https://www.forbes.com/sites/washingtonbytes/2017/11/01/a-second-apple-samsung-c

Question

https://www.forbes.com/sites/washingtonbytes/2017/11/01/a-second-apple-samsung-case-could-cap-the-patent-reformation/#584945b371fc

Questions to be answered based on above link article

1) How was the law used as a source of advantage?

2) If you were a competitor, how would you respond to this legal strategy?

3) Based on the facts presented in the article and any independent research you perform, what do you think were important and unique factors that allowed the party to develop this source of advantage?

Explanation / Answer

1.
The article deals regarding the case between Apple and Samsung. In this case, the law was used to prove than the existing patent laws are narrow and too old that they cannot solve all the issues related to the patent. For example, a mere copying of a design of the mobile handset is not responsible for the profit of billions of dollars, rather it is the functionality, features, best in class applications and other qualities that bring profitability and sales. Hence, the law reinterpreted the patent related laws and gave the judgment to the advantage of the company.
2.
As a competitor, I will use my own patented design and features for my own products. It will help the company to save huge amount of money spent in litigation process and the decision can go in any direction. Besides it is also not ethical to knowingly take the unfair advantage of the laws. Yes, if another company claims that my company has used any patent that is similar to our patent, then the litigation will go ahead and my company will take the reference of this case.
But, my company will focus upon using its own innovative outcomes in delivering products and services.
3.
These unique factors are as follows:
A.   The exclusive range of features in the product that causes the design factor to be less important
B.   The brand value of the company that is based upon the quality rather design
C.   The quality of its functions that are the hallmark of the company
D.   A market reputation of the company and strong market share based upon the products on offer by the company
Above factors helped the court to justify that only a design factor is not responsible to achieve the profit earned by the handset. Hence, the profit cannot be handed over to the company who sued.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse H
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.