Intellectual Property Problems between Apple and Samsung - Research Paper Example

Topic: Intellectualpropertyproblems between Apple and Samsung Table of Contents …………………………………………….. pg. 3 Introduction……………………………………………pg. 3 Applesues Samsung………………………………….. pg. 4 Samsun sues Apple…………………………………….Pg. 4 Courthearing in othercourts…………………………...pg. 5 Final Ruling…………………………………………….pg. 7 Conclusion………………………………………………pg. 8 Bibliography…………………………………………....pg. 9-10 Abstract Thearticle is widelywrittenandcoverspropertyproblems between Apple and Samsung. Thefirstsectiontalks about theintroduction to both of themfollowed by subsection 1 which analyzes Apples patentcase against Samsung. Sub section 2 analyzes Samsungs case over Apple and its hearing. Section 2 explains about thehearing of bothcases in othercourts and subsectiononeanalyzesthefinalruling. Introduction Appleandthe Samsung companies are in thebattle over severalissues and they havebeen through thelawsuitprocess. Theproblemarose from thedesigning of the Smartphones which havedominatedtheworldwidemarket. For Samsung, it has been through thepatentinfringementsuits. Theapplecompanyis situated in the United States whereas Samsung is from South Korea. AppleCompany hadseveralways and differenttheories of Infringement andthejuryhadnoanyotheroptionother than presentingall of them. Patentlitigation is between Apple and Samsung andthese has gottenmuchattention from themedia, investors andmany industrialexecutives. Apple has all through claimedthat Samsung hadcopied their iPhone. Cases Apple sues Samsung Thecaseallbegan January 2007 whenthe iPhone wasbeenintroduced in theworldmarket. Theapple companyfiledthesuite four days before therelease of the iPhone. Among themany Apples graphical user interfaces, Apple gotinterested in one of theintellectualproperties that were to be used against the Samsung Company. 15th April 2011 a complaintwasfiled in the District Court forthenorthern District of California in the United States. Applestillmaintainedthat there wasinfringement on their intellectualproperty. Applesubmittedallthe data thattheyhad towards Samsung using their sameproducts as part of their data. Theywent through theprocess by comparingthesimilarities of their products with that of the Samsung(New York: Cengage Learning, Copyright, 2012) Samsung Sues Apple On 22nd April 2011 Samsung wentaheadanddidthesamethingthat Apple haddoneandfileda complaint in courts in Seoul which is its capitalcity andtheyalsofiledanothercomplaint in Mannheim, Germany.Theymadeallegationsthat Apple hadinfringed its patents. Samsung filed five patentinfringements. August 2012 thejudgeswhowere to presidethecase that hadbeenfiled by Samsung and after reviewing thecaseallthejudgescame up with severaldecisions(New Jersey : MIT Press. Copyright,2011) pg. 134.The overall decisionwasthat Apple hadinfringed two Samsungs technology patents. Theyalsoconcludedthat Samsung hadonlyviolated one Apples patent. Thecourtalsodeniedtheallegationsthat Samsung hadcopiedthedesigns of the iPad and the iPhone. Thecourtruledthattheconsumers would not in any way be confused by theicons of the Samsung andthe Apple phonesandthat Samsung had not infringedthe Apples patents (New York: Cengage Learning. Copyright, 2011) pg. 63 Court Hearing in other Courts Samsung hadgonefurtherandhadtaken their complaint to the Japan District court andtheyhadcited their grievances on boththeinfringements. On the 31st august, 2012, the Japans District courtcame to a rulingthat Samsungs Galaxy Smartphones andtabletshad not violatedthe Apple patent .one of thejudgessaidthattheproducts of Samsung did not do not usethesame technology as that of the plaintiff. Anothercourthearingprocess about thesamecasetookplace at a German court. Thishearingtookplace in August 2011 (California: Routledge. Copyright, 2013) pg.78. In thiscase, thecourtgranted Apple theirquesttheyhadmade on barringtheselling of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 through the European Union primarilyinjunction. Therulingwasmade with themotivethat Samsungs producthadinfringed two of Apples interface patents. The Samsung Company stillinsistedthattheevidencebe tampered. After therulinganddue to thecomplaintthatthe Samsung Company hadgiven out their thoughts there were reconsideration andthecourtruledthatthese rules would be applicable to the German marketonly. Statistics saysthatthiswas to cost Samsung about half a million of theunitsales(New York: Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013) pg. 123 On 9th September 2011, the German courtruledthesalesban onthe Galaxy tab 10.1. Thecourthadrealizedthat Samsung hadtrulyinfringedthe Apples patents. Thejudgessaidthatthere wasclearlyimpression on thesimilarities. In March 2012, the Mannheim courtjudgesdismissed the Apple and Samsung casesinvolvinganotherfeature that is common in bothbecauseit is a "slide to unlockfeature" on the September 21st thesame German courtruled in favor of the Samsung court over theallegationthatithadviolatedthe Apples patentedfeaturesconcerningthetouchscreen technology (New York: Mohr Siebeck. Copyright, 2012) pg. 189 Apple has in therecenttimesbeennoted to be havingthetendency of accusingmost of its competitors of thepatent. Apple has been in court over thematterform anytime andit has suedmanycompanies with cases of patent across theentire technology. Apple has claimedcases of patent involvingall their appliancesstarting from thespecifications of the operating system to the graphical user interface andotherminorthingssuch as thephysicallook of their gadgets to thehardware itself (Oxford: Oxford University Press. Copyright, 2013) pg. 56.Notonly has Samsung been a victim of thisbut The Apple Company has alsosued HTC and Motorola on thesameallegations of patency. In all theinstances, Apple has suedthesecompaniesit has always based its arguments on thecash damages andspecificinjunctions. Apple Company has alwaysbeenknown to askforcash as a way of compensationwhenitcomes to theinjunctions. (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2012) Pg. 67 People are leftwonderingwhy is itthat these aretheonlythingthat Apple is interested with since all thepetitionstheybringforththis is whattheyaskfor. Peoplehavestarted to havethoughts about this since itseemsthat Apple is somuch into thismaybe for trade reasonswhereitbecomesthebeneficiary in allthis. That is anotherperspective since there are somanyoptionsthatthe companies canchoosefrom. Otheroptions that are offered are such as an agreement with thecompaniesthatit has sued. We would saythat Apple has gonetheextramile to ensuringthat Samsung dropsmost of thefeatures that are related to the apple (California: Routledge. Copyright, 2013) pg. 9.Apple has triedsomuch to fight Samsung andit non-predictable whatApple is going to achieve in thecomingyearsiftheycontinue with thesametrend. Competition is paramount to thebusinessandsowhenthese two companies are fightingforthepatentviolationrulesitcreates a challenge to the innovators to continuecoming up with betterinventions in thefuture in order to market their goods. Thiscompetition between Apple and Samsung is crucial to theworldmarket of accessories. Thecompanies will be forced to deliverqualityproducts to themarket. Mostconsumers will goforthebestcommodities in themarketsothecounterfeitproducts will be eradicated (Oxford: Oxford University Press. Copyright, 2013). Pg. 8 Final Ruling After deliberation on the case that Apple hadsuedthe Samsung Company of patency Apple finally won the case though the court took 21 hours and 37 minutes to come up with a ruling. The jury in the case award apple $ 1.05 billion as thedamagefee. The money was to be awarded to the Silicon Valley Company which ownsthe Apple products. Apple had asked a compensation fee of $ 2.5 billion. Apart from the findings the District court also came to the conclusion that many of the Apple patentshad been willing been infringed by the Samsung company. The jury who ruled over the case mentioned that the only patent that was not true was that of the design of thetab. The patent battle continues and the companies keep on trying to prove themselves and safeguard their innovations from beingtakenadvantageof. Samsung objected the ruling that had been made by the court by judgeKohs decision and they said that court had gone ahead and not involved the evidence that proved Apple was introduced by Sony to develop the iPhone Conclusion The best thing that both the Apple and Samsung should do is to come up with a goodreconciliationandwhentheygoback to there lations those they had before. A good relationship ensures that both the parties’ they come over and had tried to take their grievance to court that is the right place for issues that are related to the law. The companieshaveprovedthatgoing to court is thebestdemocraticway to go. There should be a commission that should be informed for the wholeworld to fight patency is thebestway to solveproblems. Therivalry between bothcompanies should be avoided. These two companies should take good steps towards making their innovations sell out in thebusiness. That is howthey should competeand not spend the most time over petitions that endup wasting much time. That is the best thingfor them both companies to do. Works Cited Andrew Murray, Information Technology Law: The Law and Society. (Oxford: Oxford University Press. Copyright, 2013) Abbe, E, Intellectual Property, Human Rights and Competition. New York: (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2012) Andrew, Trask, Betting the: Complex Negotiation Strategies for Law and Business. (Oxford: Oxford University Press. Copyright, 2013) Benedetta, Ubertazi, Exclusive Jurisdiction on Intellectual Property. (New York: Mohr Siebeck. Copyright, 2012) Christine, Greenhalgh, Innovation Intellectual Property and Economic Growth. (Princeton: Princeton University Press. Copyright, 2010) Fu-Lai Yu, International Economic Development: Leading Issues and Challenges. (California: Routledge .Copyright, 2014) Iachetti, Claudio. Competitive Dynamics in the Mobile Phone Industry.Texas: (New York: Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013) John, Palfrey, Intellectual Property Strategy. (New Jersey: MIT Press. Copyright, 2011) Kenneth, Clarkson, Business Law: Text and Cases. (New York: Cenagage Learning. Copyright, 2011) Kenneth, Clarkson. Business Law: Texts and Case. (New York: Cengage Learning. Copyright 2011) Ruth, Taplin, Intellectual Property Valuation and Innovation: Towards Global Harmonization. (California: Routledge. Copyright, 2013) Roger Miller, Business Law Today, Standard: Text and Summarized Cases. (New York: CengageLearning, Copyright, 2012) Read More