The U.S. patent system recognizes three types of patents: utility patents (most common), design patents, and plant patents. The first, utility patents, covers inventions that are unique, non-obvious, and useful. The second covers, well, the design of an object. The third, as the name implies, covers plants (specifically, most vegetatively propagated plants).
The recent Samsung v. Apple lawsuit is based on four design patents held by Apple: USD604305, USD593087, USD618677, and USD504889. Please look them up. They are very easy to understand because the first three LOOK like the iPhone and the fourth LOOKS like the iPad. Apparently the jury thought that they also look like the Samsung Galaxy S and Galaxy SII (phones) and the Galaxy Tab 10 (a tablet) because the suit resulted in a win for Apple of over $1 billion for infringement of its patents.
The Samsung v. Apple case also involves three utility patents held by Apple: US 7,469,381; US 7,864,163; and US 7,844,915. Look these up too. Among other things, these patents cover various functions that we are familiar with, such as scrolling, pinch to zoom, and the “bounce back” to indicate that we have scrolled beyond the edge of a page. In its effort to get these Apple patents invalidated, Samsung argued that they were predated by the multi-user DiamondTouch(TM) tabletop developed by Mitsubishi in 2001, which had an early version of “pinch to zoom”. They also maintained that Roger Fidler’s vision for a digital newspaper tablet way back in 1994 preceded at least one of Apple’s patents. Ultimately Samsung lost because the jury was not convinced that these other innovations were enough like Apple’s inventions to justify the invalidation of Apple’s patents. The jury also failed to find that Apple had infringed three Samsung patents covering emailing pictures, multi-tasking while playing music on the phone, and switching between pictures in a picture gallery and the camera.
Clearly Apple’s United States patents give it the right to keep other companies from “making, using, and selling” infringing devices in the United States. But what about other countries? These patents have also been filed in many places around the world, and in those countries that have allowed the patents to issue, Apple will have essentially the same rights that it has in the United States. It is one of these foreign patents covering the “overscroll bounce” that was involved in Apple’s German lawsuit against Motorola Mobility, a Google subsidiary. Apparently a judge in Munich agreed with the jury in Silicon Valley, where the Samsung case was tried, because the Motorola case was decided in Apple’s favor on September 14. As a result, Google’s Motorola unit faces the possibility that it will be forced to recall its Android tablets and smartphones in Germany. However, Apple will have to request such a recall, and Google is expected to appeal. Moreover, Google may just eliminate the “bounce” function and replace it with its own “glow effect” to indicate that the user has reached the end of a page. There’s more than one way to skin a cat.
As a result of the proliferation of lawsuits surrounding phone and tablet technology, a lot of people are saying that the patent system is “broken.” In fact, it is doing exactly what it was intended to do: protecting innovation. These digital devices are complicated and each one of them incorporates many different inventions; it is reasonable to expect disputes on “who invented what when” as patent owners like Apple and Samsung seek to enforce their patents on those inventions. It goes like this: If you think you have an idea for a better-looking mousetrap, maybe you can get a design patent on it. You may think such a patent is trivial. Doesn’t matter. If the public buys that mousetrap because they like how it looks, well, your design patent gives you the right to keep another company from capitalizing on your success by selling a mousetrap that looks a lot like yours. So you file a lawsuit against that company and ask the court to enforce your patent. Shouldn’t you be one who profits from that design because YOU are the one who came up with it? The signers of the U.S. Constitution thought so.
One thing seems clear to me: these cases will spur MORE innovation in both design and functionality, as inventors try to “get around” Apple’s patents. Isn’t that a good thing? Sure, some products may become unavailable, and some companies may go out of business. But there will be new products and maybe even new companies to take their place.
Welcome to the world of competition and the value of innovative ideas. The world has never before seen a time when mere “ideas” had such value. It is no accident that highly innovative companies such as Google and Apple are among the most valuable in the world.
The recent Samsung v. Apple lawsuit is based on four design patents held by Apple: USD604305, USD593087, USD618677, and USD504889. Please look them up. They are very easy to understand because the first three LOOK like the iPhone and the fourth LOOKS like the iPad. Apparently the jury thought that they also look like the Samsung Galaxy S and Galaxy SII (phones) and the Galaxy Tab 10 (a tablet) because the suit resulted in a win for Apple of over $1 billion for infringement of its patents.
The Samsung v. Apple case also involves three utility patents held by Apple: US 7,469,381; US 7,864,163; and US 7,844,915. Look these up too. Among other things, these patents cover various functions that we are familiar with, such as scrolling, pinch to zoom, and the “bounce back” to indicate that we have scrolled beyond the edge of a page. In its effort to get these Apple patents invalidated, Samsung argued that they were predated by the multi-user DiamondTouch(TM) tabletop developed by Mitsubishi in 2001, which had an early version of “pinch to zoom”. They also maintained that Roger Fidler’s vision for a digital newspaper tablet way back in 1994 preceded at least one of Apple’s patents. Ultimately Samsung lost because the jury was not convinced that these other innovations were enough like Apple’s inventions to justify the invalidation of Apple’s patents. The jury also failed to find that Apple had infringed three Samsung patents covering emailing pictures, multi-tasking while playing music on the phone, and switching between pictures in a picture gallery and the camera.
Clearly Apple’s United States patents give it the right to keep other companies from “making, using, and selling” infringing devices in the United States. But what about other countries? These patents have also been filed in many places around the world, and in those countries that have allowed the patents to issue, Apple will have essentially the same rights that it has in the United States. It is one of these foreign patents covering the “overscroll bounce” that was involved in Apple’s German lawsuit against Motorola Mobility, a Google subsidiary. Apparently a judge in Munich agreed with the jury in Silicon Valley, where the Samsung case was tried, because the Motorola case was decided in Apple’s favor on September 14. As a result, Google’s Motorola unit faces the possibility that it will be forced to recall its Android tablets and smartphones in Germany. However, Apple will have to request such a recall, and Google is expected to appeal. Moreover, Google may just eliminate the “bounce” function and replace it with its own “glow effect” to indicate that the user has reached the end of a page. There’s more than one way to skin a cat.
As a result of the proliferation of lawsuits surrounding phone and tablet technology, a lot of people are saying that the patent system is “broken.” In fact, it is doing exactly what it was intended to do: protecting innovation. These digital devices are complicated and each one of them incorporates many different inventions; it is reasonable to expect disputes on “who invented what when” as patent owners like Apple and Samsung seek to enforce their patents on those inventions. It goes like this: If you think you have an idea for a better-looking mousetrap, maybe you can get a design patent on it. You may think such a patent is trivial. Doesn’t matter. If the public buys that mousetrap because they like how it looks, well, your design patent gives you the right to keep another company from capitalizing on your success by selling a mousetrap that looks a lot like yours. So you file a lawsuit against that company and ask the court to enforce your patent. Shouldn’t you be one who profits from that design because YOU are the one who came up with it? The signers of the U.S. Constitution thought so.
One thing seems clear to me: these cases will spur MORE innovation in both design and functionality, as inventors try to “get around” Apple’s patents. Isn’t that a good thing? Sure, some products may become unavailable, and some companies may go out of business. But there will be new products and maybe even new companies to take their place.
Welcome to the world of competition and the value of innovative ideas. The world has never before seen a time when mere “ideas” had such value. It is no accident that highly innovative companies such as Google and Apple are among the most valuable in the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment