When this year's Tim Cook introduced the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus, many people thought about the similarity of the new Apple smartphone with Samsung products in a line of Galaxy. In this light, someone may seem ironic situation with the patent proceedings, which Apple accused the Korean manufacturer in copying the design of smart phones, developed by American engineers.
Cupertino-based company even tried to ban the import of Samsung Galaxy in the US (but unsuccessfully). Nevertheless, the results of two long vessels Samsung ordered to pay Apple impressive compensation - $ 929 million and $ 120 million (although in the latter case, an American company tried to sue the Koreans as much as $ 2 billion). Both are now appealing the verdict on appeal.
The amount of compensation so great because of the peculiarities of American patent law. According confusing law on patents for the development of 1887, the defendant in copying the design seize all he had received the profits from the sale of related products created with patent infringement. Of course, in today's technological economy such laws should be used with great caution. So in this context, patents describing the look and feel of use may be invalid. Whether it right technological features of the products produced.
The importance of patent confrontation Apple and Samsung is not so much the possibility of the iPhone maker to get some money from a competitor. It plays a role in the reformation of the scope of the patent as a whole. Indeed, in recent decades, patents are granted on products rather strange kind of code, business practices, and even the appearance of some devices (as in the case of Apple and Samsung). Such a number of patents has led to the fact that in the courtrooms now listen unimaginable number of patent cases. But the relationship between intellectual property and real innovation began to fade. Proof of this was the message from the Congressional Budget Office.
The organization said that a large number of patent applications and patents themselves over the last thirty years, in no way affected the growth of productivity and technology.
Experts in the field of technology and legislation in recent years have begun to recognize that in the area of intellectual right, there is a serious need for reform. During his last meeting of the Congress could not legislate measures for its modernization. However, in June, the Supreme Court has yet processed the law relating to patents in the field of software. This happened under the landmark case against the CLS Bank Alice Corp. From that moment the courts have become much faster to deal with software patents.
Among invalid patents was one associated with an online tool for developing diets, another dedicated computer game "Bingo", and another one that defended the rights of the developer of a computer program to convert the bonus points in various promotions loyalty.
Quote from an article in The Wall Street Journal
Obviously, the patents discussed in this context, are, to put it mildly, a strange character. It seems that the developers have patented their products, only to patent something in case you need to present to develop their rights.
Due to the tightening of judicial procedures, many corporations have gone to an independent settlement of patent issues, one of them was even Google. But opposition to Apple and Samsung in this context stands as a reminder of "thermonuclear war smartphones" that rivals even threatened to Steve Jobs.
The question here is whether the award in such a confrontation - all profits obtained competitor allegedly copied patented products - in principle is important in today's market conditions.
One taken separately smartphone can total a 250 thousand. Hardware and software technologies, development of design and manufacturing processes, patented by different companies. But whether it is a cause for endless lawsuits and accusations about who is who and what to copy? Do some single technology can affect the buyer's decision on the choice of a particular product? After all, a person chooses a gadget for very different criteria, and they are each their own. So competent and generally logical to punish one copy patented features (intentional or unintentional) removal of all profits from the sale of the offender the product in question? But this is what dictates the old law on patents for development.
Although proponents believe that all such ranting is not appropriate in situations when it comes to intellectual rights. And they then interpret the law in their own interests. After all, it says: "The offender must be given to the owner of the patent infringement all their income." And the phrase "all income" can mean very different things, so why not absolutely require all income offender? Fortunately, the judges in the majority, it is reasonable to accept the law, limiting the compensation scale violations in each case. It's more like working with trademark laws and copyright laws, which, though not perfect themselves, quite similar to the provisions on patents for development.
Radical warriors against patent infringement believe that the withdrawal of all incomes can be a very effective measure in preventing copying of proprietary development. According to them, proportional compensation - it's something akin to royalty, just the price that the infringer pays for such peculiar ways of doing business. So that such punishment can not exclude the theft of intellectual property. On the other hand, this policy can help in controlling the quality of issued patents. In addition, when some "development" are everywhere, none of the manufacturers can not avoid violations, and no one is safe from the loss of profits.
In general, intellectual property is an important basis for innovation and economic development. But too many countries, patents turns it into an instrument of destructive games between competitors. So if a US appeals court finally decides to settle the issue of patent compensation, there has been progress in the reform of patent law.
http://www.iphones.ru/iNotes/394121
No comments :
Post a Comment