In a year dominated by Apple and Samsung courtroom battles, it is only fitting to wrap up week 52 with more legal drama from our two favorite frenemies. There will be no singing of Auld Lang Syne from these two as the New Year rolls in, and unless something miraculous happens, it looks like even more of the same for 2013. Last week, however, Apple drew a firm line in the sand and dared the United States court system to cross it.
As they posture and preen in courtrooms around the world for technological supremacy in the Patent Wars, longtime business partners Apple and Samsung also continue to work together to deliver some of the most magical products the world has ever seen. It is, perhaps, that irony that keeps us all so rooted in the latest courtroom adventures between the two companies, and also the fact that they keep inventing new courtroom adventures.
As speculation abounds that the long-time partnership between Apple and Samsung is going to be affected by all of the legal activity, it is future innovation that is being threatened by present-day litigation. Aside from rumors of withholding future technology, Apple has now laid down the threat that if innovation is not going to be fully protected by the courts, then innovation is just not going to happen the same way anymore.
Last week, after getting told by Judge Lucy Koh that they would not be getting any of the injunctions against Samsung products they had on their wish list, Apple responded with an immediate, and powerful, group of appeals. While the appeal was expected as soon as Judge Koh denied the request for injunction, the verbiage Apple chose was particularly interesting, and possibly powerful enough sway the court.
In the Notice of Appeal, Apple states, "If patentees cannot obtain injunctions against continued infringement by competitors, the strength of patents will sharply diminish, and the costs to innovation will be profound."
We might not have something to wait in line for every year??
In other words, if the United States becomes a legal environment where, despite proving in court in overwhelming fashion that Samsung was infringing on Apple products and harming Apple's business, injunctions are not ever going to be issued, it will only be future innovation that suffers. Because if a case like this can't lead to injunction, then the bar is so high that it is likely no case ever will. Innovation is expensive, and if a company can't count on a courtroom to protect its work, and to punish those who slavishly copy it, then the bill for all of that research and development is going to be paid some other way; either slower design cycles, or higher priced products. Or, both.
"In my opinion, this is a powerful argument in favor of a rehearing," Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents wrote. "Intellectual property policy is always about striking a balance between legal imitation and illegal copying."
Indeed. Protecting the rights of innovators is a core principal of the government of the United States; it is baked right into the Constitution itself. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 empowers the United States Congress "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
The courtroom decision this summer proved, without a doubt, that Samsung willfully copied Apple technology. Levying a huge fine against Samsung is only part of the solution; removing the infringing products needs to be the rest of the answer. Not because of any sort of petty or vengeful desire of Apple, but because innovators in the United States need to know that there is a court system standing ready to go all-in to protect them.
Follow this writer, Adrian Hoppel, on Facebook.
