18. Google Being Generous, Maybe?

Google has just promised not to assert 10 of its patents against open source software. This has created lots of publicity for Google, as they seem like the nice and generous people. However, the truth is not as bright as that. In 2005, some companies had done similar things and pledged not to assert select patents against open source softwares. However, it was not effective and those pledges had not changed anything because those select patents were really limited and small. The 10 patent that Google had promised comprises of an extremely small percentage of Google's patent portfolio. In fact, it is one of the most 'stingy' companies involved in such acts, where it pledged less than a percent of its portfolio. Having said that, it is still possible that such open source companies maximize the use of such patents to produce something amazing for consumers. Google may be having that in mind, and trying to promote innovation by making those open source companies make do with what they have to come up with something useful. The future is unknown, and it is interesting to see how things might turn out.

17. Apple Wants More

Apple had previously gained $600 million in damages from Samsung over 2 of their phones in a lawsuit on March 1st. However, Apple does not seem satisfied with this ruling because they wanted an initial damage amount of $1.05 billion. This $450 million gap has made Apple unhappy, as they try to reduce the gap by claiming that the jury has made an error in accounting for the damages, amounting to $85 million.

This may seem like a valid move by Apple because they can maximize their claim on a single lawsuit. However, I personally feel that it might be counter productive because of the additional effort needed to be put in, and the risk of the lawsuit. Apple is fighting a strong opponent, and risk strong retaliation if the compensation amounts too huge. In addition, winning a lawsuit is already tough and time consuming enough. Having another round of lawsuit to increase the damages will take more time and drain more resources of both parties. In the end, most of the additional damages might go to the lawyers instead of Apple, if Apple even wins the next round.

16. Ericsson a troll?

Samsung has felt that Ericsson behaved like a patent troll, and is now retaliating and countersuing them with 8 more patents in Texas. Samsung has claimed that "Ericsson seeks to dismantle the standard-setting framework with unreasonable and discriminatory license demands from a willing license under threat of product exclusion." It is surprising to many people that Ericsson would be considered as a troll, especially since it was involved in the mobile phone business previously and was relatively successful. Reading about this retaliation also made me wonder if the negative connotation that patent trolls have causes companies to resort to more extreme measures to 'punish' them. Would Samsung have done the same retaliation if Ericsson were still in the business and not assumed to be a troll? Why is raising the licensing demands wrong to begin with, especially since the patent does give the right for owners to receive royalties?

15. World War

Recently, Apple and Google are appealing Judge Posner's dismissal of a two-way Apple-Motorola lawsuit in Chicago on patent infringement. This appeal have not only affected the two companies, but have also caused many other companies to be involved, just like what happened in World War I and II. Instead of countries taking sides, it is companies taking sides this time. Qualcomm and BlackBerry is on the side of Google, while Intel and Microsoft are on the side of Apple. This tight relationship between all the different technology giants posses a huge potential for things to go wrong, and for a disaster to happen if a cyber war breaks out. It is also not just these few companies that are involved, The two sides have their group of 'followers' who are not directly involved, but still provide support and stand sides.

It is also interesting to note that BlackBerry officially supports neither party, but is clearly opposing Judge Posner and substantively siding with Google. This is because no matter which side wins, the categorical rule against injunction will harm it either way.

The huge number of companies involved in this one battle is incredible, reflecting that this lawsuit is an extremely important one. The ITC is thus under huge pressure to ensure that their decision is the right one, as a lot is at stake.

14. 4G LTE Dispute

In class, we had learn about the structure of wireless communications, from the base stations, to the various units involved. It then interested me to see that Adaptix Inc. had alleged violations of infringement on its patent regarding certain wireless communications base stations and components thereof. With this, the ITC has instituted an investigation and has identified Ericssons as the respondent. These base stations and components thereof are being used in the next generation wireless communication technologies like 4G LTE, and presents a huge market opportunity. Winning this case would allow for Adaptix to gain a huge market share of this industry and profit from it as imports into the United States, and sale of such base stations and components thereof to be banned, and I am thrilled to see what the decision of the ALJ would be.

13. Too Big To Fail?

Many of us have heard the phrase "too big to fail" with regards to the financial crisis and banking situation that happened. It is used to refer to banks and organizations being too huge that failing would cause much more harm than if the government used up their resources to support them. Like wise, an article I recently read regarding the battle between Apple and Samsung has made me rethink whether Apple is at that stage. In the article, it is mentioned that the ITC is considering the impact of a sales ban on the iPhone and iPad, and the initial thought of such a scenario would be that it will cause a lot of outcry and mess among consumers and the public. In this situation, I would say it might be too big to fail, and it has even garnered the support of the public to help minimize the damage that litigation can do to it, even if it means infringing patents. On another hand, I will also like to consider the economic impact of the sales ban. Given that Apple is a US based company, having a sales ban would only damage the US economy because local consumers transfers their money to a foreign company like Samsung instead of retaining it back in the country by transferring to a local company. It is then not in the countries' interest to ban its own product from selling in its very own country. This, I would say, is one of the ITC's greatest fear as they are trapped either way, to be fair and harm the home country, or to be bias and help boost local economy. This may be one of the reasons why the battle between Apple and Samsung has always been dragged out and postponed. It is the innocent consumers and the public that suffers the most in this battle.

12. Prevent production, or prevent sales

The ITC differs from the US Federal Courts when it comes to patent litigation because of the different options of actions that they can take. Specifically, Federal Courts impose a more direct method to compensate the victim. It can come in the form of compensations, injunctions, ban of production or sales. The ITC then comes in when the international component is involved; when products are sold overseas. The ITC can ban imports, causing products to not exist in the US, which then prevents sales in the US. The ITC serves as an alternative form of addressing infringement, and is mainly used because of its efficiency. In the case of Apple vs Samsung, Samsung has tried hard to fight Apple with its patents in federal courts, but have lost battles for almost a dozen of its patents. It is also trying to get an import ban against Apple as an alternative through the ITC because it will serve similar purpose, and is awaiting the decision. ITCs definitely do play a huge role in patent litigation, especially by having the authority to enact import bans, which is country-wide. Having an import ban is considered one of the most powerful protection that a company can have against another, with sales of a certain product not being allowed to exist in the local market. This makes the ITC a great alternative to approach regarding patents, especially with their efficiency compared to Federal Courts.