Apple v. Reality - Intellectual Property Analysis of Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
In the global Battle Royale of Apple and Samsung at the International Trade Commission, Administrative Law Judge Thomas Pender should receive an honorable mention as being the quirkiest judge. Referencing a scatological joke from a Cheech and Chong album , Judge Pender’s quote reflects the growing frustration of the courts with two multinational corporations who simply can’t play nice. However, what was meant as harmless commentary could overturn his decision.
U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) Judge Thomas Pender asked, “Does it look like it, feel like it, smell like it?” in reference to dog feces on May 31st, 2012 . Judge Pender made this comment in the context of how to identify a copied technology. This could also be interpreted to indicate favoritism towards Apple who claims that Samsung “slavishly copied” various Apple products.
One could say there is nothing wrong with not inventing your own technology, even when you’re attempting become a leader in a technology sector. Simply purchasing intellectual property (IP), say, for example, when Apple purchased Nortel’s IP, could be enough to make one a leader in technology.
In order to become a technology leader, Apple is fighting a large multi-front war with one of its larger suppliers. The two companies are currently fighting in at least ten countries on four continents. The flagship case occurred in April of 2011 when Apple sued Samsung in the Northern District of California. So far Apple has managed to have Samsung products temporarily interrupted in Germany and Australia. Allegedly, Apple may have manipulated evidence in their Dutch case against Samsung. Despite the fact that 26% of the component cost of an iPhone is from Samsung inputs, Apple is not willing to let go of the fact that Samsung also produces the iPhone’s largest competitor, Android.
The legacy of Steve Jobs is alive and well in courts across the globe. Not only does it emerge in Apple’s quest to transition from a consumer brand leader to a technological wunderkind, but it emerges in the patents over which it claims infringement.ShareThis