
Currently, the Patent War between Apple and Samsung encompasses 19 active cases in twelve courts spanning four continents and 12 countries.
One might logically ask, which critical proprietary technology did Samsung allegedly misappropriate to warrant this international imbroglio? Surely it must be something vital to Apple’s existence! Perhaps it is the patent that makes every apple device “magical”? Perhaps Samsung has moles in Cupertino that leaked top secret technology back to the Samsung offices in South Korea? Perhaps Samsung’s CEO Lee Kun-Hee once defeated the late Apple CEO Steve Jobs in a round of golf, and Apple is now seeking revenge?
If one thought that there is a reasonable basis for Apple’s vendetta against Samsung, one would be mistaken. (The aforesaid golf suggestion would have made a lot more sense). Unfortunately, the critical matter at issue, seems so inane, that I am surprised that the respective judges have not laughed the Apple lawyers out of court.
The main issue is over (1) the physical design (although there is ongoing litigation regarding 3G connectivity and multitouch screen technology) – and (2) the user interface (UI) of the Samsung Android powered Galaxy, Galaxy S, and Galaxy SII line of the Smartphones featuring 4 and 4.3 inch screens respectively and the Android powered Galaxy Tab family of Tablets that come in screen sizes of 7, 8.9 and 10.1 inches respectively. That’s it folks!
The Samsung Smartphones and Tablets listed above, all bear a physical (shape) similarity to Apple’s iPhone and iPad. The iPhone is rectangular in shape with a screen size of 3.5 inches. The iPad is square in shape and features a 9.7 inch display. The Galaxy family of Smartphones are all rectangular in shape, and so is the Galaxy Tab family of Tablet products.
Until I heard about the Apple litigation in April, I had not been aware that one could patent universal shapes. If one is using a Smartphone other than the ones listed, take a good look at it. Odds are that it is rectangular. With exceptions, most mainstream Smartphones are, although often manufactures like to toy around with different designs.
If the reader is reading this on a computer, take a look at the monitor in front of you. What shape is it? Odds are it is one with a rectangular 16:9 aspect ratio that is now used on virtually every laptop. In fact most monitors manufactured over the last half decade all use this particular design. If it is not a rectangular 16:9 monitor, than then the other possibility is that it is one of the square varieties featuring a 4:3 aspect ratio. These are both universal shapes used in many products today. The reader can appreciate that it would be absurd for someone to claim a patent on the square or rectangular shaped monitor.
When Apple introduced the iPhone back in June 2007, save for the lack of a physical keyboard, they were not introducing a new physical phone design never before seen. However, some of the technology that made the phone so unique was new. Most significantly, the operating system, iOS was new. When Apple introduced the iPad in January of 2010 they were not introducing a completely new product that no one had ever seen or conceived. Tablet computers became popular in approximately 2002, although pen tablets were introduced in the 80’s and 90’s. Although, some of the technology was new, what was truly unique was that the rush to buy tablets was new! That was about it.
Despite the market success of the Apple iPhone and iPad family of products, Apple seems to view its closest direct competitors as a major financial threat that clearly must be eliminated through any legal means possible, similar to how Bill Gates viewed Microsoft’s direct competitors, before the Justice Department decided that its behavior was a violation of anti-trust and involved in the restraint of trade. As a company, Apple has stroked itself over its claim to be innovative. The company’s long standing slogan “Think Different”, now comes off sounding like an oxymoron as the practice of suing to have the products of other companies from being sold seems to be ‘old style’ restraint of trade. Instead of continuing to innovate, they are now concentrating on protecting their bottom line, through engaging an army of Ivy League lawyers ready for worldwide combat against the competition.
This does not just hurt Samsung, it hurts electronics retailers, it hurts cell phone service providers, and most importantly, it hurts the consumer.
Competition is good. It makes new products more affordable for consumers and
forces manufacturers to innovate. Consumers have more choices to pick the product they feel will benefit them the most. Darwin’s theory of evolution and the idea of “survival of the fittest” applies directly to the Tablet and Smartphone market. In the end it needs to be the consumer who decides which products they feel to be superior and those are the ones that will thrive. It should not be a court-mandated determination merely because a particular product looks vaguely like its competition.
Sources:
Technologyblogged (1,2,3,4)
Huffingtonpost
Fudzilla (1,2)
View the original article here
