It is interesting that Apple's recent battle with Samsung and Google's Motorola supports what we learn in class regarding the options that a company has when it is told that it infringes a patent. One of the options mentioned was to invalidate the patent, and this is exactly what Samsung and Google did to fight against Apple.
The slide-to-unlock patent was invalidated in Germany as it fails to meet the technicity requirement under the European patent law. This is because the court felt that the swiping gesture for the purpose of unlocking a device, which is the new invention, is not technical enough, and it has to solve a technical problem with a technical mean to be eligible for a patent. This being said, the exact same patent will be perfectly fine in US because of the difference in the country patent laws.
This case just proves that each country is very different from one another, and that a patentable idea in one country might not work in another. This brings about a fundamental problem for inventors and innovation because their ideas can never be fully protected worldwide, and if they do not know the ground rules in the various countries, such inventors could easily be 'eaten' up by the local competitors
in the country.
I wonder how this case will play out in the United States, with their leniency in what is considered a patent compared to Germany. This goes to show how patent ligitation and protection isn't as simple as filing and being approved in one country, but having to do so in a number of other countries for big companies. I personally hope there is some sort of universal system in the works.
ReplyDeleteI read the same news, I feel like Apple has applied almost all of the patents they can order to fight with their competitors in the future. I feel like Apple has put too much attention on the lawsuits.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the slide to unlock feature of Apple phones is more of a design feature than a technical feature, just as the layout of the home screen might be. There doesn't seem to be a technical aspect to it, as mentioned in your analysis.
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting that different courts would rule different ways regarding this issue. As a result of this difference in courts, companies have to hire a new batch of lawyers every time they have legal dealings in each jurisdiction, creating a plethora of new costs for companies that incentivizes them to spend more on legal expenses.