In the absence of Steve Jobs and any new innovative ideas, the tech giant Apple won their patent violation case against Samsung. Apple will be awarded $1 billion dollars and Samsung will be forced to cease production of smartphones which bear a resemblance to previously patented technologies found on Apple devices.
I suppose the jury of Samsung’s “peers” didn’t read the illusionary flier circling around the Earth since the 1800s stating that technology is innovated on the back of pre-existing technology. Instead the court decided that devices that contained features such as pinch-to-zoom were in violation of patents registered by Apple.
Of course all smartphones have those features (HTC included), but this is just Apple’s first step. In the case of pinch-to-zoom, it makes sense for a small device to enable zooming by pulling and pushing your fingers together and apart. Many other similar technologies can be found in the case. But the courts found that Apple’s patents were violated by introducing these features on Samsung Android-based devices. Apple hopes this will deter future smartphone makers from replicating the features in question in the future.
This is Apple’s first attempt to thwart android smartphone leader Google, a company that relies on hardware manufacturers to produce phones with their Android operating system (an open source Linux platform designed by Google to be run on mobile devices). Samsung is Google’s largest mobile hardware designer (makers of the notable Samsung Galaxy Tab and Samsung Galaxy S II). The New York Times article entitled, “Jury Gives Apple Decisive Victory In A Patents Case” by Nick Wingfield* released on 8/25 calls this a “proxy war against Google’s Android.”)
In actuality, this seems a lot like Apple is trying to stifle all forms of mobile competition so that the iPhone and other Apple mobile devices can trump the competition. This landmark decision proves that, in America today, suing is is better than innovating. Equally as unsettling, the integrity of the judicial system in the modern era is at stake as well.
By some sources, Google smartphones sold worldwide trump Apple smartphone sales considerably. As we’ve also seen, Apple has been reluctant to create any new products in recent history with the exception of the iPad 3 (which is an iPad 2 with a better screen, slimmer design and overheating problems). Apple will soon release their new iOS version as well as an a newly revamped Apple TV (much needed considering Roku sales have left the previous incarnation of Apple TV in the dust).
As an Apple customer, I’m appalled by Apple’s stance to innovation and, more specifically, Samsung. Apparently no one at Apple studied game theory and the need for innovative competition in High School economics. If you silence the competition with your complaints and fail to offer anything new you should should be ashamed of yourself. Don’t hide behind patent law as an excuse. Jobs claimed Google’s android OS is a “stolen product”* yet they seemed to have had the same complaint against Microsoft over a decade ago! I believe we’re seeing Apple’s ugly side when dealing with competition and can best be described as “blame it on the other guy.”
This case brings up a number of valid legal concerns technology producers have:
1) Is our current legal system and, specifically juries, effective when dealing with technological matters?
2) What if jurors can’t comprehend the matters at stake?
3) Is our current patent laws reasonable in an inherently innovative world?
4) What role should patent law play in technology today?
5) If you believe our legal system is incapable of dealing with new technological issues, should our legal system be fixed?
While I won’t get into those two “big picture” debates on the blog, people should be considering those questions when reading the news. As it stands, this ruling will disturb the very foundation of mobile innovation in America. Hopefully the appeals will be more successful at stopping Apple’s temper tantrums.
Sources Used Above
* Wingfield, Nick. “Jury Gives Apple Decisive Victory In A Patents Case.” The New York Times, August 25, 2012.