Comments for The smartphone patent wars: nothing really surprising…

ammour hamza
Actually, the only thing that we can count on Lucy Koh’s move is that she succeeded in bringing together the two CEO's (Tim Cook and Choi Gee-Sung) of the Apple and Samsung firms; otherwise, her move was washed up and ended up fruitless because the disputes between the two firms over being a patent litigators did not halt. However, I…
Read more

Actually, the only thing that we can count on Lucy Koh’s move is that she succeeded in bringing together the two CEO’s (Tim Cook and Choi Gee-Sung) of the Apple and Samsung firms; otherwise, her move was washed up and ended up fruitless because the disputes between the two firms over being a patent litigators did not halt. However, I understand their concern because this feud is a matter of whether they take the vanguard and survive or hold back and let the other firm take the lead and bear the consequences of the regress that other firms suffered from, and we can take Nokia as an example when you could hardly see now any of Nokia smartphones in the field.

Invitations and simplicity are what make Samsung in the preamble and the security system and the innovations are what make Apple prefered by consumers. Nevertheless, the millennial generation is more eagerly searching for innovations and updated smartphones and that the key that these two big firms exploit to be always in the top and the prelude. I believe that this feud will never end and these disputes are what make these two big firms always looking for new ideas and innovations to add to their smartphones and that what motivate consumers to buy the new smartphones that include new features that their old ones lack.

Show less
Reply
Narjiss Dhibat
At 2012 I was only a 16 years old teenager who couldn’t care less for what is happening in this world , nor the less a certain war between the Smartphone multinationals. All what I cared for was buying their latest inventions. Now I know that what is going on between these firms are dangerous; Not only does it…
Read more

At 2012 I was only a 16 years old teenager who couldn’t care less for what is happening in this world , nor the less a certain war between the Smartphone multinationals. All what I cared for was buying their latest inventions. Now I know that what is going on between these firms are dangerous; Not only does it affect us as final consumers but it affects everyone from stakeholders , scientists , to simple citizens because their trials on international scale is always making a scene and a buzz . True Lucy Koh’s move was sort of effective because it made these enterprises sit, discuss and drop some of their good for nothing pointless law suits and counter suits but that doesn’t allow us to assume that Smartphone patent wars did nor is not going to calm down because their success is based on this competition between them to be the best otherwise they won’t be able to protect their financial and intellectual fortunes. Without this war patent there is not future and no innovations I suppose. I am no expert but the way I see it signing a peace treaty back in 2014 and abandoning different cases could be considered as a first thing step to the end of patent war but what I am sure no peace could ever happen in this industry because in the top there is only place for one winner and that winner must protect his assets and inventions and always maintain full control and I am guessing this war is only to grow stronger and more dangerous with all these intellectual innovations .

Show less
Reply
Jordan
It's hard to see if the move of Lucy Koh's has been effective.As it's said in the article ,smartphones combine two aspect of cumulative innovation and as we can see nowadays, most of the phones of the most famous brands are look alike . It is due to the run of novelty that these two has engaged…
Read more

It’s hard to see if the move of Lucy Koh’s has been effective.As it’s said in the article ,smartphones combine two aspect of cumulative innovation and as we can see nowadays, most of the phones of the most famous brands are look alike . It is due to the run of novelty that these two has engaged in order to win market part from others. When a novelty come (technological) Apple and Samsung add the novelty for his new flagship product the next year following. Moreover knowing the composition on a iphone we can also imagine that this war of pattent is just a way to reduce the image of Samsung for Apple.

The capitalism has authorised this « monopoly » of these two brand, theirs anchorage in the society make them be the biggest influencer in their market(1). It’ is obvious when we see the wait of the differents keynotes they have made every years and the wait of people when the brand new phones is about to be sold. Apple can be considerated as one of the most powerful firm in the world. Despite the important number of lawsuits that the brand has suffered, Apple still going on and show the useless of the law for this type of compagny or the bigness of this big firm ?

It will be hard for competition law to make a truce in the smartphone patent war. One of this reason is primary that, the two subject are monster of our economy,they detain less than the half of the smartphone market (2) , this two brand are too powerful, more rich than some coutries. A simple rule of law won’t make things change . These two entities could even if they are big , avoid new rules who could restrain their power. ( like in the article (3) where Samsung change some caracteristics of his product in order to be able to sell his tablet in USA avoiding the restriction of a patent ). Moreover it’s hard to speak about competition law and more precisly concurrency when we know that for the sell of the new Iphone X , 13 % goes to Samsung because of the screen of the Iphone made by the Korean brand (5). A lot of accesories being made by Samsung are for destinate to Iphone. These two elements and the fact that Apple had for provider Samsung for their Iphone 6 push us to ask if Apple « and » Samsung had made a Isung rather than an Iphone.

To be more effective and have a useful rôle in the smartphone patent war, I think that competition law must attack a heavy part of the technologie that is omnipresent in our society and in our techonological product, the programmed obsolescence(4). In deed this fact is very common, phones now aren’t product with the same materials than before. The new materials are more fragile and wears out faster. The reason of the use of programmed obsolescence in due to, in one hand to reduce the cost of production and in a other hand to make phones last less longer but the primordial fact is that programmed osbsolence is hard to prove and when it is (for example the case with Iphone that reducing their batteries for the performances (3)) these big firms has the tools to deviate the fact of obsolescence.

Sources
(1) https://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/le-poids-de-l-iphone-en-six-chiffres-cles.N585163

(2)https://www.numerama.com/tech/174972-apple-samsung-et-les-autres-evolution-du-marche-des-smartphones.html
(3) https://www.latribune.fr/technos-medias/electronique/20120627trib000706004/brevets-la-tablette-galaxy-de-samsung-interdite-a-la-vente-aux-etats-unis.html

(5)https://www.igen.fr/iphone/2017/12/iphone-apple-sexplique-sur-les-performances-reduites-avec-des-batteries-anciennes

(4)https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolescence_programm%C3%A9e

(6)https://www.lesechos.fr/14/09/2017/lesechos.fr/030562841177_comment-samsung-va-empocher-pres-de-15–des-ventes-de-l-iphone-x.htm

Show less
Reply
Florescu Ana-Maria
(Answering: Was Lucy Koh’s move effective? Did the ‘Smartphone Patent Wars’ calm down over the last months or did they go on with a vengeance?) For more than seven ears, Apple conducts litigations with Samsung, accusing the South Korean company of copying the design of the iPhone. Even today, this problem is not completely solved. The judge – Lucy Koh is…
Read more

(Answering: Was Lucy Koh’s move effective? Did the ‘Smartphone Patent Wars’ calm down over the last months or did they go on with a vengeance?)
For more than seven ears, Apple conducts litigations with Samsung, accusing the South Korean company of copying the design of the iPhone. Even today, this problem is not completely solved. The judge – Lucy Koh is literally “tired” of leading the Apple’s process against Samsung, and tired of the constant mutual accusations of Apple and Samsung, which are often groundless. But on May 14, 2017, a continuation of the process started. Technological giants do not intend to follow the advice of Lucy Koh and they are going to defend their legal position for many more years.
Now, Apple says that the technology Google Quick Search Box, presented in the Galaxy Nexus – is a violation of the patented technology of voice assistant Siri. Apple’s lawsuit lists almost a dozen Galaxy phones and Galaxy Tab tablets, where the Californian company observes violations of its patents. In turn, Samsung claims that Apple is violating its proprietary technologies for data transmission, processing audio, video and photos in the iPhone, iPod and Mac computers.
The subject of the dispute is the amount of money, damage, that Samsung must pay to Apple. Samsung was able to reduce the initial amount from $ 1 billion to $ 339 million. The trial is primarily due to the fact that initially the amount of compensation was calculated from the total profit Samsung received from sales of smartphones. However, in 2016, the US Supreme Court found this decision unfair. Since the US Supreme Court decided, that the damage should be calculated not from the total sales, the South Korean manufacturer demanded to reduce the amount of payments even more. Soon, the hearing date will be appointed, and the six-year process will start again.
On this subject, there’s some questions concerning patent and the known smartphone war:
• Technology can offer a big number of opportunities for fights over who is infringing whose legal rights.
• The quick evolution of the products with new features, constantly being added and old features updated, makes it both more likely that there will be potential new infractions and more likely that old infringement claims may be outdated by the time the litigation is concluded. Even relatively slow changes in this sector occur at a fairly rapid rate by ordinary industry standards.
• The design for smartphones are selected from a very limited array of options, even the ways in which particular features are combined and the specific mechanisms for implementing some of them leave scope for innovation.
This conducts us to the notion of cumulative innovation (definition explained in the article). This type of innovation is described by being reliable, having an evolutionary nature, by being predictable and low risk. The solution can be: patent or secret trade. But is it possible in this business?
So, those patent wars are wars that have arisen on the basis of desire to earn at any cost, they have caused a loud confrontation between companies: Samsung and Apple. Disputes between companies that arose as a result of a violation of another’s intellectual property, which is registered by the state’s executive authority on intellectual property, in the form of a document that certifies the exclusive right, authorship and priority for invention. They are spending billions to acquire patents, pay licensing fees and litigation. The result of these litigations is not predictable, so they can to drag on for many years. Patent wars are not a quest for justice, but a well-established market’s acceptance.
What can be done, even if the companies are trying to show who is right? This is very hard question to answer. The problem of cumulative innovation and limited resources for making those innovations real is actual even today and will be many more years from now on.

Sources:
https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1350&context=mjlst
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electronics_Co.
https://cepr.org/sites/default/files/Watzinger,%20Martin%20paper.pdf
http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/14-036_88022f59-a293-4a6f-b643-b205304bce91.pdf
http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/14-036_88022f59-a293-4a6f-b643-b205304bce91.pdf

Show less
Reply
Sposito Yann
Dans cette guerre entre la firme coréenne Samsung et la firme Apple, qui sont les deux leaders sur le marché du smartphone, des contentieux en matière de brevets existent et existeront toujours. En effet, comme dit dans l'article ci-dessus un smartphone est le reflet d'une innovation cumulative c'est-à-dire que pour avoir un produit toujours plus puissant et qui répond toujours plus…
Read more

Dans cette guerre entre la firme coréenne Samsung et la firme Apple, qui sont les deux leaders sur le marché du smartphone, des contentieux en matière de brevets existent et existeront toujours.
En effet, comme dit dans l’article ci-dessus un smartphone est le reflet d’une innovation cumulative c’est-à-dire que pour avoir un produit toujours plus puissant et qui répond toujours plus à la demande des consommateurs il faut quelquefois se servir de l’invention antérieur d’un autre (par exemple le premier à avoir eu l’idée d’insérer la synchronisation de la boite mail sur smartphone étant Blackberry aujourd’hui “disparu” sur le marché).
On peut voir (dans les différents articles de la bibliographie) que les appareils Samsung et Apple sont très similaires quant à leurs utilisations quotidiennes c’est-à-dire que les mêmes mouvements entraînent souvent les mêmes actions ( exemple du “pincer pour zoomer”,..) ce qui crée évidemment des litiges au niveau des brevets.
Lucy Koh, juge fédérale des Etats Unis connue pour avoir fait pliés des sociétés anonymes tels que Google ou Facebook, a été désigné pour prendre part au procès entre Samsung et Apple. Dans ce procès Apple réclamait à Samsung le règlement d’une indemnité de 399 millions de dollars pour avoir copié le design de ses appareils. Cette juge a jugé au renouvellement du procès car “ les instructions données aux jurés ne reflétait pas la loi avec précision “ .
Cependant malgré les multiples procès entre les deux firmes leaders sur le marché du smartphone n’empêchent pas ces derniers a coopéré lorsque les intérêts sont communs.
On peut le voir aujourd’hui avec la mise en vente de l’Iphone X (tout dernier produit d’Apple) qui devrait rapporter 14 milliards de dollars à.. Samsung. En effet, les principales composantes technologiques de l’Iphone X sont construit et brevetés par Samsung. Le résultat étant que pour chaque Iphone X vendue 10% du prix de vente est reversé à Samsung pour ces droits de propriété.
Selon moi le mouvement de Lucy Koh ne pouvait pas être efficace car ces procès visent surtout à baisser l’image de marque de leurs concurrents afin de pouvoir récupérer des clients potentiels.
Pour finir et toujours selon moi la guerre qui fait rage en ce moment est plus lié au fait que la société Apple est en train de perdre sa place de numéro 1 sur le marché des smartphones au profit de Samsung.

Sources :

https://www.capital.fr/entreprises-marches/nouveau-proces-ordonne-entre-apple-et-samsung-autour-de-liphone-1251501
http://bfmbusiness.bfmtv.com/mediaplayer/video/anthony-morel-l-iphone-x-va-rapporter-des-milliards-a-samsung-0510-988507.html
http://www.numerama.com/tech/148971-contre-samsung-apple-perd-un-proces-et-des-brevets.html

Show less
Reply
Leïla Guidoum
Le marché de l’électronique est vaste et en constante innovation . Les entreprises spécialisées dans l’électronique se doivent de développer constamment de nouveaux procédés , de nouveaux biens etc… avec une qualité et un design toujours grandissant. Ce secteur est en mouvement continu , il se renouvelle continuellement afin de faire face à l’obsolescence rapide de ses produits. Notons aussi que…
Read more

Le marché de l’électronique est vaste et en constante innovation .
Les entreprises spécialisées dans l’électronique se doivent de développer constamment de nouveaux procédés , de nouveaux biens etc… avec une qualité et un design toujours grandissant.
Ce secteur est en mouvement continu , il se renouvelle continuellement afin de faire face à l’obsolescence rapide de ses produits.
Notons aussi que la demande globale en produits électroniques augmente et continuera d’augmenter dans les prochaines années du fait de l’amélioration du niveau de vie dans les pays développés et émergeants

C’est en 2011 que cette guerre des brevets débute entre Samsung et Apple deux géants de l’électronique.
C’est le 15 Avril 2011 qu’Apple dépose plaint auprès de la cour de Californie .
La plainte se décompose elle-même en 13 réclamations , portant par exemple sur la violation des formes et images des icônes ou encore l’affichage des messages arrivant.
S’en suit une bataille juridique , chacun accusant l’autre de ne pas respecter les brevets .
Après six ans passés devant les tribunaux américains ( et partout ailleurs dans le monde) , Samsung fut condamné pour avoir copié le design protégé d’Apple , en décembre 2016 le montant de l’amende fut fixé a 399 millions de dollars .

Les procès furent toutefois un moyen pour gagner du terrain en terme d’innovation.
Par exemple , en Novembre 2011 , Samsung présentait une requête afin d’avoir accès au codes utilisés dans certaines composantes de l’Iphone 4s pour prouver la non violation des procédés.
Apple fut donc contraint de fournir un échantillon de l’iPhone 4s…

Derrière cette bataille juridique se cacherait en réalité une sorte de rancoeur vis à vis de Google..
Son défunt fondateur Steve Jobs a toujours eu le sentiment qu’Android est un produit volé. Pour preuve, comme nous pouvons le lire dans sa biographie « Je vais détruire Android car c’est un produit volé. Je suis prêt à attaquer de façon thermonucléaire à ce sujet. »

Cette guerre des brevets est en réalité basé sur d’autre motivations et n’est pas prête de cesser dans un système judiciaire non mondialisé.
Le but ultime de la marque californienne par l’attaque en justice de Samsung est de porter atteinte au géant américain Google .
De plus un dysfonctionnement réside au sein du système américain , « Hunt patents » ou chasse de brevets permettant non seulement des gains d’argent tout en nuisant à la concurrence.

Un modification au sein du système de brevets américain est peut être nécéssaire afin de mettre un point finale à cette « guerre » qui sans intervention étatique ou juridique n’en restera pas là .

Sources :

http://bdc.aege.fr/public/Samsung_Apple_Une_guerre_complexe.pdf

https://www.rtbf.be/tendance/techno/detail_6-ans-apres-apple-et-samsung-se-battent-toujours-en-justice?id=9504086

http://www.numerama.com/business/154231-brevets-la-bataille-entre-apple-et-samsung-gagne-la-cour-supreme.html

Show less
Reply
demeneix
Depuis 2010 la guerre des Smartphones fait rage et ceux dans le monde entier. L’idée d’un compromis entre Samsung et Apple en 2012 grâce à la juge Lucy Kho était un bon début et ce fut un acte intéressant car on a pu voir par la suite que le conflit des brevets des Smartphones s’étendaient au niveau politique, sociale…. L’exemple…
Read more

Depuis 2010 la guerre des Smartphones fait rage et ceux dans le monde entier. L’idée d’un compromis entre Samsung et Apple en 2012 grâce à la juge Lucy Kho était un bon début et ce fut un acte intéressant car on a pu voir par la suite que le conflit des brevets des Smartphones s’étendaient au niveau politique, sociale…. L’exemple typique est celui avec le droit de veto posé par Barack Obama suite à un désaccord entre Apple et Samsung, une première depuis la Présidence Reagan en 1987. Le but fut d’annuler une décision de l’international trade commission contraire aux intérêts d’Apple. Ceci est une parfaite illustration de l’ampleur que prend ce qu’il est aujourd’hui de coutume d’appeler la guerre des brevets.

Cependant comme on a pu le constater ces dernières années le nombre de jugement pour départager les différentes entreprises de téléphonies ont cessé d’augmenter du fait des multiplications de brevets (4952 pour Samsung et 2003 pour Apple en 2014 aux Etats-Unis). Par conséquent, le nombre de litiges ou de procès entre ces deux géants ont perdurés et on se demande même si au final le brevet n’est pas seulement un outil qui permet de garder sa recette mais plutôt un moyen qui a pour objectif de contrer ces concurrents.

On peut donc conclure que ce déménagement de Lucy de Kho n’as pas été si efficace et que ces deux entreprises ce sont vengées a contrario d’une trêve. On imagine ainsi que de « tricher » et de « voler » certaine idées à ses rivaux au détriment de sanctions financières très lourdes serait bénéfique à l’entreprise en question afin qu’elles puissent garder et agrandir ces parts de marchés. Il existe peut être une solution pour éviter tous ces procès et l’émergence de la multiplication de ces brevets. Il suffirait d’être plus exigent dans la formation d’un brevet. L’autorité publique devrait avoir un rôle plus important dans la validité de l’existence d’un brevet pour éviter l’abondance de ces derniers qui entrainent autant de conflits.

Show less
Reply
EL MEDJERI Cedric
Depuis plusieurs années déjà, de nombreuses entreprises se livrent à ce qu'on peut appeler une « guerre des brevets ». Il s'agit pour ces entreprises de posséder un avantage leur permettant de gagner du terrain sur leurs concurrents. Cependant, ce sont les consommateurs qui payent le prix de cette guerre. De plus, les nombreux conflits portant sur les brevets portent atteinte à…
Read more

Depuis plusieurs années déjà, de nombreuses entreprises se livrent à ce qu’on peut appeler une « guerre des brevets ». Il s’agit pour ces entreprises de posséder un avantage leur permettant de gagner du terrain sur leurs concurrents. Cependant, ce sont les consommateurs qui payent le prix de cette guerre. De plus, les nombreux conflits portant sur les brevets portent atteinte à l’image de ces derniers.

En 2012, la juge fédérale Lucy Koh a pris une décision ayant pour but de mettre un terme aux différents entre les deux géants sur le marché des smartphones : Apple et Samsung. 5 ans plus tard après que cette décision ait été prise, nous pouvons nous demander si elle a été efficace et permis de stopper les poursuites judiciaires qui faisaient rage depuis 2011.

La réponse est malheureusement non. En effet, après que le jugement ait été rendu les poursuites judiciaires entre les deux entreprises ont continué et sont aujourd’hui encore d’actualité. Bien qu’elles soit coûteuses, ces poursuites sont un moyen pour Apple et Samsung de gagner du terrain sur leur concurrent et de se montrer comme étant le plus innovant. Ainsi, même si les coûts sont importants, le gain potentiel n’est pas négligeable pour autant. Ceci peut donc expliquer que les différents entre les deux n’ont pas été réglé.

Ce n’est qu’en 2014, qu’elles ont enfin réussi à trouver un accord. Elles ont décidé d’abandonner les poursuites ayant pour objet les brevets… sauf aux États Unis ou les condamnations sont les plus importantes. Ironiquement, c’est dans le pays ou la décision de régler les conflits entre Apple et Samsung a été prise que les poursuites judiciaire continuent a battre leur plein.

Au cours de l’année 2016, un jugement condamnant Samsung à verser 399 millions à Apple a été casser par la Cour suprême des États Unis. Cette victoire de Samsung ne signifie pas pour autant que les poursuites entre les deux compagnies sont terminé. Comme nous venons de le voir, ces poursuites durent depuis 2011 et pourrait bien continué pour les années à venir.

Sources :

https://www.challenges.fr/high-tech/apple-contre-samsung-la-guerre-a-coups-de-brevets_441898

http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2015/09/23/les-brevets-victimes-collaterales-de-la-guerre-entre-apple-et-samsung_4768064_3232.html

http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2012/08/25/guerre-des-brevets-apple-remporte-une-victoire-ecrasante-contre-samsung_1750814_651865.html

http://lexpansion.lexpress.fr/high-tech/guerre-des-brevets-samsung-et-apple-font-la-paix-sauf-aux-etats-unis_1564378.html

Show less
Reply
DANIEL Nathan  
« L’intérêt pour les brevets relatifs au design s’est envolé depuis le jugement de 2012 ». Cette citation de Monsieur Love montre l'un des impacts essentiels du « Smartphone Patent Wars », les patent trolls. Dans ce commentaire, nous étudierons dans un premier paragraphe, le contexte initiale de la guerre entre Apple et Samsung. Dans un deuxième paragraphe, nous analyserons l'initiative du juge…
Read more

« L’intérêt pour les brevets relatifs au design s’est envolé depuis le jugement de 2012 ». Cette citation de Monsieur Love montre l’un des impacts essentiels du « Smartphone Patent Wars », les patent trolls. Dans ce commentaire, nous étudierons dans un premier paragraphe, le contexte initiale de la guerre entre Apple et Samsung. Dans un deuxième paragraphe, nous analyserons l’initiative du juge de la Cour de District des Etats-Unis, Lucy Koh, à travers l’évolution du « Smartphone Patent Wars ». Et enfin, dans un troisième paragraphe, j’indiquerai mon avis à propos de cette affaire.

Avant de pouvoir répondre à la première question de cet article, il est nécessaire de rappeler le contexte de cette affaire. Tout débute en 2011 lorsque la firme Apple attaque en justice la firme Samsung. En effet, Apple accuse son principal concurrent de lui avoir volé de nombreux brevets. Ces brevets concernés les éléments de design tel que le boîtier rectangulaire avec les coins arrondis et la grille d’applications. En 2012, Samsung a été condamné à verser 1,05 milliard de dollars à Apple. Cette première décision a été invalidée en 2013. Cette invalidation a eu pour conséquences de réduire l’amende de moitié (600 millions de dollars).

Maintenant que nous avons remis le contexte en place, nous pouvons répondre à la question. Selon moi, l’initiative de Lucy Koh n’a pas était efficace. En effet, le fait qu’elle ait voulu mettre en place un processus de rétablissement de paix entre les deux firmes (afin de sauver l’industrie d’un potentiel suicide collectif) était une bonne idée. Mais si cette initiative avait aboutit, il n’y aurait pas eu tous les rebondissements qui ont suivit les années postérieures à 2012. Après le jugement de 2013, un nouveau procès a débuté. Ce dernier a enclenché un grand feuilleton judiciaire. Les deux firmes se sont affrontés dans les tribunaux du monde entier. Samsung a commencé à se venger en attaquant Apple à propos de sa technologie de transmission des données. La firme sud-coréenne accuse l’américaine de lui avoir volé. Cette accusation a était rejetée par les juges. Samsung a également démontré que plus de 250 000 brevets sont utilisés pour la conception de leurs appareils. La firme avance donc que les brevets dénoncés par Apple ont un rôle minime dans la décision d’achat des consommateurs. Bien entendu, Apple a défendu le contraire en affirmant que les ventes de Samsung étaient reliés au design de leurs produits (copié sur eux). Dans ce cas, Samsung a obtenu gain de cause. Les juges ont déclaré qu’Apple ne devait pas récupérer tous les profits car le design breveté ne porte pas sur toutes les composantes du produit. Le succès de Samsung ne s’arrête pas la. En 2016, les tribunaux compétents ont jugé que Samsung n’a pas volé les brevets du groupe américain car deux des trois brevets n’auraient pas dû être validés (pour manque d’ingéniosité). Le plus marquant des deux est le mécanisme de déverrouillage du smartphone. Cependant, aucune formalités n’a été indiquée en ce qui concerne les modalités de remboursement. A moins qu’il y ait enfin un accord amiable entre les deux groupes, un nouveau procès va avoir lieu pour déterminer la somme qu’Apple devra rembourser à Samsung. Ce procès pourrait permettre à Samsung de récupérer jusqu’à 399 millions de dollars. Cette affaire risque donc de durer encore plusieurs années.

A présent, je vais donner mon avis à propos de ce contentieux. Si l’on tient compte des bénéfices réalisés par les deux firmes chaque année (en 2015, 44 milliards d’euros pour Apple et 42 milliards d’euros pour Samsung), je pense que l’enjeu est plus symbolique que financier. Même si Apple devra rembourser Samsung dans les années à venir, les deux groupes seront toujours gagnants. C’est pour cela que je pense qu’un accord à l’amiable n’est pas envisageable car le groupe Samsung peut s’estimer heureux de la forte baisse de son amende et le groupe Apple récupérera quand même une certaine somme. Cependant, un accord entre les deux groupes n’est pas exclure car en 2014, les deux firmes se sont mises d’accord pour abandonner toutes les poursuites engagées en dehors des Etats-Unis. Je pense tout de même qu’il faudra attendre la décision officielle du montant du remboursement pour mettre fin à ce feuilleton. Enfin pour terminer, je peux également souligner que les décisions judiciaires en faveur de Samsung, ces derniers mois, ne sont pas anodines. Il est très fortement probable que cela soit lié au soutient de Google, Facebook et de plusieurs autres sociétés de la Silicon Valley. Ces firmes ont envoyé un document à la Cour suprême stipulant qu’une décision favorable à Apple aurait des conséquences graves comme notamment la multiplication des patents trolls. Les patents trolls (ou troll des brevets) sont des sociétés ou personnes physiques qui utilisent la concession de licence et le litige de brevets comme principale activité économique. Ils multiplient ainsi les actions en justice. Cela a pour conséquence directe de décourager l’échange de brevets et la valorisation des efforts en recherche et développement. Pour éviter cela, il est nécessaire d’empêcher la délivrance de mauvais brevets comme cela à était le cas pour Apple avec le mécanisme de déverrouillage. J’entends par mauvais brevets, des brevets larges et à revendications floues ( ce qui est très avantageux pour les trolls). Il faut également réduire les leviers qu’offre le système judiciaire car les trolls utilisent la menace d’action en justice comme moyen de pression.

SOURCES :

http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2016/12/07/samsung-remporte-un-round-face-a-apple-dans-la-guerre-des-brevets_5044845_3234.html
https://www.challenges.fr/high-tech/apple-contre-samsung-la-guerre-a-coups-de-brevets_441898
https://www.nextinpact.com/news/97093-apple-a-realise-53-milliards-dollars-benefices-nets-cette-annee.htm
https://www.nextinpact.com/news/102769-samsung-prevoit-benefices-en-forte-hausse-grace-au-galaxy-s7.htm
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll

Show less
Reply
Macchiarella Boris
En 2012, Lucy Koh cette juge qui veille sur le procès Samsung vs Apple et qui n'a pas la langue dans sa poche. Madame Koh est fatiguée du procès qui n'en finit plus, de toute cette salive qui s'écoule en absurdités et surtout que la justice soit réduite à une sorte de cour de récré où des enfants trop gâtés s'affrontent…
Read more

En 2012, Lucy Koh cette juge qui veille sur le procès Samsung vs Apple et qui n’a pas la langue dans sa poche.
Madame Koh est fatiguée du procès qui n’en finit plus, de toute cette salive qui s’écoule en absurdités et surtout que la justice soit réduite à une sorte de cour de récré où des enfants trop gâtés s’affrontent sur des points dérisoires.

Le problème de ce procès, c’est qu’au lieu de poser calmement leurs revendications, d’expliquer clairement leurs désaccords, sur quels endroits etc les deux entreprises enchaînent les coups bas et les rebondissements. Preuve de dernière minute, objection votre honneur, apparition de nouveaux documents, demande d’expertise… le procès s’enlise et s’éternise. Lucy Koh a donc déclaré sa déception et a appelé les parties à se rencontrer et à dresser un résumé de leurs mésententes.

Tous les combinés de Samsung ont été jugés enfreindre au moins un des brevets d’Apple. Lucy Koh a l’intention de modifier l’indemnité accordée contre Samsung et d’émettre une injonction permanente contre les produits de l’entreprise qui ont été jugés contrefaits par exemple Samsung de la violation de brevets d’Apple, dont le brevet sur le « glisser pour déverrouiller » qui permet à un utilisateur de glisser latéralement son doigt sur l’écran pour afficher le contenu du téléphone.

La situation entre les deux géants est vraiment une guerre de pouvoir pour obtenir la reconnaissance du publique et pour augmenter le prix de l’action et le rendement financier. L’action de Lucy Koh n’était pas si efficace. En effet, en 2014, Apple a ensuite poursuivi Samsung pour 2 milliards de dollars.
Cependant, je crois que cela a ouvert une nouvelle porte aux entreprises en difficulté aujourd’hui pour trouver une trêve qui pourrait aider à la fois les entreprises de combat à long terme.

Il y a de la vengeance de la part de Samsung car dans le dernier épisode de la bataille entre Samsung et Apple qui s’est déroulé au Japon, a jugé qu’Apple avait violé des brevets de Samsung. Le jugement a été qualifié de victoire par chacun des deux groupes. Il y a toujours de nouvelle technologie de nouvelle invention, c’est pourquoi il y a toujours de nouvelles guerres de brevets de téléphones intelligents, nous ne pouvons pas dire que Lucy Koh a calmé cette guerre mais l’une des raisons de cette guerre est que Apple et Samsung ont peur de nouveaux concurrents performant sur le marché.

source:
http://affaires.lapresse.ca/economie/technologie/201405/16/01-4767504-guerre-des-brevets-apple-et-google-decident-dune-treve.php
https://www.androidpit.fr/proces-apple-samsung-la-juge-s-enerve-et-fait-le-menage
https://www.cnet.com/news/apples-big-win-over-samsung-what-does-it-mean/
https://www.developpez.com/actu/96563/Guerre-des-brevets-la-roue-tourne-en-faveur-de-Samsung-dans-son-proces-contre-Apple-avec-l-annulation-d-une-amende-de-119-6-millions-de-dollars-US/
http://www.journaldugeek.com/2013/11/20/apple-vs-samsung-le-combat-continue/

Show less
Reply
Feriel KERDOUSSI
La guerre des brevets sur les smartphones est une question d'actualité, qui n'a jamais cessé d'exister. En effet la guerre des brevets que se livre les deux principaux géants de l'industrie du smartphone, Samsung et Apple, est incontestablement à inclure dans cette question. A la question de savoir si l'intervention de la célèbre juge férérale Lucy KHO, qui voulait instaurer un…
Read more

La guerre des brevets sur les smartphones est une question d’actualité, qui n’a jamais cessé d’exister.
En effet la guerre des brevets que se livre les deux principaux géants de l’industrie du smartphone, Samsung et Apple, est incontestablement à inclure dans cette question.
A la question de savoir si l’intervention de la célèbre juge férérale Lucy KHO, qui voulait instaurer un climat pacifique pour gérer les problèmes qui existent entre les deux géants, je dirais qu’elle n’a pas été vraiment efficace.
Ainsi, nous pouvons voir que derrière ces conflits principalement juridique se cachent nécessairement d’autres enjeux beaucoup plus important, ce qui montre que ce conflit n’est pas prêt à prendre fin.
Ce que je veux dire , c’est que les deux compagnies ne prennent pas en compte les coûts en temps et argent que cela peut engendrer , le seul point qui compte ici et qui les motive c’est de se poursuivre : c’est le fait de mettre en lumière leur multinationales.
De ce fait, la dernière affaire en date qui oppose Apple et Samsung remonte au 6 septembre 2016, en effet le géant sud-Coréen à saisi la Cour suprême des Etats-unis dans l’espoir d’obtenir une révision de la décision de justice.
Pour mieux comprendre le contexte, en 2012 Samsung était contraint de payer à son concurrent plus de 548 millions de dollars, pour avoir « violé plusieurs brevets détenus par le géant américain », dont un qui concerne le design du smartphone en question : « le boîtier rectangulaire avec les coins arrondis et la grille d’application ».
Ainsi, devant la Cour suprême, Samsung s’est défendu en mettant en avant le nombre de brevet qui sont utilisés dans la fabrication de ces smartphones, à savoir « 250 000 brevets ».
De plus comme le rapporte numerama, le géant sud-Coréen soutient l’idée que : « les brevets en cause ne concernent que des éléments secondaires qui contribuent de façon marginale à la valeur du smartphone ».
Cependant, « Apple assurait que le succès de son concurrent était directement lié à l’apparence de ses produits, copiée de l’iPhone ».
Malgré, l’argument appporté par l’américain, la Cour Suprême, a donné raison à Samsung, en lui permettant de ce fait de récupérer plus de 399 millions de dollars des dommages versés à son concurrent.
Ainsi, de premier abord, on peut penser que l’action pacifique, de la juge Lucy KHO, pour gérer les problèmes entre les deux géants du Smartphone n’a pas vraiment fonctionnée car 4 ans plus tard on peut voir que des problèmes persistent.
Pour moi, pour que cette guerre des brevets cesse il faut tout d’abord modifier la législation sur les brevets et de ce fait qu’il n’y est pas de pression de la part des lobbies.
L’autre solution pour tendre vers une harmonie est d’imposer des règles, restrictions aux poursuites des brevets.

Sources :
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/smartphone-patent-wars

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/03/21/the-smartphone-patent-war-between-apple-and-samsung-is-headed-to-the-supreme-court/?utm_term=.f580835767e4

http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2016/12/07/samsung-remporte-un-round-face-a-apple-dans-la-guerre-des-brevets_5044845_3234.html

http://www.numerama.com/business/154231-brevets-la-bataille-entre-apple-et-samsung-gagne-la-cour-supreme.html

Show less
Reply
ZAPPULLA MARINE
Pour pouvoir répondre à la question sur la « guerre de brevets des téléphones intelligents », j’ai d’abord décidé de faire plusieurs recherches sur l’affaire qui oppose Samsung et Apple depuis 2011 au sujet de violations supposés de brevets relatifs au design des smartphones et tablettes des deux firmes. Chacune des deux firmes déclaraient que l’autre n’avait pas respecté les…
Read more

Pour pouvoir répondre à la question sur la « guerre de brevets des téléphones intelligents », j’ai d’abord décidé de faire plusieurs recherches sur l’affaire qui oppose Samsung et Apple depuis 2011 au sujet de violations supposés de brevets relatifs au design des smartphones et tablettes des deux firmes.
Chacune des deux firmes déclaraient que l’autre n’avait pas respecté les différents brevets mis en place.
Par exemple, Apple voulait démontrer que Samsung avait copié le Design, certains icones du système d’exploitation et l’emballage de ces produits.
De son côté, Samsung avait déclaré que Apple les avait copiés sur les technologies d’internet sans fil (WIFI).
Pour régler ce conflit opposant les deux plus grandes industries du mobile, la juge américaine Lucy Koh avait obligé les dirigeants de se rencontrer et de discuter d’un accord à l’amiable mais en vain.
S’en est suivi une affaire qui depuis 2011 ne cesse de continuer à travers des multiples procès.
En 2012, la cours suprême tranche en faveur d’Apple et condamne Samsung à payer 1 milliards de dollars pour des violations de brevets liés aux Iphone et Ipad.
Cependant, les dirigeants de Samsung avaient prévenu que ce n’était pas la fin et qu’ils allaient déposer une requête pour revenir sur la décision de la cour suprême en disant que plus de 2500000 brevets étaient utilisées dans la conception des appareils et les brevets qu’ils avaient été violés n’avaient joué qu’un rôle mineur dans cette conception.
En 2016, il y a un nouveau rebondissement dans cette affaire. En effet, la cours suprême invalide une partie des réparations financières que Samsung avait dû verser à Apple et peut leur permettre de récupérer jusqu’à 399 millions de dollars.

Les enjeux sont désormais plus symboliques que financière.
En effet, si les dirigeants d’Apple ont eu des réparations financières, ils avaient aussi demandé l’interdiction de vendre certains produits Samsung sur le territoire américain, ce qui n’avait pas été accepté.
En 2014, les deux entreprises s’étaient entendues pour abandonner toutes les poursuites engagées hors des Etats-Unis.

On peut en conclure que dans certains domaines et pour certaines poursuites, le mouvement de Lucy Koh a été efficace et pas que pour l’affaire opposant Samsung et Apple (La guerre des brevets entre les différents acteurs du secteur mobile ont pris fin grâce aux accords à l’amiable) mais malgré tout ni Samsung, ni Apple veulent laisser tomber les poursuites concernant la violation des brevets et cette affaire les opposants continues.

Pour répondre à cette question, j’ai utilisé les sources se trouvant ci-dessous :

http://www.slate.fr/story/108725/lucy-koh-google-laisse
http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2012/08/25/guerre-des-brevets-apple-remporte-une-victoire-ecrasante-contre-samsung_1750814_651865.html
http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2016/12/07/samsung-remporte-un-round-face-a-apple-dans-la-guerre-des-brevets_5044845_3234.html

Show less
Reply
Steiner Othilie
Afin de répondre à la seconde question, il semblerait que que ce soit une bonne initiative de la part de Lucy KOH de vouloir régler de manière pacifique la "Guerre" qui oppose les deux géants à savoir Apple et Samsung. Mais je ne pense pas que, 5 ans après, cela soit efficace. En effet, depuis maintenant plus de 5 ans, ces…
Read more

Afin de répondre à la seconde question, il semblerait que que ce soit une bonne initiative de la part de Lucy KOH de vouloir régler de manière pacifique la “Guerre” qui oppose les deux géants à savoir Apple et Samsung. Mais je ne pense pas que, 5 ans après, cela soit efficace.

En effet, depuis maintenant plus de 5 ans, ces deux marques créatrices de smartphones, tablettes et ordinateurs, se poursuivent en justice régulièrement s’accusant mutuellement de vol de brevet.
De ce fait, un litige opposant Apple à Samsung, concernait le brevet déposé par Apple sur le design des smartphones de “forme rectangulaire avec les coins arrondis”. Ce brevet n’aurait peut être ps du être accordé à la marque à la pomme en raison de sa trop grande largeur et qui aurait pu poser un problème à d’autre marque produisant des smartphones.

Le montant des dédommagements que Samsung devait verser à Apple a donc été réduit du fait de sa somme exagérément élevée et disproportionnée face à un brevet comme celui ci. Il est intéressant aussi de savoir que certains brevets ne concernent que des éléments secondaires, qui ne contribuent qu’en partie à la valeur du smartphone, ainsi les dédommagements peuvent parfois être trop élevés par rapport au brevet lui même.

Mais il y quand même plusieurs conséquences à ce conflit. D’une part nous constatons que les brevets peuvent être utilisés comme “arme” de menace entre les marques. Cela peut conduire à un cercle vicieux qui ne ferai qu’accroître les conflits.
D’ailleurs, on peut se demander si quelque part, Apple en attaquant sans cesse Samsung, ne s’en prendrait pas de manière indirecte à tous le système Androïde (logiciel utilisé par Samsung mais aussi pas Sony, LG, Wiko et bien d’autres encore), logiciel exploité par Google, dans le but de freiner les ventes de ces smartphones au profit de ceux crées pas Apple.
Alors peut être que cette guerre incessante vise à convaincre les consommateurs de consommer telle marque plutôt que celle ci, en ayant recours à la mauvaise publicité…

En conclusion, je ne pense pas que cette guerre n’est complètement finie. Il faut aussi prendre en compte le fait que chaque marque ne cesse d’innover et de créer de nouveaux smartphones avec de nouvelles fonctionnalités qui peuvent être source de conflits entre les marques.

SOURCES :
http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2014/05/03/samsung-condamne-pour-avoir-viole-des-brevets-d-apple_4411021_651865.html
http://www.numerama.com/business/154231-brevets-la-bataille-entre-apple-et-samsung-gagne-la-cour-supreme.html
https://www.developpez.com/actu/112507/Guerre-des-brevets-la-Cour-supreme-rouvre-le-proces-qui-oppose-Apple-a-Samsung-estimant-que-l-amende-calculee-a-ete-excessive/

Show less
Reply
yassin
Does smartphone patent war decreased? indeed we can see great decision take by the juridiction in united states who annulated some patent. for exemple the president obama want to annulate the decision of itc. The decison of itc prohibited apple to importe smartphone who breach the patent of samsung in united states the smartphone patent war continue between apple and samsung…
Read more

Does smartphone patent war decreased? indeed we can see great decision take by the juridiction in united states who annulated some patent.
for exemple the president obama want to annulate the decision of itc.
The decison of itc prohibited apple to importe smartphone who breach the patent of samsung in united states
the smartphone patent war continue between apple and samsung and probably
continue for long time.
These patents deposite by samsung and apple decrease the innovation.
Apple and samsung want to do respect their right by any means, which can really stop a lot of innovation.
In france we can see this war in mobilphone company ( sfr, orange..).
It is very difficult for the french juridiction to face this patent war.

http://www.economiematin.fr/news-brevets-apple-samsung-litiges

http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2015/09/23/les-brevets-victimes-collaterales-de-la-guerre-entre-apple-et-samsung_4768064_3232.html

Show less
Reply
Bertille Mazari  
Was Lucy Koh’s move effective? Did the ‘Smartphone Patent Wars’ calm down over the last months or did they go on with a vengeance? The “Smartphone patent wars” might be the one that is the most known about among the society. Indeed, we all have heard at least once about those big multinationals that count the Smartphone market and find themselves…
Read more

Was Lucy Koh’s move effective? Did the ‘Smartphone Patent Wars’ calm down over the last months or did they go on with a vengeance?
The “Smartphone patent wars” might be the one that is the most known about among the society. Indeed, we all have heard at least once about those big multinationals that count the Smartphone market and find themselves in a ceaseless new technology competition. Google, Apple, Microsoft, NOKIA, Samsung and many other Smartphone’s related companies are constantly trying to both protect their intellectual and financial assets.
The ongoing patent war seems to be the key of success for those companies who are ready to invest billions in order to buy patents that could possibly help them to get an edge over their competitors.
This unremitting run to patent has led to countless patent trial or suits.
A U.S. district Court Lucy Koh during a trial between Apple and Samsung has tried to calm down the “Smartphone Patent War’ existing for years between those two big companies by making them meet and discuss. The observations have shown that this action may have not encountered Lucy Koh’s hoped results. Indeed, there was a retrial in 2013 and one year later, Apple even initiated another 2 billion dollar trial.
By choosing to adopt a short term point of view of this situation we might say that Lucy Koh’s move was not successful. By looking at the bigger picture, meaning scale of time, the opinion on Lucy Koh’s action might change. Indeed, later on Apple and Samsung were pushed, under the constantly evolving market conditions and the rather disappointing lawsuit outcomes, to sign their first partial peace treaty. The two companies decided in August 2014 to abandon all the cases outside of the United States. This can thus be considered as a first step towards the end of the patent war, even though we still cannot speak of peace between the two giants.
This enormous number of trials or suits situations seems to be too high to be “patent rational” and based on solid basis. Patents are supposed to protect R&D investments and facilitate the diffusion of knowledge but in the Smartphone industry, it seems that they have another use. The actual patent system might allow Smartphone multinationals to use patent litigation as an easy weapon to hold back potential competitors. Apple sues Samsung in a country to try to avoid the company to sell Smartphone in this country, or actually to reduce its sales, in order to have a bigger market share in this land. And vice versa. That might be one of the reasons of existence of the so called “Smartphone Patent war”.
To continue with Lucy koh’s move, even if we noticed that the immediate effect were not conclusive, it might exhibit that another process in this Smartphone competition might be used. Indeed, the company Microsoft has shown how protecting intellectual property through licensing might appear to be more productive than engaging in expensive, time-consuming and unpredictable litigation. Microsoft, rather than engaging in legal action, it has in many cases struck licensing deals. Moreover, Professor Adam Mossoff (patent law expert at George Mason School of Law in Virginia), says that despite the apparent rush of litigation, history suggests such agreements may eventually become more common in the smartphone industry.

Sources:

https://www.engadget.com/2014/05/02/apple-vs-samsung-trial-verdict/

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/21/facebook-google-dell-hp-ebay-samsung-apple

http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/2014/05/19/lesson-from-the-smartphone-wars-litigation-is-not-a-business-plan/

https://www.ft.com/content/3eda6296-b711-11e2-a249-00144feabdc0

Show less
Reply
Pauline EXPOSITO
As we know, patent is supposed to reward investments and intelligence of innovative companies but in recent years, patent holders use this right and sue judicial actions to make access difficult for competitors. These practices take place to the detriment of future innovations and consumers. To illustrate this example, we can take one of the biggest High-tech trial of recent…
Read more

As we know, patent is supposed to reward investments and intelligence of innovative companies but in recent years, patent holders use this right and sue judicial actions to make access difficult for competitors. These practices take place to the detriment of future innovations and consumers. To illustrate this example, we can take one of the biggest High-tech trial of recent decades: Apple and Samsung’s trial. It opposite the two smartphone giants: Apple and Samsung, about what is commonly called today “Smartphone Patent Wars”. This war is comparable as an extensive litigation in fierce competition in the global market for consumer mobile communications.
Thus, to the view to appeasing patent disputes between these two companies, Lucy Koh, an US District Court Judge, asked to the respective CEO’s of the two firms to meet in April 2012; but what are the reasons which has led this sector to a “smartphone patents war” between his different actors?

Firstly, on the digital market, any smartphone can include tens of thousands of patented elements that’s why patents are a lethal judicial weapon to secure their titles. Then smartphone is a special and complicated innovation because it can be containing cumulative innovations; Scotchmer will introduce this notion by explaining that innovations are not only useful in themselves, they are also the foundation of future innovations. Innovations can be cumulative through two forms.
The first is the complementarity which describes the fact that we must bring together several innovations to arrive at the commercialization of a final good. But the problem raised by this type of innovation is called: the “tragedy of the anticommons”. It describes a situation in which the commercialization of final good depends on several patented innovations belonging to different patent holders; So, the difficulty in collecting ressources can lead to under-exploitation of innovation, it is the case for smartphones which contained most of the time a set of new patented technologies.
The second is sequentiality of innovation in which an innovator uses several research inputs to invent a new good. Consequently, the degree of patent protection affects the revenues and cost of the innovator, but also determines the incentives to invent the research inputs in the first place. The sequentiality of innovation sets the problem of: hold-up. It is widely agreed that a patent holdup may arise in the context of negotiations between a patent holder and an implementer when ex ante licensing is impractical and when the patent holder enjoys a larger bargaining power in ex post negotiations.
In addition to these two characteristics of cumulative innovations which make the patent war even more important; the large number of patents and actor’s diversity make compromises difficult between digital companies. Moreover, the market is increasingly competitive see almost saturated with regards to smartphones, so engaging in legal wars about patents becomes almost the only way for firms to defend themselves. Some players have called the competition authorities to regulate disputes but as mentioned in the text, several actor expresses doubt about her efficacity. In this article, we make the acquaintance of Lucy Koh, an American judge who is known for his competences, she pinned among others Google about the terms of use for the less blurry of Gmail. It is still she who has partly condemned Facebook to pay 20 million dollars to users. Maybe she will be able to find a compromise between Apple and Samsung…

To conclude, electronics companies are constantly developing new and higher quality products that require innovations that need to be protected, but in the “Smartphone patent war” they may be ordered to disclose their patents or to fines amounting to several million euros. However this war of patents can will be profitable for the consumer because it reduces the power of patent.

http://www.slate.fr/story/108725/lucy-koh-google-laisse
http://www.huffingtonpost.fr/2012/08/25/proces-samsung-apple-1-milliard-amende-gagne-change-monde-mobile_n_1820715.html
http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2015/09/23/les-brevets-victimes-collaterales-de-la-guerre-entre-apple-et-samsung_4768064_3232.html
http://bdc.aege.fr/public/Samsung_Apple_Une_guerre_complexe.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electronics_Co.
http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/09-148.pdf
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/ross_levine/papers/PatentHoldup_7may2014.pdf
https://www.ipdigit.eu/2016/06/what-is-patent-holdup-should-it-be-regulated-if-yes-how/

Show less
Reply
Allen  
To answer the first question, i'd say that Lucy Koh's efforts fell flat. The need for both companies to counteract the opponent's move are too strong and they won't back up anytime soon. By that I mean that, though dragging the opponent to court is costly and time consuming, both companies fight to prove that the opponent is copying them…
Read more

To answer the first question, i’d say that Lucy Koh’s efforts fell flat. The need for both companies to counteract the opponent’s move are too strong and they won’t back up anytime soon. By that I mean that, though dragging the opponent to court is costly and time consuming, both companies fight to prove that the opponent is copying them as a way of saying “look, I was the innovative one, he’s just been copying me all along”. For instance, apple sued Samsung for allegedly copying his patented phone and home screen designs, the case is yet to be battled in court.
Now I can understand Lucy Koh’s point of view, those patent wars are a waste of money and energy for both companies. Instead of focusing on innovation, they constantly drag each other to court and end up losing a lot of money.
Both companies are constantly striking each other back. As for now, the five year war is still going strong. I strongly doubt it is ever going to come to an end. It’s not about claiming its patent anymore, it’s more vicious than that, it’s about pointing the finger at the rival’s attempt to copy your ideas as a way to try and convince more consumers to buy your phone instead of the opponent’s phone. Winning a case is not about gaining money anymore or recovering its full right on a patent, it’s also a huge publicity stunt for the brand.

Sources:

http://www.inc.com/kevin-j-ryan/apple-samsung-supreme-court-ruling-patent-infringement.html
http://fortune.com/2016/02/26/apple-samsung-patent-appeal/
https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-vs-samsung-patents-lawsuit-legal-battle-district-court/

Show less
Reply
Virgile Pypaert
The number of cases related to smartphone patent violations seems to have decreased dramatically since the ruling in 2012 [1]. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. case has not been settled completely yet though: on the 6th December 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States broke the 2012 ruling because the patent infringements were on specific components of a…
Read more

The number of cases related to smartphone patent violations seems to have decreased dramatically since the ruling in 2012 [1]. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. case has not been settled completely yet though: on the 6th December 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States broke the 2012 ruling because the patent infringements were on specific components of a smartphone but not on everything [2]. Thus, it will be tried again at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 2017.

It is difficult to say if Mrs. Koh’s ruling is the only reason why there are less lawsuits about smartphone patent infringements. Indeed, the smartphone OS market has evolved a lot since then with several takeovers by the three big players: Apple, Google (though the acquisition of Motorola Mobility) and Microsoft (through the acquisition of Nokia) [3]. By doing that, each one has extended its portfolio of patents making it possible to play tough on court, potentially reducing the chance of being sued [3,4]. Besides that, Samsung is the largest distributor of Google Android meaning that Google has now a way to back up the device manufacturers who would be facing new trials.

I believe that when we face players that have that much influence on the market (when suing over key elements of a product), making a permanent ruling forcing patent cross-licensing agreement would be the most favourable option for the consumers. Indeed, Microsoft and Apple were facing the same issue between 1988 and 1994 regarding desktop computer OS GUI [5]. To keep the competition going, they were forced to settle to a cross-licencing of the violated patents and counter-measures to avoid that Apple and Microsoft lose too much due to litigations and mutual blocking. I believe that this settlement was a success given that both players managed to progress on the market since then without having to sue each other to block their competitor for the sake of blocking them…

References
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_patent_wars
[2] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/06/supreme-court-samsung-apple-smartphone-iphone-design-patent/94570296/
[3] http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2014/02/10/how-google-used-motorola-to-smack-down-samsung-twice/#3d4b2bb553ab
[4] http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2430130,00.asp
[5] http://openjurist.org/35/f3d/1435/apple-computer-inc-v-microsoft-corporation-apple-computer-inc

Show less
Reply
Maxime Pierrot
Since the US District Court Judge Lucy Koh have asked for a truce on the “Smartphone Patent Wars” in April 2012, the battle has continued. Indeed, after lawsuits have started in 2011 for “infringement of design patents”, more than a half hundred legal procedures have been undertaken between Samsung and Apple Inc. [1] . On the 6th December 2016, a…
Read more

Since the US District Court Judge Lucy Koh have asked for a truce on the “Smartphone Patent Wars” in April 2012, the battle has continued. Indeed, after lawsuits have started in 2011 for “infringement of design patents”, more than a half hundred legal procedures have been undertaken between Samsung and Apple Inc. [1] . On the 6th December 2016, a brand-new watershed in the fight between those two companies has taken place. After Apple Inc. has been awarded a $399 million, Samsung asked this decision to be reviewed. Actually $399 million is the entire profit made by the South Korean company thanks to its smartphones bearing the patented design. However, the decision of the Federal Circuit’s ruling has been contested as the verdict given considered the “article of manufacture” as being the end-product [2]. Nevertheless, in the case of multicomponent products – such as smartphones – the section 289 of the US Patent Act referencing “article of manufacture” must be interpreted as a component of this product [3]. This leads to charge Samsung a lower fine.

We can still wonder if this war is going to calm down. The number of smartphones sold worldwide seems to have known an increase of 10,1% in 2015 – according to IDC [4]. In a market still flourishing mainly due to the Developing countries, we know the competition will increase. However, some recent cases of agreement in this market may let us think the shape of the smartphones market is going to change [5]. Nonetheless with infringements that could bring hundreds of millions in fine to the patent holders, there is certainly no truce on the horizon.

[1] http://www.jobsnhire.com/articles/52898/20161213/apple-vs-samsung-latest-update-supreme-court-sided-samsung.htm
[2] http://www.natlawreview.com/article/supreme-court-rules-against-apple-design-patent-case-samsung-remands-to-federal
[3] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-777_7lho.pdf
[4] http://www.zdnet.fr/actualites/chiffres-cles-les-ventes-de-mobiles-et-de-smartphones-39789928.htm
[5] http://www.iam-media.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=c360c4b3-cdd0-4738-a3dc-a3aa8d87d5bf

Show less
Reply
Guillaume DE MUNTER
First of all, when it comes to determine whether or not Lucy Koh’s move was effective, we actually need to look at the facts. The attempt of Lucy Koh to calm down the fierce smartphone patent war occurred in april 2012. Unfortunately, we can still observe many twists and turns in the Samsung Vs Apple ongoing legal battle since 2012.…
Read more

First of all, when it comes to determine whether or not Lucy Koh’s move was effective, we actually need to look at the facts. The attempt of Lucy Koh to calm down the fierce smartphone patent war occurred in april 2012. Unfortunately, we can still observe many twists and turns in the Samsung Vs Apple ongoing legal battle since 2012. To illustrate this, we can for example mention the Apple’s victory in the slide-to-unlock patent case in october 2016. It is one of the latest chapter of the saga but it seems that the two giants are still spending much time and efforts for suing and countersuing each other. Many other cases still need to be studied by competition authorities. Beyond the financial aspect of the conflict, it also progressively became a matter of pride and a way to defend its position on the market

Therefore, it would look pretty obvious that Lucy Koh’s move was not effective. Nevertheless, my position needs to be nuanced. Indeed, the complexity of the american legal system doesn’t play in her favour. Each lawsuit takes much time, the looser often appeals against the decision of the court, etc. Then, we need to keep in mind that the attempt of Lucy Koh falls under a long-run approach. It is probably too early to judge it and it requires a whole picture of the situation. Nevertheless, I have to admit that I’m rather pessimistic. I’m convinced that they will both keep on defending their individual interests without really considering the consequences for the consumer.

Secondly, I would tend to say that competition laws obviously have a role to play so as to struggle against that phenomenon that the consumer finally pays himself. According to me, a simplification of the law processes is of prime importance when it comes to patent abuses between same firms. Indeed, even it’s easy to understand that much time is required to deliver a relevant judgement, I think that the situation is not optimal. It would require a best organisation but I think that all the complains between same firms should be treated in the same times in order to save time and money. I would also allow them to get a whole picture of the patent war.

Let us finally move on to the source of the problem: the overuse of the patent system. In my opinion, the patent requirements should be revised upwards. Even if there is a risk of discouraging the innovation linked to the patentability uncertainty, I’m deeply convinced that it may turn out to be effective to make the situation more optimal. The patent agencies should maybe be more precised when it comes to innovations so that it would be more easy for judges to find clear-cut solutions. I don’t have the pretention of proposing something but I afford to underline the fact that the heart of the problem comes from the patent system that is not optimal. By the way, we actually just need to read the article written by Nicolas Van Zeebroek to understand that patent agencies are clearly overtaken by innovators who overuse the patent system to slow down their competitors.

As a matter of conclusion, I’d like to raise some questions: Is the patent system optimal? Does the patent agency take into consideration the long-run potential abuses of new patents? Does the patent agency have a role of preventing patent abuses ? Is the promotion of R&D cooperation a solution to avoid such problems in the future ? But before, is it really feasable in a so complicated market ?

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-vs-samsung-patent-war-timeline/
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-10-10/apple-fights-samsung-at-u-s-high-court-as-smartphone-wars-wane
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/181422/20161007/samsung-vs-apple-patent-wars-apple-wins-120-million-slide-to-unlock-patent-case.htm

Van Zeebroeck Nicolas, « Développement et impact des stratégies de dépôt de brevets », Reflets et perspectives de la vie économique 3/2008 (Tome XLVII) , p. 87-100
URL : http://www.cairn.info/revue-reflets-et-perspectives-de-la-vie-economique-2008-3-page-87.htm.
DOI : 10.3917/rpve.473.0087.

Show less
Reply
Timothée Cosse
Lucy Koh was a bit optimistic thinking she or the Us law district could have any influence on wars between huge competitors such as Samsung and Apple. The fact that the war was about patent potential frauds made it even harder. As everyone who is a bit familiar with the subject knows, patent rights are sometimes ambiguous. The regional management…
Read more

Lucy Koh was a bit optimistic thinking she or the Us law district could have any influence on wars between huge competitors such as Samsung and Apple. The fact that the war was about patent potential frauds made it even harder. As everyone who is a bit familiar with the subject knows, patent rights are sometimes ambiguous. The regional management in Europe is an exception to the patent’s world. It is a field so complex that most of the time people just give up on their rights. As there was a retrial in 2013 for which we are still waiting for the verdict, I think we can agree that the move of Lucy was a failure.

So, as often, they aimed at the wrong target. If you give guns to people, they shoot at each other. The metaphor is a little strong but if you give patents to companies they will misuse them. In addition to that, do we really think the war between those two is only because of patent ? No we don’t. If it isn’t about patent rights, it will be about something else.

Treating the symptoms of a disease is not what makes people feeling better in the long run. In that particular case, it is the legislation that must be changed. As I already suggested it in a comment on the “patent trolls” article, a simple utility model could help the decision’s makers in their process. Apple is misusing its patents. We talked about “patent trolls”, I would like to talk about “patent bully”.

“slide-to-unlock patent”
“opening links to other applications”

This is like if Ferrari sued Porsche for making wheels and aerodynamic car body. Those patents should not even exist. They are both examples of why Apple is taking Samsung to court.

Apple is not an innovator anymore. They don’t want to face it, they are shaking at the idea that in a couple of years they may just become a distant memory. Therefore, they act as a castle under siege, trying to make larger and larger barriers in the aim of avoiding better innovators to take the crown.

The fact that smartphones exhibit complementarity and sequentiality makes it easy to patent every little component and program at the output or the origin of innovation. This is wrong. As already stated, the patent legislation and above all the patent’s legislation in the “technology” industry must rapidly be re-thought. This is needed in order to fit the current strategic-competitive model that shaped itself from these patent’s misuse opportunities.

To conclude, let us remind that patents were established in the industry to facilitate research and development process. In the smartphone industry, these patents are being used to serve as barriers. They prevent other companies to innovate, while giving a “comfort position” to their owners. Major changes in the legislation or even patent abolition are possible outcomes. But competitors are not ready to stop fighting, even if we get rid of their current “toy swords”. Bullies will still be bullies with or without patents.

https://www.engadget.com/2014/05/02/apple-vs-samsung-trial-verdict/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/de24f970-f8d0-11e0-a5f7-00144feab49a.html?ft_site=falcon#axzz1sr16j7Fi
https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-v-samsungs-latest-patent-trial-all-the-facts-you-need-to-know-faq/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/05/patent-reform-economists_n_2623537.html
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/theopriestley/2015/09/10/apples-core-problem-is-that-it-can-no-longer-innovate/&refURL=https://www.google.be/&referrer=https://www.google.be/

Show less
Reply
El Jilali Salahdin
In my point of view, hostilities in the smartphones field implying patents are not completely over. As the amount of features of smartphones and associated patents are increasing, the occurrence of patent infringements skyrockets in the same way, affecting the welfare of consumers at the end of the process, as it will imply a higher price. The effect of this…
Read more

In my point of view, hostilities in the smartphones field implying patents are not completely over. As the amount of features of smartphones and associated patents are increasing, the occurrence of patent infringements skyrockets in the same way, affecting the welfare of consumers at the end of the process, as it will imply a higher price. The effect of this phenomenon could have much higher negative externalities if the patent is about a crucial tool of Smartphone market (batteries, data storage…) leading to a monopoly with this patent’s holder. Indeed, a decreasing economic wealth, especially of consumers would arise since they will at the end face resulted losses.

Moreover such patent war has obviously a negative externality on the welfare. It can be highlighted by the tragedy of anticommons. It states that different patent holders getting property right stopping a third party to use it will lead to a non-appropriate use of the resources. By doing so, we would be in a case of a socially not optimal outcome. Giving incentives to these rights holder to cooperate would result to a better outcome, in a social point of view.

On another side of the problem, doubts can be made about the decision of Lucy Koh about stopping the war between Samsung and Apple. It may not be a long term solution to ban such behaviour of both companies as it would not change subsequently the goal of those companies to acquire a higher market share. Patent could lead to imitate the intervention of competitors in specific area.
Lastly,I think market regulation and harmonization of different countries’ regulation, maybe worldwide, could lead to higher incentive to stop this harmful war in term of economic welfare but also in term of cost efficiency since lawsuits are very costly ( a half trillion since 1990). However, since it implies consequent revenues for lawyers for example, the experience shows that they lobby hardly to counteract introduction of such legislation. ( cf reject of US patent Act even if it has been voted in first time).Even if such legislation would exist, it wouldn’t last long time since smartphones apps become obsolete ,in many cases, after 4-5 years.

In conclusion, we can state that the willingness of Lucy Koh is a good beginning since he gives incentives to Apple and Samsung to collaborate. Still, there is a need to change the patent legislation. This change can only be effective if it results of an independent process (avoiding lobbyist pressure). Harmonized legislation system and collaboration between companies would be a big plus to achieve an optimal social outcome.

Sources:

(1) LLSMS2041: Economics of Innovation’ slides
(2) Patents: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA&feature=youtu.be, 4/19/2015
(3) Apple v. Samsung: Why is Judge Koh so angry? , Greg Sandoval , https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-v-samsung-why-is-judge-koh-so-angry/

Show less
Reply
Alexis Loriers
As we have seen in the article, the smartphone patent war is a current business battle by smartphone manufacturers. This comment will develop this topic and more precisely whether or not competition law could play a useful role in achieving a truce in this war. Afterwards, I will try to put forwards solutions that will, according to me, push the…
Read more

As we have seen in the article, the smartphone patent war is a current business battle by smartphone manufacturers. This comment will develop this topic and more precisely whether or not competition law could play a useful role in achieving a truce in this war. Afterwards, I will try to put forwards solutions that will, according to me, push the industry back to a path where consumers benefit more of inventions than patent litigators.

The issue raise in the article is the fact that smartphones companies are spending more money to defend themselves rather than investing in innovations in order to improve their products. It leads to a lose-lose situation between companies at the expense of customers and global welfare. The issue is that innovations patented are not game changing innovations but common and simple smartphone features. Therefore, I think that the only reason to patent these “innovations” is to try to put a spoke in competitors’ wheel and avoid innovations from them.

Because companies must satisfy their shareholders which are looking for short-term profit, it will be difficult to let the situation be solved by companies alone and to find ways in achieving a truce. For example, as seen in the article, in April 2012, Lucy Koh, tried to intervene between Apple and Samsung’s war. Even if its ideas were interesting, it appears to be useless.

As I see it, to get the best of R&D and thus the best innovations, the smartphone sector needs a flourishing ecosystem where companies can use other’s innovations to constantly improve their own products, instead of trying to go to court to weaken the competitors. That’s why, in my opinion, the “Shield act” in the US is a step forward and could help to create this ecosystem. It forces the losing party to pay the full litigation costs. Therefore, the “Shield Act” target patent trolls’ incentives right trough the heart. As described in the article, these companies make broad claims of infringement and force most defendants to choose to settle at a cheaper price than a lawsuit. It is very unfair and these practices should be avoided thanks to competition laws. I tend to think that these kinds of measures will force smartphones companies to be certain that what they are claiming is right and that they are sure to win the litigation. Because they won’t take the risk to loose the lawsuit and thus to pay all the litigation cost. In addition, loosing a patent case could affect their reputation badly.

To conclude, competition laws should prevent smartphones companies form litigate their competitors for weakening them as the only reason. It will end up this patented war and it will offer them incentives and a flourishing environment to innovate. In the long-term, every companies will benefit from this competition laws. Because, they will save a large amount of money from litigations that they will invest in innovations resulting in a boost in sales.

https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/10/ending-patent-wars-will-be-a-huge-boon-to-the-tech-industry/
https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9072
http://eu-competitionlaw.com/litigation-as-an-abuse-eu-commission-draws-a-line-under-patent-wars-court-actions/
https://www.ipdigit.eu/2013/11/the-smartphone-patent-wars-nothing-really-surprising/

Show less
Reply
Tonneau Mattis
I have chosen to answer the first question: “Was Lucy Koh’s move effective? » It is clear that the truce on the “Smartphone Patent War” failed. In fact, after 2012, Apple and Samsung have continued to sue each other for patent infringements. For example in 2014, a new important trial was still about smartphone and tablet patents, but the concerned…
Read more

I have chosen to answer the first question: “Was Lucy Koh’s move effective? »
It is clear that the truce on the “Smartphone Patent War” failed. In fact, after 2012, Apple and Samsung have continued to sue each other for patent infringements. For example in 2014, a new important trial was still about smartphone and tablet patents, but the concerned devices were different (the Galaxy S3 and Iphone 4S). Samsung has also appealed multiple times to have reduced sentences or judgments overturned since 2012.

Is this “Smartphone War” endless?
The patent war was especially fierce between 2012 and 2014 and is now calmer but still exists. The Smartphone market is very competitive and innovative so companies always need to develop their technologies and produce innovative products. That’s why they use patents and are fighting each other, for having the rights to use their new innovations.
But for a few companies this war will have significant detrimental consequences for the continued development of useful modern technologies. For example, Google, Facebook, Dell, HP, eBay and a collection of other large Silicon Valley companies have sided with Samsung in its battle over patents with Apple. They supported Samsung appeal in 2014 over damages related to alleged patent infringement. The coalition supports that if Samsung has to pay, it would be detrimental to the development of the industry and consumer choice.
They also say: “If allowed to stand, that decision will lead to absurd results and will have a devastating impact on companies who spend billions of dollars annually on research and development for complex technologies and their components”.

In my opinion, I totally agree with the coalition. If companies have to spend money in trials instead of research and development, they can’t focus themselves on new technologies and the consumer expectations.

Moreover, I think that this “Smartphone patent War” is also negative for the smartphone market. For example, small companies don’t have the resources to fight themselves on the court against big companies like Samsung or Apple. Then, all these trials cause a climate of fear on the market that is negative for the producers.

To conclude my comment, I believe that the “Smartphone Patent War” should quickly stop. Companies are loosing money in this war whereas if they collaborate they could be all winners. A good understanding between the concurrent would allow a better development of the Smartphones technology and innovations.
As the first goal of companies is first to make money and not to develop innovation, they do not share their technologies.
Furthermore as shareholders require benefits, the companies want to be the best and the biggest on the market and they fight each other for patents. This joins the following question: are patents benefits for innovation?

sources:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-vs-samsung-patent-war-timeline/
http://fortune.com/2016/02/26/apple-samsung-patent-appeal/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/03/21/the-smartphone-patent-war-between-apple-and-samsung-is-headed-to-the-supreme-court/?utm_term=.729a155b235f
https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-v-samsungs-latest-patent-trial-all-the-facts-you-need-to-know-faq/
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/21/facebook-google-dell-hp-ebay-samsung-app

Show less
Reply
Victor Snoy
Was Lucy Koh’s move effective? Did the ‘Smartphone Patent Wars’ calm down over the last months or did they go on with a vengeance? To answer this question, it is important to recall why and when did these ‘Smartphone Patent Wars’ really begin? It all really started in 2009 with a sharp growth of the smartphone market. Android smartphones (such…
Read more

Was Lucy Koh’s move effective? Did the ‘Smartphone Patent Wars’ calm down over the last months or did they go on with a vengeance?

To answer this question, it is important to recall why and when did these ‘Smartphone Patent Wars’ really begin? It all really started in 2009 with a sharp growth of the smartphone market. Android smartphones (such as Samsung) became more and more efficient and rapidly gained market shares in those years. This became a concern for Apple as demonstrated by the meeting between Steven Jobs and Eric Schmidt (Google CEO) about what M. Jobs considered as plagiarism of the iPhone features in Android.

A patent war is not a new phenomenon and we can expect more of such episodes in the future. After getting through few articles I am quite concerned about the patent system in the technology industry. It does not look updated to the speed of development neither to the whole industry.
Since Lucy Koh’s move, it seems like not much has changed on the legal framework. When I mention ‘legal framework’, I am talking about the patent system with the jurisdictions, processes and such related to that. However, some companies like Samsung got certain fines reduced or the judgement overturned after having appealed. Furthermore, in 2014, Apple and Samsung agreed to stop the patent lawsuits outside of the United States. Some companies, such as Google, are now supporting Samsung in its fight against Apple. This is to highlight the fact that there is a motion coming from the heart of the industry emphasizing a real problem that benefits to for instance shareholders but that hurts consumers as it can be felt in the price. However, we have to take perspective on moves like Google supporting Samsung as the latest use the Android’s software produced by Google itself.

To conclude, I would say that Lucy Koh’s move among others probably calmed down this war, but I will insist on the fact that this issue is far from over. As long as the system does not change and adapt itself, there will be incentives for big corporations like Apple to take on legal actions against their rivals. If it is not them, it will be others. Apparently in those businesses money talks, which leaves not much room to moral and the real objective of the patent system.

Sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/03/21/the-smartphone-patent-war-between-apple-and-samsung-is-headed-to-the-supreme-court/?utm_term=.a54a6a873bbc

https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/10/ending-patent-wars-will-be-a-huge-boon-to-the-tech-industry/

https://www.ft.com/content/3eda6296-b711-11e2-a249-00144feabdc0

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/jan/24/smartphones-timeline

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/21/facebook-google-dell-hp-ebay-samsung-apple

Show less
Reply
Mertes Thibault
Question choose : "Was Lucy Koh’s move effective? Did the ‘Smartphone Patent Wars’ calm down over the last months or did they go on with a vengeance?" First of all, to answer this question we have to understand how huge are these actors. If we look at the market…
Read more

Question choose : “Was Lucy Koh’s move effective? Did the ‘Smartphone Patent Wars’ calm down over the last months or did they go on with a vengeance?”

First of all, to answer this question we have to understand how huge are these actors. If we look at the market share Apple and Samsung have 22,2% and 16,1% respectively. That’s represent 319 and 231 millions of units. They are the two most important smartphone’s providers for the entire world behind them we found brand such as Huawei (7,4%). All these figures are average for the 2015 results.

The whole story begin in april 2011, when Apple filed suit against Samsung. Samsung was accused of copying the look and the feel of the Iphones. Next year a nine-person jury chose the Apple’s side, allowing the company having an amount of 1.05 billion dollars, which is under the 2.75 guessed. In counterpart Samsung didn’t receive anything. We are in 2012 and the judge was Lucy Koh, she tried a new move to make a end happen for this endless war between the two smartphone’s giants.
“She ordered Tim Cook and Choi Gee-Sung, the CEOs of Apple and Samsung, to meet and work out their bitter and prolonged patent disputes.” She had also recalled the jury to recalculate one of the damage figure.

Each company have his own argue against the other one which is : The financial risk that Apple did previously in R&D to develop the first Iphone, is their argue. On the other side Samsung argue that Apple do everything to hurt the competition, they also argue that Apple had inferred some of its patents.
It’s seems that a reconciliation is off to a poor start when we have a look on the company’s reactions:
– Apple said Friday, following the verdict:
“Today’s ruling reinforces what courts around the world have already found: that Samsung willfully stole our ideas and copied our products. We are fighting to defend the hard work that goes into beloved products like the iPhone, which our employees devote their lives to designing and delivering for our customers.”
– Samsung said Monday, following the jury recalculation:
“We agree with the jury’s decision to reject Apple’s grossly exaggerated damages claim. Although we are disappointed by the finding of infringement, we are vindicated that for the second time in the US, Apple has been found to infringe Samsung’s patents. It is our long history of innovation and commitment to consumer choice, that has driven us to become the leader in the mobile industry today.”

In a first time the move of the judge was really smart according to me, showing them of much money they loose in trials for patents rather than using this money for the consumer welfare which is at the end the product’s buyer. And it works at the begining as it was the case in 2013, with the Samsung’s move to Apple in front of the EU commission.

But according to me and some recent events the war between Samsung and Apple is far from the end, because they compete on a really specific market and the gap between all these smartphones is too small. They want to reach the same goal with quite similar products, therefore it seems impossible with the actual patents laws and regulations to reach a peaceful market.

Sources:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/samsung-v-apple-sales-and-revenue-statistics-2015-10

http://www.macrumors.com/2016/01/28/samsung-vs-apple-smartphone-sales-2015/

https://www.ipdigit.eu/2013/11/the-smartphone-patent-wars-nothing-really-surprising/

https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/eu-samsung-offers-ceasefire-in-patent-wars/

Show less
Reply
Céline de Vos
The action of Lucy Koh’s wasn’t that effective. Indeed in 2014, Apple then sued Samsung for $2bn. Samsung’s appeal is still ongoing, and now supported by a Silicon Valley coalition. And in March 21, 2016 the Washington post writes “The smartphone patent war between Apple and Samsung is headed to the Supreme Court” The Silicon Valley coalition believes that the court…
Read more

The action of Lucy Koh’s wasn’t that effective. Indeed in 2014, Apple then sued Samsung for $2bn. Samsung’s appeal is still ongoing, and now supported by a Silicon Valley coalition. And in March 21, 2016 the Washington post writes “The smartphone patent war between Apple and Samsung is headed to the Supreme Court”

The Silicon Valley coalition believes that the court judgment would be detrimental to the development of the industry and consumer choice. Their point is that the decision would have an impact on companies that spend a lot on R&D for technologies and their components.

The competition law could play a useful role. All this fighting is the proof that the United States Patent System is weakening. It’s time to re-examine the system with respect to smartphone patents, and consider workable alternatives.
The main problem in the smartphone industry is that patents aren’t protecting innovators and promoting technological advances, but they’re use to fend off competitors and keep out new entrants. And the big losers are the consumers who are subsidizing patent disputes by paying higher prices for phones.

A solution would be to examine the issuance of the patent. This would decrease the number of patents that are being granted too liberally. In addition to reducing them, a new legislation could limit the time period of their validity. Smartphone technologies are outdated after one or two years so having longer time for patent isn’t necessary. Another solution could be setting out a restriction on patent lawsuits. Only parties who actually use the patents within a specified period of time could bring a lawsuit, or else they lose the patent.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/21/facebook-google-dell-hp-ebay-samsung-apple

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/03/21/the-smartphone-patent-war-between-apple-and-samsung-is-headed-to-the-supreme-court/?utm_term=.3bae9e86bf95

http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1071&context=jolti

Show less
Reply
Serge Cornet
It all started 6 years ago with the launch of the new smartphone Galaxy S who opposed directly the Iphone. Since then, Apple and Samsung have been in a fierce battle by suing each other on different patents infrigments. In april 2012, a Us District court Judge named Lucy Koh tried to find an arrangement between those two giants by…
Read more

It all started 6 years ago with the launch of the new smartphone Galaxy S who opposed directly the Iphone. Since then, Apple and Samsung have been in a fierce battle by suing each other on different patents infrigments. In april 2012, a Us District court Judge named Lucy Koh tried to find an arrangement between those two giants by ordering them to meet and discuss their conflict. In this essay, we are going to see if the initiative of Lucy Koh was effective and if it has improved the conflict.

Now, let’s introduce this topic by defining what is really the Smartphone patent wars. The Smartphone patent wars is a fight between loads of different smartphone manufacturers battling over patent litigation. There are numberous of different smartphone manufacturers but it all began with a trial between Nokia and HTC quickly followed by Samsung and Apple. Many people think that this war could generate a decrease in the innovation caused by the fear to be sued and the different fines that could be encountered.

For those reasons, Lucy Koh, a judge from the north district of Claifornia tried to have them talk to each other. First of all, It’s always better to prevent than to heal. Secondly, we can easily see that her idea to put them together has bring her various informations. For instance, a better understanding of why they are on the back of each other, how the situation between them personally is going on and how she could manage to do something about it.

However, If we have to see it from an outside perspective. We can see that her incentive to have peace between them hadn’t work at all. Clearly, this try was a total disaster. After 2012, the battle between Apple and Samsung increased sharply. In 2010, it was a fine of 1 billion who was reduced over the years to 400 millions (due to the multiple trials between them). Every time Apple sued Samsung for any patents infrigments, Samsung countersued them for others. Today the supreme court agreed that the fine of 400 millions was too high and should be reduced. As we can see, they won’t stop to battle even with the intervention of the judge. Steve Jobs hated Samsung product and once said that it was stolen from Apple. But there is worse. With the jump of different battle between Nokia and HTC or Apple and Samsung, we can see that every smartphones manufacturer is suing or is sued by someone now.

To summarize, even if judge Koh tried to do her best, it didn’t solve anything between the two giants that are Samsung and Apple. It plateau’d and in some years it even became worse (2014 ⇒ Fine of 2 billion). Although she tried her best, she couldn’t manage to do anything to solve their quarrel. It became even worse over the years with the rise of a numberous of different grievance between smartphones maker for patent infrigment. This war won’t end until different laws are taken againt patent infrigments or against the suppliers.

http://www.phonandroid.com
https://www.theguardian.com
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/lhk
https://www.cnet.com
http://www.zone-numerique.com
http://www.digitaltrends.com

Show less
Reply
Anne-Sophie Ries
I will answer to the first question. First of all, I think Lucy Koh had a good idea even if it doesn't work. Indeed, the war between Samsung and Apple continues. It all started in 2012 and 2 years later , in 2014, Apple and Samsung returned in the same courtroom. This is much more than just a patent war…
Read more

I will answer to the first question.

First of all, I think Lucy Koh had a good idea even if it doesn’t work. Indeed, the war between Samsung and Apple continues.
It all started in 2012 and 2 years later , in 2014, Apple and Samsung returned in the same courtroom. This is much more than just a patent war ; for Apple, it’s about pride in its inventions and protecting its position in the market. For Samsung, it’s about proving the company is an innovator.

And the story continues, those 2 companies had pay damages, then court’s ruling means Samsung will not be required to pay $120 million in patent-infringement damages, Apple changes its positions, … Each tries to throw up roadblocks of the other. And in 2015, the Silicon Valley have sided with Samsung in its battle with Apple. It doesn’t help to ease the tensions.

Now, it’s seem to be more peaceful but these 2 will always fight to protect heir ideas.

Stay informed, more in the next episode !

https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-v-samsungs-latest-patent-trial-all-the-facts-you-need-to-know-faq/
http://fortune.com/2016/02/26/apple-samsung-patent-appeal/
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/21/facebook-google-dell-hp-ebay-samsung-apple

Show less
Reply
Dylan Weverbergh
Considering the fierce economic situation of the smartphone industry, Lucy Koh’s intention was to calm down the “Smartphone Patent Wars” existing for years now between the two big Companies that are Apple and Samsung. But as you might know, it didn’t pay off. The two companies are still suing each other and other firms came also in this conflict. It has…
Read more

Considering the fierce economic situation of the smartphone industry, Lucy Koh’s intention was to calm down the “Smartphone Patent Wars” existing for years now between the two big Companies that are Apple and Samsung. But as you might know, it didn’t pay off.

The two companies are still suing each other and other firms came also in this conflict.
It has gained an incredible awareness in the hole world and there are more and more companies that are hiding behind this “patent infringement” label. Companies are facing an industry where competition and innovation reign. Every innovation becomes so crucial and important to the firm that they put a patent on it as soon as possible. Competition is by the way so fierce that every possible patent infringement will be analysed on the competitors within sight the amounts of money they can win.

The Apple and Samsung’s conflict has been the example for many others and the way into a new way of acting against competitors. Moreover, Samsung has recently won a patent fight against Apple (2016) and there might be another case that will be brought to the supreme court. You can imagine that this war is far away from peace and is taking huge implications in the smartphone industry.

It has been showed that fierce competition can bring great innovations such as the introduction of the Google mobile industry giving free access to their operating system (Android) which has led Apple and Samsung to give a free access to a comparable software.
But in this case, what was seen as a competition and a market stabilization by Lucy Koh to improve the innovation path in this sector has been taken the opposite effect. Samsung has started to enjoy the fact of winning against Apple and is feeling more powerful against the number one competitor. If any law is introduced to regulate this patent war, we can expect to face a world where this way of acting against competitors may be put in front instead of investing in research and development to innovate.

Sources:

https://www.ipdigit.eu/2012/03/mobile-industry-in-googles-cross-hairs/

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/de24f970-f8d0-11e0-a5f7-00144feab49a.html?ft_site=falcon#axzz1sr16j7Fi

https://www.ft.com/content/3eda6296-b711-11e2-a249-00144feabdc0

http://www.manzellareport.com/index.php/manufacturing/700-the-impact-of-the-apple-samsung-patent-wars

http://fortune.com/2016/02/26/apple-samsung-patent-appeal/

Show less
Reply
Thibault Hannesse
To answer the first question, I think we can say that Lucy Koh's move was partially effective. At first, it didn't change anything. There was a retrial in 2013 (Samsung's appeal on its sentence is still pending at this time) and one year later, Apple even initiated another 2 billion dollar trial. But later on Apple and Samsung were pushed,…
Read more

To answer the first question, I think we can say that Lucy Koh’s move was partially effective. At first, it didn’t change anything. There was a retrial in 2013 (Samsung’s appeal on its sentence is still pending at this time) and one year later, Apple even initiated another 2 billion dollar trial. But later on Apple and Samsung were pushed, under the constantly evolving market conditions and the rather disappointing lawsuit outcomes, to sign their first partial peace treaty. The two companies decided in August 2014 to abandon all the cases outside of the United States. This can thus be considered as a first step towards the end of the patent war, even though we still cannot speak of peace between the two giants.

My opinion is that the origin of this two-way war between Apple and Samsung is the patent system itself. Patents are supposed to protect R&D investments and facilitate the diffusion of knowledge but in the Smartphone industry, they’re used for totally opposite reasons. The actual system allows Smartphone giants to use patent litigation as an easy weapon to hold back potential competitors. It has become that bad that the actual main concern of start-ups no longer the fear of someone stealing up their idea is, but the fear of a patent troll threaten to bankrupt them. Presently, new companies have to spend their resources to defend themselves instead of investing in innovation. This situation totally goes against the initial mean of creating a patent protection system. It represents a lose-lose situation for the society and for the companies themselves.

It’s seems obvious to me that patents need to be used differently. When you see how much time and money Apple has spent in its patent war (over 1 billion dollar), you can easily understand why something has to change. Mark Lemley, professor at Stanford Law School, says that “patents are only useful when they deliver innovation to consumers that they would not otherwise get”. This is for example the case in the pharmaceutical industry, where patents are only valid during a short amount of time, in order for the company to recover its costs of investment. Without these patents, pharmaceutical companies wouldn’t be able to afford any investment in R&D and no innovation would be created. This example shows how patents can create value for society. In the Smartphone industry however, patents are only beneficial for the bigger companies and do not create much value for society. Moreover, patents in the Smartphone industry are counterproductive, as they prevent smaller companies to grow. For these reasons, I wonder if we shouldn’t find alternative solutions for patents in the Smartphone industry.

Sources:
https://www.engadget.com/2014/05/02/apple-vs-samsung-trial-verdict/
http://perso.uclouvain.be/paul.belleflamme/papers/TrollsPBAS.pdf
https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/10/ending-patent-wars-will-be-a-huge-boon-to-the-tech-industry/
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=980776.

Show less
Reply
Robin Carrozza
I will try to answer to the first question : « Was Lucy Koh’s move effective? Did the ‘Smartphone Patent Wars’ calm down over the last months or did they go on with a vengeance? » To try to answer the question, it’s important to have the context of these trials and for that, here are three questions, what is…
Read more

I will try to answer to the first question : « Was Lucy Koh’s move effective? Did the ‘Smartphone Patent Wars’ calm down over the last months or did they go on with a vengeance? »

To try to answer the question, it’s important to have the context of these trials and for that, here are three questions, what is the motivation behind these attacks ? which companies are affected ?What is the result on the economy of new technology ?

After the various attacks of Apple, we could see that the primary motivation behind these attacks is purely financial. Indeed, the American intellectual property law says that “even if the patented features contribute 1% of the value of Samsung’s phones, Apple gets 100% of Samsung’s profits ». Some people oppposed to this decision as Charles Duan, Director of Public knowledge’s Patent Reform Project who said : « “When you have a big disconnect between the value of a patent and the amount of money that can be awarded for the infringement of a patent, you end up with really bad incentives,”

It is also clear that there are other motivations such as : shares in the US market. if Apple manages to remove the “copied” products from the market, the weakening of a competitor condemned for plagiarism, and so on.

The fight was not limited to these two companies. Indeed, several companies of the sillicon valley support Samsung in its fight, we can cite among other Facebook, Dell or Google. « The companies argued that if Apple’s victories are allowed to stand, it could unleash a series of subsequent patent lawsuits utilizing the same intellectual property to target other device makers. Those lawsuits, the coalition said, would negatively affect the development of “useful modern technologies” and “have a devastating impact on companies.”

The problem for the economy is at the customer level. Indeed, it is a safe bet that the tremendous fines as well as the amounts devoted by the two parts to the various trials have a direct impact on the price of the products manufactured by these two companies.

To conclude, we can say that the war is not ended yet …. And is far from being. In fact, the war is not getting worse but the trials are endless. It is very difficult to know exactly how much each company owes to the other. Because each company was convicted several times, and each decision went on appeal which had the effect of decreasing the amount of the fine. The move of Lucy Koh has certainly avoided that things get even worse, but the result today is that both companies are still on trial and this has effects on the economy.

Sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/03/21/the-smartphone-patent-war-between-apple-and-samsung-is-headed-to-the-supreme-court/?utm_term=.beccef8b9662

http://fortune.com/2016/02/26/apple-samsung-patent-appeal/

Show less
Reply
Hattori Tatsuaki  
I would like to answer the second question “Could competition law play a useful role in achieving a truce in the smartphone patent war?” The first part “Could competition law play a useful role in achieving a truce in the smartphone patent war?”, in my opinion, it is difficult for competition law to play a…
Read more

I would like to answer the second question “Could competition law play a useful role in achieving a truce in the smartphone patent war?”
The first part “Could competition law play a useful role in achieving a truce in the smartphone patent war?”, in my opinion, it is difficult for competition law to play a useful role. To make my opinion convincing, let me quote one interesting arguments. [1] “antitrust policy cannot be made rationale until we are able to give a firm answer to one question: What is the point of the law – what are its goals? […] Only when the issue of goals has been settled is it possible to frame a coherent body of substantive rules.” According to this statement, we should set the rules, competition policy after setting its goals. There seems to be a lot of goals, promoting innovation, maintains of competitive markets, gaining efficiency, benefiting consumers and so on. Focusing on two goals, promoting innovation and benefitting consumers, competition law can be useful at first sight. However, when we think about applying competition law to some markets, we have to avoid two kinds of errors: type one error (over-enforcement) and type two error (under-enforcement). Type 1 is occurred when antitrust authorities (AA) rejecting a practice that does not harm competition, ultimately practice that is beneficial for consumers. On the contrary, type 2 is occurred when AA accepting a practice that is decreasing competition. In the case of smartphone patent war, estimating potential loss and benefit of intervention is very difficult because the characteristics of smartphone market: cumulative innovation and its size of the market. There exists a kind of block patents in the patents in cumulative innovation. Thus, it can slow down the speed of innovation. However, removing their patent rights will decrease their profits rapidly, it means they will not be able to invest in R&D as well as before intervention. For AAs, they have to estimate which loss is larger, but it seems to be impossible. Hence, for AAs, “do not intervene too much” is optimal way so as not to disturb the market. Above all, I think competition law can’t play useful role in this situation.
Assume firms are “profit pursuing players”, push them back to a path where consumers benefit more of inventions than patent litigators is also difficult issue. Even if firms’ strategies are not based on social or consumers surplus, their strategy, such as being patent litigators, can be optimal action. Thus, I think that what we can do is at most consume their products and stimulate their minds to investment.

References
[1] R. Bork “The Antitrust Paradox”

Slides used in LECON2372 “The goals of competition policy”

Show less
Reply
Alvaro Jimenez
The market of mobile phone manufacturers is an attractive market as the profits may be huge in the case of succeeding; that's why there are so many companies in this market and therefore the competition is quite high. Due to this competition, companies have been suing and contrasuing each other since 2010 for patent litigation because they want to prevent…
Read more

The market of mobile phone manufacturers is an attractive market as the profits may be huge in the case of succeeding; that’s why there are so many companies in this market and therefore the competition is quite high. Due to this competition, companies have been suing and contrasuing each other since 2010 for patent litigation because they want to prevent competitors from using the same methods the patent covers in order to secure and increase their market share. This is called the “smartphone patent wars”.
Nowadays the two most important mobile phone manufacturers are Samsung and Apple, which have been at war over patents since 2011. By July 2012, the two companies were embroiled in more than 50 lawsuits around the world, with billions of dollars in damages claimed between them. While Apple won a ruling in its favor in the U.S., Samsung won rulings in South Korea, Japan, and the UK.

Because of these patent wars, these companies are divesting huge resources to defend themselves rather than advancing their innovations. What’s best for innovation and for us, the consumers, is a thriving ecosystem in which companies build on each other’s ideas and constantly reinvent themselves, instead of trying to slow each other down in the courts.
Lucy Koh’s intention when she asked the CEOs of Apple and Samsung to meet and discuss their patent disputes was great as she wanted them to realise that these patent wars were taking them nowhere and they should stop them. However, the companies kept with their war so, unfortunately, her move was not effective.

According to some experts, the money that can be awarded for the infringement of a patent may be higher than the value of a patent itself so that could be the reason why they kept this fight. Nevertheless, this could finish with a change of the patent law, as respecting a patent shouldn’t be that difficult.
Indeed, in 2014, a jury ordered Samsung to pay Apple $119.6 million in damages for infringing on three Apple patents. They were simple and common smartphone features.

To conclude, I would like to add that, from my point of view, smartphone patent wars will continue unless there is a change of the patent law, as otherwise these companies have incentitives to keep the war as they just care about their benefits. We should find an end to these wars as not only innovation is affected but also the consumers, who must pay higher prices for their mobile phones.

Sources:

-https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/10/ending-patent-wars-will-be-a-huge-boon-to-the-tech-industry/
-https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/03/21/the-smartphone-patent-war-between-apple-and-samsung-is-headed-to-the-supreme-court/?utm_term=.d12617328c3d
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_patent_wars

Show less
Caroline Emaer
As we can see, the patent war between Apple and Samsung doesn’t come to an end. In December 2015, Samsung paid Apple $548 million. In 2016, Apple lost some of its patents. In 2016 again, Samsung had to withdraw some of its models because of Apple. In my opinion, Lucy Koh’s approach has not worked very well. But now, the dynamic…
Read more

As we can see, the patent war between Apple and Samsung doesn’t come to an end. In December 2015, Samsung paid Apple $548 million. In 2016, Apple lost some of its patents. In 2016 again, Samsung had to withdraw some of its models because of Apple.

In my opinion, Lucy Koh’s approach has not worked very well. But now, the dynamic play of patent rights and market competition is ready to stabilize and to calm down. It is not really thanks to the Lucy Koh’s intervention but rather because the innovations decline in this area. It will start again for other new technologies like 3D printers, for example. Indeed, Stratasys and 3D Systems are fighting, just as Apple and Samsung. They are more and more agressive and take startups to court over patents.

Because of these patent wars and patent trolls, technology companies are spending a lot of time and money defending themselves rather than investing in R&D. Not to mention that these fights are about futilities. As a consequence of this patent war, the smartphone market is locked by intellectual property.

Companies should clearly work together and improve their devices from the ideas of others, to boost innovation. But obviously, it does not suit them. For now, they are only slowing each other. It discourages potential new entrants. That being said, Huawei and Lenovo have done well.

A good example is the existing strategic relationship between Microsoft Corp. and Lenovo. Steve Berkowitz, senior vice president of the Online Services Group at Microsoft is convinced of the utility of their collaboration: « Working with a globally scaled PC maker like Lenovo, we can help millions of people worldwide use Windows Live services to connect to the people and information they care about most. » In this case, their customers are winners too.

Another example is the one about Google and Microsoft agreement. Last year, they brought an end to 20 lawsuits. They even spoke about working together in the future to benefit their customers.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8c3cf7bf-2c94-4b19-a2a7-060e98d71a3e
https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/10/ending-patent-wars-will-be-a-huge-boon-to-the-tech-industry/
http://fortune.com/2015/12/05/samsung-apple-timeline-settlement/
http://news.lenovo.com/news-releases/microsoft-and-lenovo-connect-customers-to-integrated-online-services.htm
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/09/30/google-microsoft-agree-to-end-years-long-patent-war-

Show less
Reply
Minet Paul-Henri
Lucy Koh’s move started from a good intention but doesn’t worked. In fact, patent wars are now not just between Apple and Samsung but also between other firms of the industry like Nokia or LG but also companies such as Amazon,… The litigation began in 2011 when Apple sued Samsung for copying design of the Iphone and using it to produce a…
Read more

Lucy Koh’s move started from a good intention but doesn’t worked.
In fact, patent wars are now not just between Apple and Samsung but also between other firms of the industry like Nokia or LG but also companies such as Amazon,…
The litigation began in 2011 when Apple sued Samsung for copying design of the Iphone and using it to produce a competing phone.
The battle is not over yet but different payments have already been made.
In 2012, the jury sided with Apple saying that the Korean company did copy the design and didn’t respect patents of Apple. Samsung was condemned, as written in the patent law, to pay “the total profit” to the American firm.
This term is confusing because it can mean that even if the patented features contributed to a small value of Samsung’s phones, Apple gets all Samsung’s profits. The law is not effective because currently the patent holder can claim all the profit of the infringer which gives an incentive to continue the patent war and may even lead to patent trolling. According to Charles Duan, director of Public Knowledge’s Patent Reform Project : “If it stands, the total damages awarded to Apple in the case could lead to a new wave of patent trolling focused on design elements because makers of multi-component technology may end up on the hook for all their profits due to one minor infringing feature. When you have a big disconnect between the value of a patent and the amount of money that can be awarded for the infringement of a patent, you end up with really bad incentives.”
Samsung said that a smartphone contains thousands of components and it is not fair that it has to pay all its phone’s profits just for a design patent.
Apple counters that the whole design sells the phone and strong patents on design is necessary to spur innovation which implies strong punishment against those who stole the ideas.

Since 2011, the two companies are constantly fighting. They are suing each other, trying to block sales in different countries through patent violation. This may finally end in 2017 in the Supreme Court but I don’t think that it will end the patent wars problem between them. Even after this they will probably continue to revenge, attacking through others patents.
This may lead to a situation where companies are paying more on patent wars than on R&D and it is evident that consumers will be hurt (for example higher prices).

The patent problem is directly influenced by the phone industry that is complementary and sequentially : The knowledge is building up and it can be really difficult to respect all the patents. The incentives to not enter the market can thus be bigger, a start-up may fear the financial consequences of breaking a patent which is even more plausible with patent trolling.
This patent war is clearly not benefitting the welfare and can be illustrated by the tragedy of anticommons : strong property rights accorded to separate right-holders who prevent others to use it implies a non-socially desirable outcome due to an underusing of the resource. The social outcome would probably be better if the right-holders were cooperating with each other on the concern of patent rather than doing the best they can to prevent others to use the resource.

In conclusion, there is a need to change the patent law because currently there is a situation of uninterrupted patent wars which lead to non-optimal social outcome. Lucy Koh’s move started from a good intention but this cannot simply be arranged by sitting together and making peace with words. In fact, the attempt of truce goes back to 2012 and no amelioration took place.

Sources :
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-vs-samsung-supreme-court/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/03/21/the-smartphone-patent-war-between-apple-and-samsung-is-headed-to-the-supreme-court/
https://www.ipdigit.eu/2014/10/a-primer-on-cumulative-innovations/
http://wealthofthecommons.org/essay/tragedy-anticommons

Show less
Reply
David Vanraes
We could ask ourselves if the patent system is not too strict since there have been a lot of smartphone patent wars. Well, in the preceding years, there was a big belief that patents did a lot of harm to innovation for smartphones. But this is a big myth because there is no other consumer product that has changed so…
Read more

We could ask ourselves if the patent system is not too strict since there have been a lot of smartphone patent wars. Well, in the preceding years, there was a big belief that patents did a lot of harm to innovation for smartphones. But this is a big myth because there is no other consumer product that has changed so much during the last decade thanks to innovation. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/03/17/smartphone-innovation-has-soared-because-of-patents/id=55667/

This IP-digit article has been published in 2013 when the smartphone patent wars were already attenuating. But now at the end of 2015 it is strongly believed that the smartphone patent wars are finally coming to an end because all the different producers of smartphones have caused a lot of harm to each other and they have learned their lesson. They understood finally that it’s better to license each other’s patents. Anyway this does not mean this will happen without skirmishes. The growing pains of the smartphone industry are going away and are now transforming in a group of smartphone producers that can be called a mature industry – just like the personal industry before it. In this sense we could say that Lucy Koh was right to promote an agreement between Google and Samsung.

Despite the recent attenuating developments in the smartphone industry, some people belief that the smartphone patent wars will come back because of 2 main technologies. Firstly because of the “wearable computing”. The wearable computing is also known as body-borne computers. It is wearable technology that has been developed for the purpose of information technologies and media development. A famous example of a wearable computer is the Apple Watch. Secondly because of the Internet of Things (IoT). IoT is the network of physical objects or « things » embedded with electronics, software, sensors, and network connectivity, which enables these objects to collect and EXCHANGE data. The Internet of Things allows objects to be sensed and controlled remotely across existing network infrastructure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_of_Things .

Follow the website prnewswire.com, the lucrative IoT market and wearable computing can lead to another round of patent wars. They call it the post-smartphone patent wars. The website tells that these post-patent wars will be more extensive because of more extensive participation of players across several different industries. They expect that the future IOT devices will create a new market that will result in more than 1 trillion in value added to the global economy within 10 years. An early example of post-patent war developments is the infringement committed by Apple with their Apple Watch, for a patented technology by Masa LLC. For more information http://fr.slideshare.net/alexglee/postsmartphone-wearables-iot-devices-patent-wars-current-status

Conclusion
The mentality of agreements through licensing each others patents has led to a more mature smartphone industry. But this more peaceful environment seems not to take a long time since the technology in smarthphones is enlarging a lot through wearable computing and IoT.

Sources

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/03/17/smartphone-innovation-has-soared-because-of-patents/id=55667/

http://fr.slideshare.net/alexglee/postsmartphone-wearables-iot-devices-patent-wars-current-status

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_of_Things .

http://uk.businessinsider.com/,

http://www.prnewswire.com

Show less
Reply
Vanvolsem Julie
The hostilities between Apple and Samsung began in 2011. The evolution of these conflicts and of the potential negative impact that it could have on innovation, led Lucy Koh's to made an attempt about a truce between these two parts. In July 2012, the two were still embedded in more than 50 lawsuits all around the world (1)…
Read more

The hostilities between Apple and Samsung began in 2011. The evolution of these conflicts and of the potential negative impact that it could have on innovation, led Lucy Koh’s to made an attempt about a truce between these two parts. In July 2012, the two were still embedded in more than 50 lawsuits all around the world (1) involving billions of dollars in damages claimed between them. It is only in 2014 that the two groups agreed to end proceedings between them directly. This truce was effective all around the globe except in the United States. (2) So we see that while the request by Lucy Koh’s was not heard directly, it has an impact two years later, not without reason. Indeed, firstly we wanted to emphasize the importance of such a decision knowing that it can prevent the “potential collective suicide” of the smartphone sector. It seems important in this sector with perpetual changes to not set barriers infringement of shares that it must overcome to bring its product or service to market. Leaving these two groups wasting their resources in complex and continuous fighting causes a loss of resources in engaging in innovation. Warn the fighting group about the waste of capacity in these trials could help to maintain longer-term truce. Furthermore, given the complexity of these new situations, it seems that the laws of competitiveness are not adapted to such a “thicket”. Lucy Koh’s move is therefore a need to find a solution other than through competitive law which could play a counterproductive role. In these complex situations, following the attempt done by Lucy Koh the authorities could play mediator role by identifying the adverse consequences that such conflicts could have on the welfare of final consumers. Replace the welfare of consumers at the center of decisions would avoid unnecessary wastage of resources in conflict seeming sometimes be an “egos story” (Steve Jobs situation) (3)

(1)http://fs01.androidpit.info/userfiles/67101/image/AndroidPIT_EN_Patent_War_960_wide.jpg
(2) http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2014/05/17/97002-20140517FILWWW00023-brevets-apple-et-google-font-une-treve.php
(3) http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/fr/2013/01/article_0002.html

Show less
Reply
Christopher Preining
Over three years after judge Lucy Koh forced Apple’s and Samsung’s CEOs to personally meet and resolve their bitter legal disputes, the reader sadly has to notice that Koh’s unique verdict has had no greater impact on the litigation processes and their frequency in the United States. A simple google search on the topic of ‘smartphone patent wars’ provides numerous…
Read more

Over three years after judge Lucy Koh forced Apple’s and Samsung’s CEOs to personally meet and resolve their bitter legal disputes, the reader sadly has to notice that Koh’s unique verdict has had no greater impact on the litigation processes and their frequency in the United States. A simple google search on the topic of ‘smartphone patent wars’ provides numerous articles discussing the newly arising feuds between tech-giants in court rooms.

Instead of a down-scaling movement throughout the past years one can observe that the patent disputes between Samsung and Apple have, arguably, been lifted to a larger scale as other firms in the Silicon Valley attempt to influence the courts decisions. The Guardian article “Facebook, Google, Dell, HP and eBay back Samsung in patent war with Apple” illustrates such an enlargement. The participants argue that, “[the] decision [in favour of apple] will lead to absurd results and have a devastating impact on companies who spend billions of dollars annually on research and development for complex technologies and their components […]”. Seeing as patents were initially instituted to ensure and foster R&D, a ruling in favour of Apple’s claims could, as mentioned, have detrimental effects on the industry; hence, engendering the opposite effect of the patents intentions. A financial times report on the issue detailed, “There is little evidence that the patent wars have slowed the pace of innovation” (2); however, this statement refers to the compensation claims mostly in the range of US$0.5-2 billion, which as the author asserts, “doesn’t move the needle”. The true issue arises “if any one company was able to obtain significant meaningful leverage over any one of their rivals would have to enter into a meaningfully negative licensing agreement […]” (2), thereby banning rivals from markets and stifling innovation. The incentive to completely bar a rival from a specific market, or at least increase his costs substantially through licensing fees, fuels the litigation lawsuits so omnipresent in this industry. The smartphone industry is said to generate revenues around US$270 billion (3) allowing successful trials to initiate “tens or hundreds of billions of dollars over the course of five to 10 years”(2), according to Erin-Michael Gill, Chief IP Officer at MDB Capital group, a patent-centric investment adviser. Although these numbers seem a little exaggerated on the upper end, even “tens […] of billions of dollars” and the prospect of lower competition motivate companies to engage in these detrimental techniques.

With respect to the articles from above, which all date well after Lucy Koh’s unique judgement, we must recognize that, although a very uncommon verdict, it did not sustainably affect the mind-sets in the tech-sector. Nevertheless, Lucy Koh’s decision to force Apple and Samsung to resolve their issues outside of court, caught the media’s attention and thereby gave voice to further professionals, sceptic of the current status-quo. Various judges spoke out, such as Arthur Gajarsa, former judge on the US court of appeals for the Federal Circuit: “We need to have different time periods for different patent technologies[…],” although he didn’t specify which technologies. This idea, however, could provide valid insights and change the standing patent laws. Of course, the length of patents has to be in some way tied to the capital intensity of the innovation it is guarding. Judge Posner of the US Court of Appeals claims, “there is ‘just no good reason why we would give a monopoly to an inventor’, unless upfront costs are so high that ‘the invention wouldn’t be made’ without the exclusive rights to recoup the investment.” Although these criteria should not be the only ones influencing the length and breadth of a patent, the ideas generate an important thought: Why have standard patents for all innovations, even though their degrees of “newness”, capital investments and innovativeness all vary? Having variable patent lengths that are adjusted to the specifications of the innovation could provide a more efficient and pinpointed allocation of intellectual property rights. In a BloombergView article the European patent model is presented as a possible alternative. The owners of patents have the “exclusive rights to produce, use and market inventions” while protection is less costly and the duration remains in the interval of 7 to 10 years. (4) Most importantly, “it offers small companies a fast, low-cost way to protect inventions.” (4) Levelling the playing field for all parties should also be a central goal in IP rights, rather than. merely providing capital heavy corporations the power and resources to protect their intellectual property.

With a completely different approach to defending intellectual property, Microsoft has proved that alternatives to litigation can also be profitable, and most importantly, more efficient. (2) The US-based company engaged in multiple licensing deals rather than taking legal action against competitors.

Synoptically we have to admit that Lucy Koh’s, though remarkable, verdict did little to end the smartphone patent wars in 2012. Evidence is given by the article all dated at least well over a year later. She did, however, initiate the discussion on possible alternative patent models and hopefully will induce policy makers to alter the current patent system in the US to allow for a more pragmatic and promoting intellectual property environment.

(1) Gibbs, Samuel. “Facebook, Google, Dell, HP and eBay Back Samsung in Patent War with Apple.”The Guardian. N.p., 21 July 2015. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.

(2) Bradshaw, Tim. “Smartphones: Patent Wars Set to Continue.” Financial times Online. http://Www.ft.com, 28 May 2013. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.

(3) “Smartphones: Global Revenue 2008-2015 | Forecast.” Statista. n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.

(4) Shipley, David. “How to End the Patent Wars.” BloombergView.com. N.p., 11 June 2014. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.

Show less
Reply
Nicolas Van Keirsbilck
I don’t think that Lucy Koh’s move was effective to stop the patent war between Apple and Samsung. Sitting at the same table and speaking of the problems can work for two people involved in an argument, but I don’t believe it’s the solution to the patent war between Apple and Samsung. Indeed, the main reason of this fight is…
Read more

I don’t think that Lucy Koh’s move was effective to stop the patent war between Apple and Samsung. Sitting at the same table and speaking of the problems can work for two people involved in an argument, but I don’t believe it’s the solution to the patent war between Apple and Samsung. Indeed, the main reason of this fight is to control the market. Apple sues Samsung in a country to try to avoid the company to sell smartphones in this country, or actually to reduce its sales, in order to have a bigger market share in this land. And Samsung is doing just the same thing in another country, or even in the same.

So just talking about this will not fix the situation. I think that concrete actions such as countries regulations, could end, or at least reduce, this patent war, but these actions must apply to short term because the smartphones technologies usually don’t last 5 years without being changed. Competition laws may also help to peace out this patent war.

But this patent war could also end “without doing anything”, or at least without forcing it with laws or regulations. Indeed, big firms have patents, so they have leverage on other firms. But these other big firms often have patents on almost the same technology, so also have enough to compete with the first firm. And because each companies have means to “annoy” the other, none of the firms would want to sue the other, because it could sue it back at the same time. That is quite the case with Google, Samsung and Apple, all of them having patents on the “same” technology. Thus we could imagine that each company would focus on its own businesses and products, and may be try to invest more in R&D than spending money to sue other firms. They could also sell licenses to companies willing to use their technologies.

But nowadays, I don’t believe that the ‘Smartphone Patent Wars’ have calmed down, as we can see in the actuality. In 2014 for example, Samsung was order to pay Apple 120 million dollar for patent infringements.
And just a few month after Apple and Samsung found an agreement to end the patent war outside the US, Ericsson sued Apple to prevent them from selling Iphones.

We can take another example to show that the patent war is far from being totally over with the Google-Motorola case. In 2011, Google bought Motorola for one big reason: being in possession of Motorola’s 17.000 patents in order to protect its Android smartphones. Because before having the right to sell smartphones provided by the patents, Google didn’t own patents on these technologies. With this purchase, Google is both protected from other companies’ trials (such as Microsoft) and owned leverages to sue other companies copying its newly acquired technologies. So if Google has started to sell smartphones before owning these patents, Apple and Samsung could have sued the search engine company, which hadn’t any defense, and forcing it to pay. But with the purchase, they were protected, and had means to sue other firms.

To conclude, I think that Lucy Koh’s try was not the right way to stop the patent war between Apple and Samsung and that nowadays the patent war is not over. But there surely exist ways to decrease or end this war and it could be benefit for both firms and consumers.

Sources:

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Google-buy-Motorola-for-12-5-billion-and-sell-it-off-for-2-91-billion

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/04/29/why-google-did-buy-motorola/

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/smartphone-patent-wars

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/06/apple-samsung-drop-patent-lawsuits-outside-usa

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/27/ericsson-sues-apple-block-iphone-ipad-sales-us-over-patents

http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-smartphone-patent-wars-are-finally-coming-to-an-end-2014-12?r=US&IR=T

Show less
Reply
Miao Liu
The smartphone patent wars will not come to an end soon, and it is not necessary to force an end to the smartphone patent war. Not only because “There is little evidence that the patent wars have slowed the pace of innovation” (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3eda6296-b711-11e2-a249-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3sQxv7VsT), but also the smartphone industry itself has its particularity. Year by year, smartphone manufacturers renew their products. At…
Read more

The smartphone patent wars will not come to an end soon, and it is not necessary to force an end to the smartphone patent war. Not only because “There is little evidence that the patent wars have slowed the pace of innovation” (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3eda6296-b711-11e2-a249-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3sQxv7VsT), but also the smartphone industry itself has its particularity.

Year by year, smartphone manufacturers renew their products. At the same time, more innovations come out but exist not long time. Accompany with this phenomenon, cumulative innovation comes out in the smartphone field: New smartphones may need the combination of several former innovations (complementarity) or many second-generation innovations come from one first-generation innovation (sequentiality). As we know, smartphone manufacturers have to follow a fast step to innovate due to the fierce competition in this field. As a result, cumulative innovation becomes a legal quagmire for patent holders and the smartphone patent wars are unavoidable.

In fact, big smartphone manufacturers like Apple and Samsung, they spend a lot of money to invest in new technology, and they need patents of these innovations to recoup their investment. Patents can also protect them by suing competitor in case of infringement, and in a certain degree, suing plays an important role in developing their own product by prohibiting competitor’s product temporarily. However, infringement never ends, these can be unintended as well as deliberate. For both companies, they will try to use new technology and new method developing better products, then attracting more consumer and earn bigger market to maximize their benefit, and sometimes, without concerning about whose new technology or innovation.

In the real case, Lucy Koh’s effort will not be effective in a long run. Both companies are still suing each other. Furthermore, the lawsuits between other smartphone companies also continue.

references:
http://www.siliconvalley.com/apple-vs-samsung
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electronics_Co.
http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-samsung-to-return-to-court-in-2016-for-next-round-of-patent-war/

Show less
Reply
Laurence Vanhove
In order to assess if competition law could play a useful role in achieving a truce in the smartphone patent war, and to give my opinion on the topic, I will start with the examination of a historical example of patent warfare and compare it to the current smartphone wars, then I will focus on the differences that exist regarding…
Read more

In order to assess if competition law could play a useful role in achieving a truce in the smartphone patent war, and to give my opinion on the topic, I will start with the examination of a historical example of patent warfare and compare it to the current smartphone wars, then I will focus on the differences that exist regarding patent trial systems across the word. Finally, I will highlight possible solutions for achieving a truce in the smartphone patent war.

As explained by Lea Shaver in her article “Illuminating Innovation: From Patent Racing to Patent War”, patent wars aren’t new. In fact, patent wars find their roots in one of the most famous inventions: the light bulb. Although Edison is most famous for this invention, many forget that he “would be better understood as an early Bill Gates [as] his business success [was] built on a keen appreciation of the power of aggressive intellectual property strategy and the frailty of antitrust law” (Shaver, 2012, p. 1894). Indeed, the light bulb doesn’t correspond to a single patent but to more than 100 patents on its technical components filed by Thomas Edison himself. When he introduced the incandescent lamp in 1878, its market potential was widely recognized. Many companies then joined the market, enrolling in tough competition. By 1890, Edison’s market share had fallen drastically. Thanks to patent warfare, he was able to reverse the situation.

Shaver compares patent warfare to the game board Risk(*) . Like in this game, industrial players can spend years gathering an important patent portfolio that might eventually fund their litigation “war chest”.

Edison’s patent portfolio constituted a great competitive advantage as it enabled him to successfully litigate it. By 1910, General Electric (Edison’s Electric companies’ successor) controlled 97% of the light bulb sales in the USA. Amongst Edison’s various cases, the Swayer-Man infringement case spread the light on the importance that a single patent can have. Among Edison’s many patents, one in particular – the ’898 patent – although it didn’t appear to be central, was interpreted in a new way by a Pennsylvania court, making it possible for Edison to win the “battle”. After this, US producers were to purchase General Electric licenses or to merge with the firm. In 1897, GE was the market leader with only one serious rival. These two firms then agreed “to a truce in the form of patent cross-licensing and product pricing agreements. Smaller competitors were invited to join the Incandescent Lamp Manufacturers Association, organized by General Electric. These members agreed to divide up the markets and avoid price competition.” (Shaver, 2012, p. 1930)

With the Smartphone patent war, history thus seems to be repeating itself in some manner. Indeed, although the innovation isn’t the same, a very similar pattern appears in these different industries. Even though patent wars enabled the electrical industry to monopoly, nothing guarantees that this will be the same for the smartphone industry. Smartphone patents wars haven’t reached an end yet, there is no clear “winner” that has been able to “dominate the world” such as in the Risk game. Nevertheless, I believe that this is well their ultimate goal. By suing each other, smartphone firms intend to weaken their rivals and hopefully strike them out of the competition – or at least to enjoy potential short-term sales boosts and improve their position in case of a settlement.

According to me, competition law foster patent warfare more than it inhibits it. In the light bulb case the truce occurred outside of court grounds. The truce Lucy Koh called in for between Samsung and Apple in 2012 didn’t prove to be effective. Both firms did eventually agree to end all patent lawsuits between themselves in 2014, but this truce was only valid outside the US and wasn’t linked to Koh’s call.

By analysing how the patent trial systems vary across the world, this “limited” truce as well as the different outcomes of trials in different countries can easily be understood:

As explained by Sanjeev Bajwa, in Japan, the Intellectual Property High Court of Japan handles issues with the help of patent judges, assisted by former patent examiners. Helped out by former patent examiners and technical experts, IP High Court judges are able to make quality decisions that are accurate and consistent. South Korea, also has a specialized Intellectual Property Tribunal but it only covers intellectual property rights and the granting of intellectual property rights. The general courts formed by a three-judge panel, which decides both legal and factual issues, hear infringement cases. In the United Kingdom, the loser must pay the winner’s litigation fees and expenses. All trials are held before judges, not juries. Finally, the German patent system, commonly referred to as a dual system as different courts handle infringement and validity matters, the first matter (infringement) with a three-judge panel, the second (validity) by a panel of five judges, composed of three technical judges and two legal judges.

In the USA however, patent infringements are mostly judged in front of lay jurors. As “a typical jury panel is composed of citizen with limited education and understanding of science and technology of legal principles” (Bajwa, 2014, p. 78), in complex cases such as patent infringement, jurors can be influenced by brand loyalty and tend to evaluate facts based on their own experiences, values, emotions and prejudices. In the Apple vs Samsung case, it appears that only one member of the jury had previous experience with patents. The other jury members apparently leaned on his opinion as “he had experience”. Furthermore, it seems that the jury even decided to “skip the prior art questions and move on to the infringement questions, enhancing the idea that Apple’s plea of “it was my idea” was easier to go along with than Samsung’s defence of invalid patents. (Bajwa, 2014)
As mentioned in the Sanjeev Bajwa’s article, Judge Posner once said: “patent plaintiffs tend to request trial by jury because they believe that jurors tend to favour patentees, believing that they must be worthy inventors defending the fruits of their invention against copycats.” This appears to especially be the case in countries like the USA, where the patent trial system is composed of trial judges and juries that lack technological background such as that the outcome of the case isn’t based on strictly objective evaluations.

As mentioned above, in my opinion, competition law fosters patent warfare more than it inhibits it. However, I believe that improvement in the patent trail systems could enable consumers to benefit more of inventions than patent litigators. Such improvements, as suggested by Bajwa, could lay in the implementation of specialist courts, removing juries and replacing them with specialist judges aided by technical advisors and already exist in certain countries. This would enable more consistent rulings around the world.

Finally, in some cases, Judges could “simply” dismiss the suits without granting a jury trial when they believe that there is insufficient damage evidence and that an injunction would be counter to public interest, just as Judge Posner did in 2012 (Apple vs Motorola case), regardless to the possibility of invalid or infringed patents.

(*) “In this game, the board resembles a map of the world, with varying territories. In the early stages of the game, players amass tokens representing armies and position them strategically on the board to fortify their positions. Eventually, the game shifts into attack mode, as players vie to conquer each other’s territories. Ultimately, one party pushes out all the competitors and achieves the goal of the game: world domination.” (Shaver, 2012, p. 1892)

REFERENCES:

Bajwa, S. (2014, January). Apple v. Samsung: is it time to Change our Patent Trial System? . Global Business & Development Law Journal , 27 (1), pp. 77-106.

Shaver, L. (2012, July 21). Illuminating innovation: From Patent racing to Patent War. 69, pp. 1891-1947.

Show less
Reply
Julien De Mesmaeker
Apple first sued Samsung in 2011 and since then things only got worst. A trial between them contained more than 3200 documents without including exhibits. This number would have been even bigger if judge Koh wouldn’t have prohibited any addition of documents without permission. (1) Those firms, with their money and experience don’t fear those trials and are ready to…
Read more

Apple first sued Samsung in 2011 and since then things only got worst. A trial between them contained more than 3200 documents without including exhibits. This number would have been even bigger if judge Koh wouldn’t have prohibited any addition of documents without permission. (1) Those firms, with their money and experience don’t fear those trials and are ready to fight till the end no matter what. In 2012, Samsung had a fine of $1.05 billion. It shows how surrealistic are those trials, besides the fact that the fee has been reduced many times afterwards.

Unfortunately, the measure taken by Lucy Koh to make those too “giants” talk together wasn’t really effective, as they are still fighting. Though, I don’t think she was foolish enough to think that simply making them talk together like two kids would stop the patent war they are in. I would rather say she wanted to make them realize how silly their war is and tried to make them realize they are going too far. However, in a competitive market (like the smartphone one) evolving in a system with patents as today, acting like they do is in their very best advantage. Indeed, as we know that “Patent owners have the right to prevent others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing a product that infringes their patent, for a limited amount of time.” (2), it’s in their interest to patent even the silliest invention they thing about (Music Icon, Lists, Pinch-to-zoom, Rectangles… (3)). As these companies have nearly unlimited resources, they don’t mind spending a few dollars to annoy their competitors, because an infringement of patent means trial, that means many time lost and troubles for competitors.

At the moment, big companies don’t have any incentives to stop this war on patents and the initiative Koh took to make them talk about it is certainly a good way to make them realise that working together could have some benefits, even if there is still a long way to go! After all, hope is still an option when you see that Apple and Google agreed few times ago to “work together to overhaul rules”. (4)

(1) http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/apple-v-samsung-is-headed-toward-an-incredible-fourth-jury-trial/
(2) LLSMS 2041_Primer_IP.pptx
(3) http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/now-that-apple-has-patented-page-turns-are-there-any-dumb-smartphone-patents-left
(4) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2630995/Could-patent-wars-soon-Apple-Google-settle-court-battle-agree-work-overhaul-rules.html

Show less
Reply
Sambit Das
The patent wars may not be over yet, but this is probably the beginning of the end. It was correctly expected that as the number of features and suppliers get added, the probability of patent infringement increases, ultimately affecting the consumers. The worst case scenario is when essential features, necessary to market products, become a part of the patent wars…
Read more

The patent wars may not be over yet, but this is probably the beginning of the end. It was correctly expected that as the number of features and suppliers get added, the probability of patent infringement increases, ultimately affecting the consumers. The worst case scenario is when essential features, necessary to market products, become a part of the patent wars and result in abuse of dominant position. Lengthy court proceeedings add to cost as well as time for smartphone makers, resulting in a huge loss to the society.
However, certain laws can help achieve an end to these wars. One certain way is to prevent formation of patent holding companies which are otherwise not in the same business. Such companies charge unfairly for patents, or auction them at high prices which are ultimately paid for by the customer. An inspection of these patent holding companies combined with fair standards of sale or auction of these patents can largely reduce the transaction costs.
Another role of competition law could be to prevent combined entities of different players in this industry from colluding to get patents. An example is a group of companies including Apple, BlackBerry, Ericsson, Microsoft, and Sony outbid Google for a bunch of patents related to mobile technology.
Related to this is also the task of competition law to prevent abuse of dominant position by incumbents. The first step is to identify essential patents and ensure transaction mechanisms for transfer of such patents. The EU competition commission recently took a step in this direction, directing Patent holders of Standard Essential Patents to act reasonably towards competitors or other third parties that want to have access to standardized technology. Fair renumeration methods as determined in contracts must exist and any deliberate cases againt these must be treated as abuse of dominant position.

References:

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/11/28/the-beginning-of-the-end-for-the-smart-phone-patent-wars/id=30479/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/29/us-eu-competition-motorola-idUSBREA3S09220140429

Show less
Reply
Sarah Bamba
Smartphone are improving every year. They have more functionalities and are more efficient, whether consumers can see it or not. These new functionalities require new technologies, which means more patents. The patent market alone seems to do an inefficient job. As a result, we can see patents wars, especially in the smartphone industry. It began in 2009, got extremely serious…
Read more

Smartphone are improving every year. They have more functionalities and are more efficient, whether consumers can see it or not. These new functionalities require new technologies, which means more patents. The patent market alone seems to do an inefficient job. As a result, we can see patents wars, especially in the smartphone industry. It began in 2009, got extremely serious between 2010 and 2014, and it is now almost the end. I would like to give my opinion on the second question “Could competition law play a useful role in achieving a truce in the smartphone patent war ? Or are there any other solutions that could push the industry back to a path where consumers benefit ore of inventions than patent litigators ?”

By skimming on the Internet, I could see a lot of people against the patent system, saying it is not an ideal solution. (1) Some others say that patent wars are good for society. (2) They state that “In just five years smartphones, tablets and the like have come on leaps and bounds technologically, are much cheaper and are available to many more people across the globe. Indeed, perhaps the only real losers since 2009 are those who claim that patents stifle innovation and reduce the public’s choice.”

As far as lawmakers are concerned, Bessen proposes that the policymakers should raise the fees that patent owner have to pay to keep their patents. And the European Commission also offered a solution saying that “Smaller phone makers can no longer afford to get into protracted legal battles over patents. Essential patents, such as making a mobile phone connect to a mobile network, must be available”. (3)

However, I agree more with Mark Lemley, a technology legal expert and professor at Stanford Law School, who said that while software patents are a pain, we cannot simply cancel them. “No one really knows what a software patent is, and there are real inventions out there in software, just as in any other field, Lemley says. “The real problem is that software patents are too broad and too easy to get.”(4)
Maybe we should redefine what is authorized to put on a patent, the scope, the breadth. A patent should not be about the goal of an invention, because that is too broad. If I invent the pencil, I should not be able to patent the right to “write something” because there are so many other solutions to write something than to use a pencil. A patent should be about the technology itself, it should be precise and not too broad. Also, it may be useful to reduce the length of a patent when the invention is crucial for society or if it becomes a “common thing”.

Sources:
(1) http://www.quebecoislibre.org/000902-3.htm
(2) http://www.iam-media.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=b2154a32-c325-44c4-8ec4-a5b8fe831f19
(3) http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/29/us-eu-competition-motorola-idUSBREA3S09220140429#v0ytR3vJjgiHSccj.97
(4) http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a7994/could-new-laws-end-the-tech-worlds-patent-wars-11711611/

Show less
Reply
Camille Lambillon
The Smartphone patent war is an ongoing business battle by smartphone manufacturers including Sony, Google, Apple Inc., Samsung, Microsoft, Nokia, Motorola, HUWAEI, and HTC, among others, in patent litigation. The conflict is part of the wider « patent wars » between multinational technology and software corporations. [1] In order to protect and to raise their market share, firms who developed a…
Read more

The Smartphone patent war is an ongoing business battle by smartphone manufacturers including Sony, Google, Apple Inc., Samsung, Microsoft, Nokia, Motorola, HUWAEI, and HTC, among others, in patent litigation. The conflict is part of the wider « patent wars » between multinational technology and software corporations. [1]

In order to protect and to raise their market share, firms who developed a patent can sue to prevent opponents from using the methods the patent covers. Since 2010, the number of lawsuits, counter-suits, and trade complaints based on patent and designs in the market for smartphones, and smartphones’ devices (ANdroid and iOS), has increased significantly. [1]

Indeed, this phenomenon is not surprising as we know that the smartphone industry is based on cumulative innovations : « complementarity » and « sequentiality ». Let’s illustrate this world war through two famous examples and discuss its damaging effects.

In the first instance, let’s focus on the concerns about Google and its “essential” patents. Why are we talking about “essential” patents ? Mainly because those patents cover fundamental devices on which the entire mobile industry is dependent (H.264 for videos to be viewed on different terminals and Wi-Fi standard). [2] As those standards obviously need to be incorporated into all smartphones, it opens the doors to Google to sue any mobile company who (mis)uses those technologies.

Secondly, we can not talk about smartphone patent war without mentioning the fight between two current leaders in this industry: Apple and Samsung. Both companies are fighting in courts for years over patent infringement involving standard features for i.e. double-tap or pinch to zoom. Those conflicts brought both firms to waste both time and resources. Since 2014 Apple sued Samsung for $2bn and a coalition was formed in the Silicon Valley. Indeed, Google, Facebook, Dell, HP, eBay and a collection of other large Silicon companies have sided with Samsung in its battle over patents with Apple. [3] Why a sudden coalition? It is all about personal interests. For i.e. Google has a direct interest in the case as it is the developer of Android on which the infringing Samsung smartphones and tablets ran.

This recent coalition gives rise to some damaging effects of this endless battle that includes and affects more and more actors. The coalition argues that “the design patents covered only minor features and that should the court uphold the judgment and force Samsung to pay Apple damages over patent infringements it would be detrimental to the development of the industry and consumer choice”. [3] In my opinion, the two consequences they mentioned at the end of this statement can be heard for any patent war. The risk is that companies will be forced to retreat into their own proprietary ecosystem, each increasingly walled-off from the others.

Another risk is that those kind of lawsuits lead to pay huge compensation as a consequence of the patent infringement. According to me, those decisions will have a devastating impact on companies who spend billions of dollars annually on research and development for complex technologies and their components. Indeed, it can be seen as a useless waste of time and money that leads therefore to a significant reduction of the innovation itself. Attempting to start such a fight and especially the ones with such consequences may discourage companies.

As far as the competition authorities are concerned, the question is: can they do something to stop this war? Unfortunately I am convinced that the actions they undertake are not sufficient. Competition authorities have neither the means nor the mandate to regulate the creation of standards and access to essential patents ex ante. If Google, Samsung, Apple and their colleagues persist in their current approach, the sanctions those authorities would be able to take will not be adequate to address the fundamental problem. Instead, it will be for the mobile industry itself to put out the fire, by finding some viable means of preserving their common standards. [2]

In my opinion the best solution to end this “lose lose battle” is for those multinationals to find an agreement. And it seems that some of them have that already understood: Last year, Apple and Samsung agreed to end all patent lawsuits outside the US, leaving America the final battleground. We thus can see that when companies want, they can make the right choice and move in the right direction. But even this example give us the hope of a better world in which everyone could find happiness, there are still a lot of efforts to make. Because smartphone patent war is far from over…

REFERENCES
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_patent_wars
[2] https://www.ipdigit.eu/2012/03/mobile-industry-in-googles-cross-hairs/
[3] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/21/facebook-google-dell-hp-ebay-samsung-apple

Show less
Reply
Legros Nicolas
Smartphones represent a huge market but his progression is imped by what is called a patent war. Due to the nature of the product, which is a typical example of cumulative innovation, his production requires an important number of patterns rights. Indeed smartphones represent two types of cumulativeness, complementarity and sequentiality. With that problem we will try to see if…
Read more

Smartphones represent a huge market but his progression is imped by what is called a patent war. Due to the nature of the product, which is a typical example of cumulative innovation, his production requires an important number of patterns rights. Indeed smartphones represent two types of cumulativeness, complementarity and sequentiality. With that problem we will try to see if authorities can play a useful role in achieving a truce in the smartphone patent war, or if there are any other solutions that could push the industry back to a path where consumers benefit more of inventions than patent litigators.

I think that authorities can indeed play a useful role in this war as it is a treat to competition. Indeed small players can no longer enter this market because they can’t battle with the big companies over justice. The costs implied by legal battles are too heavy and makes the competition inequitable for small companies. In order to restore competition, authorities could, for example, dissolve patent on the basic mechanics, such as ending a call or sending a text, that makes a phone what it is. It could greatly calm the patent war and allow smaller firms to make their way to the market.

Moreover, as Joaquim Almunia said, “The so-called patent wars should not occur at the expense of consumers”, referring to a case where Motorola Mobility was aggressively law suing Apple for patents infringement. As said before lawsuits are terribly costly and lead companies to stop inventing in order to cover those costs. It also is a good example of the possibility for the law authorities to intervene in the patent war. And it is what happened in Europe for this case, when the European Union’s antitrust enforcer put a stop on Motorola’s action, encouraging the concerned to begin negotiations rather than involve law enforcer.

Another problem that could be solved is the low quality of patent granted. Indeed the number of patent applications has raise over the years leading the patent examiners to sometimes spend only a few hours on an application. As those workers are civil servant, it is a good opportunity for the government to intervene in this wars. Rising the budget for patent workers could allow the examiners to spend more time on an application, rising the quality of patents in general and decreasing the number of patterns granted.

It is why, in my opinion authorities have an important and useful role to play in the patent war. Patent should serve their initial goal, promote innovation, rather than for big companies to stifle it and pass their cost to consumers. Even if the role of the authorities is important, I think that the main players are the first who should stop this war by working hands in hands in the name of innovation.

Sources:
– U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (25 november 2015) U.S. Patent Statistics Chart. Retrieved 25 november 2015 from http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.htm
– BloombergView. (11 june 2013). How to end patent wars. Retrieved 24 november 2012 from http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-06-11/how-to-end-the-patent-wars.
– Wikipedia. (23 novembre 2015). Patent examiners. Retrived 25 november 2015 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_examiner
– J. O’DONNELL. Reuters. 29 april 2014). European Union moves to end smartphone patent wars. Retrived 24 november 2015 from http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/29/us-eu-competition-motorola-idUSBREA3S09220140429#Vp5DrRZSj4ji3YeS.97

Show less
Reply
Barthélemy Destrée
This article of November 2013 lays the foundations of what happens in Smartphone industry. Apple and Samsung, the two biggest competitors, are willing to defend their interests by protecting their innovations. They use to patent every single new feature of their smartphones so that they can attack the others when infringing it. Taking into account that innovative smartphones’ features…
Read more

This article of November 2013 lays the foundations of what happens in Smartphone industry. Apple and Samsung, the two biggest competitors, are willing to defend their interests by protecting their innovations. They use to patent every single new feature of their smartphones so that they can attack the others when infringing it. Taking into account that innovative smartphones’ features are current in this domain, the war is not likely to reach the end.

Moreover due to sequentiality of certain smartphones’ innovation, there are incentives that push new innovators to break through. Indeed, by taking advantage of previous innovations, some companies don’t hesitate to make a further step and patent their progress. Besides that, they sometimes simply redefine a patent that was not precise enough. That irremediably enforces the competition within the sector.

On another hand, there exist some complementarity in the innovations that leads to higher prices and less welfare for the consumer. He is paying the price of a superior competition between companies: the use of patent encounters royalties and licenses that increase final price for consumers.

My opinion on judge Koh’s effort to make patent war slowdown is that it is a honourable action. Despite the fact that it was not really effective, Koh has tried to defend both interests by curbing the assaults of both companies. Furthermore, Koh’s actions are obviously intending to defend consumer interests and reallocate global welfare, which is more in companies’ hands than in consumers’ ones. Maybe it should be opportune for both companies to make agreements on the use of other’s patent. It is obvious that both have been developing technologies that are profitable for each other. The problem is that there is so much money in game that these practices are not tending to stop.
The most handicapped player of this patent war is the consumer.

In a recent article of September 2015 (1), it appears that both Apple and Samsung are still tackling each other in patent infringement. Next trial between the two biggest Smartphone companies will take place in March 2016. But what changed is that Koh has ordered to not add any discovery. It says: “The Court will not permit the parties to expand the scope of the damages retrial and will not allow the parties to rely on new sales data, new products, new methodologies, or new theories.”
One thing is sure we have not finished talking about it.

References:

(1) http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/apple-v-samsung-is-headed-toward-an-incredible-fourth-jury-trial/
(2) http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202736013875/Koh-Says-Enough-Already-to-AppleSamsung-Gang?slreturn=20151025082535
(3) https://www.ipdigit.eu/2012/03/mobile-industry-in-googles-cross-hairs/
(4) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/technology/a-bull-market-in-tech-patents.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Show less
Reply
Soumya Gaddam
Comments on first question: Was Lucy Koh’s move effective? Did the ‘Smartphone Patent Wars’ calm down over the last months or did they go on with a vengeance?  Lucy Koh's move to bring the two tech giants to peaceful terms was much required then. However this move did not slow down the lawsuits between them but only saw rise of…
Read more

Comments on first question: Was Lucy Koh’s move effective? Did the ‘Smartphone Patent Wars’ calm down over the last months or did they go on with a vengeance? 

Lucy Koh’s move to bring the two tech giants to peaceful terms was much required then. However this move did not slow down the lawsuits between them but only saw rise of more lawsuits against each other. But It was in the year 2014 that the two companies( Apple and Samsung) decided to make some sort of settlement to begin with. They decided to drop all the patent cases pending against each other outside of the United States. The are still fighting in the US courts even now. Recently on September 29, 2015 both the companies announced that they are willing to start a mediation process to settle their long running patent fights.

The war of smartphones is a never ending process as companies fight brutally to conquer large market shares for their products. As mentioned earlier in the article, smartphone technology being both a cumulative innovation (complementarity and sequentiality) in nature is even tougher when it comes to the number of patents and IP rights involved with these kinds of innovation. Moreover, with the current generation’s need to posses everything new and improved, coupled with the rapid technological advancement has made the product life cycles shorter. This had led companies to introduce new products into the market very often. New products means more patents and IP rights. This keeps getting quite complex over time with companies engaging in law suits to protect their intellectual rights. The law suits don’t come for cheap. Companies end up spending more on lawyers and other legal fees which otherwise would have been a good investment to produce new and better products.

In a financial times article, it was interesting to read Microsoft’s approach in protecting its intellectual property. It has taken a different approach in enforcing its rights of intellectual property. It has made licensing deals with almost all of the smart phone makers to use the Android operating system. Microsoft did not make a big win in the smart phone market but its fresh approach to IP is forward looking.

There is a need for better process and laws to be in place for proper laws to be in for the protection of intellectual property and companies should engage in ways that is a win-win for all. Other wise, the litigations will take the focus away from product design and development that leads to less innovative products in future. In that case everybody looses.

According to a Business insider article, it has been seen that the the smartphone mobile industry is turning to a mature industry with companies settling suits and licensing patents to each other. For example, Rockstar which is a group of companies including Apple, Ericsson etc. are selling its patents to another company called RPX that will distribute patents to other companies.This is a good sign indeed.

References and Sources:

http://www.law360.com/articles/708501/apple-samsung-agree-to-mediation-in-patent-war
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3eda6296-b711-11e2-a249-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3sVDXKPsU
http://www.cnet.com/news/in-patent-war-apple-and-samsung-may-both-be-losers/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/06/us-samsung-elec-apple-idUSKBN0G605920140806
http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-smartphone-patent-wars-are-finally-coming-to-an-end-2014-12?r=US&IR=T

Show less
Reply
Antoine de Halleux
As the smartphone market evolves in a rapid way with lot of new innovations, it's clear that patents are usefull to keep a strategical position in that market. The first goal of patents is accomplished, thanks to this fast evolving market : innovation is promoted. But as there is a very large number of patents, innovation is somehow restricted and sometimes…
Read more

As the smartphone market evolves in a rapid way with lot of new innovations, it’s clear that patents are usefull to keep a strategical position in that market. The first goal of patents is accomplished, thanks to this fast evolving market : innovation is promoted.
But as there is a very large number of patents, innovation is somehow restricted and sometimes IP rights are infringed. Therefore, these war seems inevitable.

I think that Lucy Koh’s move is at first sight inneffective. We can notice that, today, the war still continues and that almost all the different players were involved in on of another lawsuit. (1) (2)
But there are been also some improvements if we look closely. Some even thought that this war was definitively over. (3)
Indeed, a consortium had been established between some actors of the smartphone industry, like Apple or Microsoft. This consortium, called “Rockstar”, had as goal to cool of the patent war by acquiring patents they could use between the members of it. Some says it was also formed to face Google with more strenght. However, this consortium has sold its last patents about a year ago.
Another important improvement is that Apple and Samsung have agreed to call off their international disputes and “only” fight in the US. (4) (5)

To conclude, i would just say that even if the war seems to continue, Lucy Koh’s move may have opened the major players’ eyes about this situation, and how ridiculous it became. We can hope there will be another big consortium so that every actors of the smartphone market can benefit from the innovation, otherwise some laws may be a solution to clear the situation.

Sources:
(1) http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-samsung-to-return-to-court-in-2016-for-next-round-of-patent-war/
(2) http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/21/facebook-google-dell-hp-ebay-samsung-apple
(3) http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-smartphone-patent-wars-are-finally-coming-to-an-end-2014-12?r=US&IR=T
(4) http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/23/7443483/rockstar-group-backed-by-apple-microsoft-sells-remaining-patents
(5) http://www.itespresso.fr/brevets-missions-accomplie-consortium-rockstar-85631.html

Show less
Reply
Christelle Viatour
The patent war has been going strong since 2011, causing, as seen in this article, dreadful efficiency losses. Innovation could slow down, as companies could fear a suit in case a competitor decides that they infringe one of their patents, no matter how small the link between the two. Prices could go up, as the costs of litigation are high…
Read more

The patent war has been going strong since 2011, causing, as seen in this article, dreadful efficiency losses. Innovation could slow down, as companies could fear a suit in case a competitor decides that they infringe one of their patents, no matter how small the link between the two. Prices could go up, as the costs of litigation are high (1). Moreover, those cases delay justice for other more important or legitimate proceedings, and cost a lot to tax payers (2). How could we settle it?

Let’s examine the second question. Could the law really help in this case?
A first option would be to change patent laws. Some sections of the IP laws (for example, those concerning design patents and the practice of awarding total profits, which are particularly involved in today’s patent wars) are out-dated or open-ended. Some fixes to those sections could be a short-term answer to the problem. Some reviews to the whole patent system keeping this problem in mind could be a long-term solution (1).
Another alternative would be to find a way to reduce suits, by combatting patent trolls, for example. In Vermont, Peter Shumlin “signed legislation — the first of its kind — that amends the state’s consumer protection laws to empower its attorney general and others to sue patent holders who assert infringement claims against a Vermont business or resident in bad faith”(2). However, I believe that, even though it could help lower the number of trolls, it would only increase the number of suits. Another way of combatting trolls could be to make them pay fines, or to “shift the cost burden of litigation abuse from the defendant to the troll” (2). Apparently, judges in US already have the authority to do so (section 285 of patent law or rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures), but don’t apply it often (2).

This brings me to the second part of my argument. Changing the law can’t be the whole solution. Lucy Koh seemed to think so also, because she wanted the CEOs of Apple and Samsung to work out their problems directly. I strongly believe that those who can bring the biggest changes are the companies, and that the law can only push them in the right direction. Only the companies can decide not to sue their competitors, or to find some sort of agreements. Apple and Samsung have agreed to end patent suits outside of the US, which is a first positive step. However, the war still continues there (3), and it causes a lot of efficiency losses, as seen previously. Some companies have noticed, and have decided to take action. Google, Facebook, Dell, HP, eBay and other Silicon Valley companies have backed up Samsung against Apple (3). Another positive example happened end of 2014 when Rockstar (owned by Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Ericsson, and Blackberry) agreed to cancel lawsuits against Google and other Android device makers, and decided to sell patents to RPX, which would then license them to anyone who needed them for defensive purposes (4). We thus see that when companies want, they can go in the right direction. However, there still is a lot of room for improvement.

(1): http://morningconsult.com/opinions/what-price-victory-apple-samsung-and-the-legacy-of-the-smartphone-patent-war
(2): http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/opinion/make-patent-trolls-pay-in-court.html
(3): http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/21/facebook-google-dell-hp-ebay-samsung-apple
(4): http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/196432-microsoft-apple-pull-back-from-android-patent-trolling-is-the-patent-war-drawing-to-a-close

Show less
Reply
Cédric Haddad
As seen in this article, the efficiency loss of this battle for patent is a tremendous for the consumers. Even if IP remains one of the most effective way to promote innovation, it has unfortunately boundaries and the smartphone market is a relevant example. This is a sector of fast technologies advancement but also a perfect example of concentrated market…
Read more

As seen in this article, the efficiency loss of this battle for patent is a tremendous for the consumers. Even if IP remains one of the most effective way to promote innovation, it has unfortunately boundaries and the smartphone market is a relevant example. This is a sector of fast technologies advancement but also a perfect example of concentrated market (with only a few players in world which have high market shares). In my opinion, the problem in this situation where “the patent race “is not enough controlled, the players will do everything to be the best or in this case, to slash the other competitors in an “unhealthy suiting game”. Lucy Koh was responding to a need to better regulate this race. This will allow a more “ethic” innovation with more profit for customers and not only firms. Moreover, there is a huge waste of money and time on these suit which must be avoided

I will try to answer for the second question. Personally, I think that an important way to face this problem is to make it through the regulators (new laws).
A good option of legislation is to make pay the firm who launch a useless lawsuit with legal fines. ; An example is the “Shield act” launched in US. It consists in the fact that if the patent troll loses in court, then he pays the other side’s cost and legal fees. (1) & (2).
Another solution that a State can implement is to raise the fees that patent owners must pay for each patent they have. A positive implication can be to give more money to the state but also it will imply that a firm must think very carefully which patent he wants to keep or protect.

Moreover, I strongly think that the competition law will never solve the problem of “excessive suitcases” and there are strong evidence to prove it. In the US, the first patent litigation date back from 1794 in the Cotton industry (3): it confirms the fact that this issue has always existed since the beginning of patents. Another main argument is the fact that there are a lot of money in game because if one of these patents is lost by the firm, he can potentially lose a larger amount of money than a simple suitcase.

(1) https://www.eff.org/fr/issues/current-legislative-proposals-patent-reform#shield
(2) http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a7994/could-new-laws-end-the-tech-worlds-patent-wars-11711611/)
(3) http://inventors.about.com/cs/inventorsalphabet/a/cotton_gin_2.htm

Show less
Reply
Kevin Leroy
At the present day, we couldn’t say that the smartphone patent wars is really over. It still going strong and especially between the two smartphone leaders which are Apple and Samsung. So I think it’s safe to assert that Judge Lucy Koh’s actions weren’t effective. Even if a little decrease in number of trials related to smartphone patents can be…
Read more

At the present day, we couldn’t say that the smartphone patent wars is really over. It still going strong and especially between the two smartphone leaders which are Apple and Samsung.
So I think it’s safe to assert that Judge Lucy Koh’s actions weren’t effective. Even if a little decrease in number of trials related to smartphone patents can be noticed, it’s not the result of the legal actions attempted by the judge. Indeed, the mean reason of this drop is the agreement between Apple and Samsung to not pursue all patent lawsuits outside the US in 2014 (cfr 1). But the patent war in the US continues. And the war is far from over. Even some old trials has to be reanalyzed with the enlightenments of new elements coming from other trials decisions (cfr 2).

Moreover Apple, Samsung and the other smartphone related companies are huge and have a lot of money and legal ressources. This means that they could go for ages. At the moment, they don’t have any incentive to stop and I think that legal action isn’t the way to give one to them.
In my opinion, the solution could only come from the companies themselves. They have to find an fair agreement to stop this non-sense war over small innovations. It’s obvious that it’s impossible to ask them to refuse to protect their break-through innovations as they all spend a lot in research and development but I think that an agreement can be found over patents related to « common sense changes » and the smallest features. And that’s what the industry seems to think too. Recently (cfr 3), some major Sillicon Valley companies like Google, Facebook, Dell, Hp and e-bay took Samsung’s side on this patent war. They argue that Apple behavior is damaging the industry as it prevents the development of the industry and the consumer’s choice.

To conclude, I’d say that although the Judge Lucy Koh’s idea seems a good way to go, it turned out to be useless. The smartphone patent war isn’t over but it seems that things are changing. The companies themselves started to realize that the end of the war could benefit the entire industry.

Sources :

1) http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/06/apple-samsung-drop-patent-lawsuits-outside-usa

2) http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/18/9171661/apple-samsung-patent-trial-damages

3) http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/21/facebook-google-dell-hp-ebay-samsung-apple

Show less
Reply
Corentin Decock
In this comment, I would like to derive from the comment submitted by Sophie Delcoigne who answered the first question over the decision of Lucy Koh. I would particularly discuss the effectiveness of such decisions: not if the one taken in 2012 was actually effective but if this kind of move can prevent the “potential collective suicide” on this specific…
Read more

In this comment, I would like to derive from the comment submitted by Sophie Delcoigne who answered the first question over the decision of Lucy Koh. I would particularly discuss the effectiveness of such decisions: not if the one taken in 2012 was actually effective but if this kind of move can prevent the “potential collective suicide” on this specific market. The market in which those firms are evolving is indeed extremely important since smartphones keep changing. A new product released on this market has a determined lifespan (e.g. one year for the iPhone). The following year, a new product is launched with another feature added.

This pace forces the competitors to launch another version of their smartphone in order to remain competitive and innovative in the eyes of the consumers. One cannot simply decide to stop this rhythm and keep the same product for a much longer time. Therefore asking the two giants to sit around a table and make decisions for the future is meaningless in this constantly evolving market. You cannot just order companies to come to an agreement in terms of patents like the teacher might ask two disruptive kids to share candies.

There is a noticeable shift in the kind of innovations that are developed on this market. We come from more disruptive innovations, with new elements and a true added value, to small incremental innovations. This is symptomatic of the cumulative innovations to which the smartphone industry belongs. For example, Apple, in 2012, patented the “’rounded corner’ design of the iPad”, this way it ensures rights on the shape of tablets (Kovach S., http://www.businessinsider.com/why-apples-rounded-corners-ipad-patent-isnt-as-absurd-as-it-sounds-2012-11?IR=T). Those patents might seem trivial and without any added value for the final consumer, however they play a role in the coopetition between manufacturers. Companies ensure rights on small features that, seen one by one, are useless but this process taken as a whole has an aim.

It creates a bunch of patents owned by the different actors for insignificant elements of the product. But besides it creates a way for a company to, on the one hand, establish its power on a market by putting a spoke in competitors’ wheels. On the other hand, it is a way to put pressure on competitors. For instance, Samsung might use a feature patented by Apple, which on its side, use one owned by Samsung. (Eichenwald K., http://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/06/apple-samsung-smartphone-patent-war) They can, this way, keep some kind of equilibrium where they both use the patent of the other, creating, in a way, a network of informal barter. In this situation, no firm has interest in suing its rival as it also infringes a patent of this very rival. Apple would not sue Samsung for using a rectangle with rounded corners but can negotiate the utilization of a patent owned by Samsung.

In a nutshell, I think that the Smartphone Patent War, despite its negative effects, can have positive impacts for consumers. If the patent is seen as a mean to negotiate another patent owned by a rival, it can lead to an innovation race. However I concede that competition laws have to be adapted to the new industry within companies are now evolving. It has to be done in order to prevent companies to enter in the tragedy of the anticommons that would cause an increase in the price of goods or, worst, a recession in the pace of innovation. (Williamson P. and Yin E., http://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/rethinking-innovation-for-a-recovery/)

Show less
Reply
Sophie Delcoigne
I have initially been impressed by the waste of resources caused by the suits technical companies filed against each other. On the one hand, according to this article (https://www.ipdigit.eu/2012/03/mobile-industry-in-googles-cross-hairs/ ), a quarter of the value of a smartphone can be royalties for patented components. A patent war adds costs, which is definitely not good for the consumer paying for the…
Read more

I have initially been impressed by the waste of resources caused by the suits technical companies filed against each other. On the one hand, according to this article (https://www.ipdigit.eu/2012/03/mobile-industry-in-googles-cross-hairs/ ), a quarter of the value of a smartphone can be royalties for patented components. A patent war adds costs, which is definitely not good for the consumer paying for the total final value of the product. On the other hand, it is logical for companies to protect their Intellectual Property (IP), since, in certain sectors, patents are a significant part of the intangible assets of the enterprise. My opinion is that “purposefully infringing on someone else’s IP is a dark side of doing business.”( http://www.androidcentral.com/rise-samsung )

I choose to answer the first question, two years after this blog post being published, with what actually did happen. My analysis is that Judge Lucy Koh’s move (of 2011) of forcing the two companies to meet and work out their problems was not that effective. She wisely tried to find a way for the two Giants to work together. She got mixed results compared to her initial goal to change things profoundly: she progressed anyway from a stalled situation. Indeed, as explained later, the Smartphone Patent Wars did actually calm down a little these past years. The ambience is less tense.

In August 2014, Howard Mintz from Mercury News wrote about the Apple-Samsung patent wars: “Apple and Samsung already recently settled all of the patent litigation unfolding in courts in other countries but have been unable to resolve their feud in the United States.” (http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_26417310/apple-vs-samsung-judge-refuses-sales-ban-samsung )

In December 2014, according to Business Insider (http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-smartphone-patent-wars-are-finally-coming-to-an-end-2014-12?r=US&IR=T ), the Rockstar group (including Apple, BlackBerry, Ericsson, Microsoft and Sony), who joined their forces to buy more than 6000 patents from a bankrupt company, and outbid Google for several patents related to mobile tech, was giving them up for sale.
This is a sign that the patent wars in the mobile industry are coming to an end. “Rockstar used the patents in lawsuits against Android maker Google, some Android resellers like Samsung, and other companies like Cisco, but has since settled all those cases” (Same Business insider article).

Another adjacent effect that is worth highlighting is related by Joff Wild (http://www.iam-media.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=b2154a32-c325-44c4-8ec4-a5b8fe831f19 ): the patent wars have been won by almost every side bearing arms. The author says that it is wrong to declare these hostilities were a waste of time. Samsung was not so famous in mobile tech before Apple started suing the Korean company, which contributed to its visibility and popularity, creating equivalence between the two mobile industry giants. Undeniably the trial cost a lot, but way less than if Samsung had to “make” its name in the tech world. So, Apple got its money while Samsung got visibility and credibility as a tech company.

On the other hand, very recently, in September 2015, an article was published about Apple winning a lawsuit against Samsung, for the ‘slide to unlock’ feature (http://www.realtytoday.com/articles/36905/20150921/samsung-pay-apple-legal-infringement-slide-unlock-feature.htm). This very same patent infringement dispute started in 2011, when Samsung had to pay almost a billion USD to Apple (http://thebusinesstimes.com/court-battle-over-design-patents-could-affect-colorado-economy/ ). This means the patent wars are still going on in the USA, whereas being over in other countries.

From the readings related here above and from my different analyses of the literature, the conclusion I draw is that we now notice a recent lull in the mobile tech patent wars outside the United States, whereas the situation in the USA has not stabilized yet. In the USA, Apple and Google are still “fighting”. The dominant lawyer culture of the USA with appeals, trials… (also out of the industry, in the standard citizen life) is unquestionably a factor leading to such parasitical deviance that pokes industrial tensions eventually paid by the consumer.

Show less
Reply
Bernard Vonèche
In order to complete my previous comment (see https://www.ipdigit.eu/2013/11/the-smartphone-patent-wars-nothing-really-surprising/#comment-25920) where I said that : "In my opinion, I feel comfortable with Thomas Piketty’s vision which says that we need to stop wasteful patent trolling and unleash innovation! (…)" One solution to stop wasteful patent trolling could be to separate trollish behavior from “legitimate” patent claims. As mentioned in a recent article of…
Read more

In order to complete my previous comment (see https://www.ipdigit.eu/2013/11/the-smartphone-patent-wars-nothing-really-surprising/#comment-25920) where I said that :

“In my opinion, I feel comfortable with Thomas Piketty’s vision which says that we need to stop wasteful patent trolling and unleash innovation! (…)”

One solution to stop wasteful patent trolling could be to separate trollish behavior from “legitimate” patent claims. As mentioned in a recent article of Jeff Clarck in the Data Center Journal (http://www.datacenterjournal.com/it/patent-trolls-stopped-systemic-reform/) : “it requires shaky definitions that classify some patents as “overly-obscure, general or vague” even though the issuer (USPTO) grants them without little checkboxes for “obscure,” “general,” “vague” or otherwise. Legislation averting this problem would necessarily be complex, likely creating more problems than it solves.”

To conclude, we can figure out that there is no perfect solution for IP rights, especially for the smartphone industry. Can open source sufficient motivating ? Which way will follow legislators to prevent patent trolling ? We will have to wait and see…

Show less
Reply
Andrea Carolina Rosero
Yes, competition law has an important role to play in achieving a truce in the smartphone patent war. It seems that Apple’s initial suing of Samsung was motivated by a desire to gain an unfair advantage in certain markets by blocking the sale of competitive Samsung smartphones. Since Apple won the lawsuits in several countries, Apple seems also justified…
Read more

Yes, competition law has an important role to play in achieving a truce in the smartphone patent war. It seems that Apple’s initial suing of Samsung was motivated by a desire to gain an unfair advantage in certain markets by blocking the sale of competitive Samsung smartphones. Since Apple won the lawsuits in several countries, Apple seems also justified in claiming that Samsung violated its patents. However, given that smartphone manufacturing is entangled in a “patent thicket,” it would be difficult for Samsung (or another manufacturer) to avoid all patent infringement. Therefore, although Apple won the patent litigation, it may not win a similar case on analyzed on fair competition grounds. Additionally, since the time involved in judging the patent cases often lasts longer than the period during which a new smartphone has a high value on the market, Apple seems to have wanted to block competition from Samsung’s product.

Competition law and the use of industry standards could play an important role in the future in preventing a tragedy of the anti-commons, and thus ensuring that companies use their resources for innovation.

First, competition law could be used to prevent companies from using patents to create unfair barriers of entry for other firms into the smartphone industry. Such a case might apply to Google, as it entered the smartphone market with the Android system. Google seems to be preparing for patent wars by arming itself with the Motorola’s patents (by purchasing Motorola), to protect against possible attacks, and prepare to counter attacks. If Google could rely on competition law to protect itself against future patent violation cases, the $12.5 billion used to purchase Motorola could have been ploughed into further innovation instead.

Second, competition law could be used to prevent companies from preventing other firms from selling specific products in markets. Using competition law in this way would clarify the case described above, with Apple using the entanglement of the “patent thicket” to prevent Samsung from selling its products. In blocking Samsung from selling its smartphones, Apple is also depriving consumers of the benefit of new innovations and improved products.
A third approach to resolving the smartphone patent war would be to establish an industry-wide set of standards to simplify the use of primary patents and increase the efficiency in resolving patent infringements. Since unraveling the complexity of the “patent thicket” through patent lawsuits is unlikely, due to the sheer complexity of the thicket (with a quarter million patents in a smartphone), standards could be developed allowing for better competition, and some generalized compensation between firms, perhaps based on an analysis of their contributions to innovation in the industry.

Show less
Reply
Virág Dezső
Thinking over the present situation - smartphone patent war in recent years was given increasing attention - I must say that I agree with Yann Ménière in terms of the limited authorities’ abilities. I think it is not impossible for them to controll the ‘war’ in the future, but they really need some time to do it. Since there is…
Read more

Thinking over the present situation – smartphone patent war in recent years was given increasing attention – I must say that I agree with Yann Ménière in terms of the limited authorities’ abilities. I think it is not impossible for them to controll the ‘war’ in the future, but they really need some time to do it. Since there is no examination of the relevant market or the specific characteristics of the industry, the finding of abuse lacks support. On my opinion it is more important to see the bigger picture in order to examine that the competition law infringe procedure is not being abused by undertakings wanting to slow down more efficient competitors. Because all wanted a fair share of the market that is why in the fierce competition patents are increasingly being used offensively as a weapon against competitors.
The above mentioned issue has been particularly difficult to handle, not only because of the complex nature of the legal and economic questions it raises, but also because of the significant business issues at stake. Hundreds of millions of dollars may be at stake in licensing negotiations. Besides the complexity of the legal and economic questions, and the large amounts of money, at stake, one of the difficulties is that companies involved in licensing negotiations may have opposed interests.
Patent pools seem to be an efficient solution if it will be further developed somehow, because besides the advantages patent pools have some weak points, as well. They can have significant procompetitive effects and may improve a business’ ability to survive this era of rapid technological innovation in a global economy. Their benefits are: the elimination of problems caused by “blocking” patents or “stacking” licenses, having the potential to significantly reduce several aspects of licensing transaction costs. They can reduce or eliminate the need for litigation over patent rights because such disputes can be easily settled, or avoided, through the creation of a patent pool. A reduction in patent litigation would save businesses time and money, and also avoid the uncertainty of patent rights caused by litigation. A patent pool provides a mechanism for free sharing of technical information related to patented technology among its contributing members and its licensees. By fostering lines of communication between the members, trade secrets would become less prevalent.
The main criticism are that patent pools inflate the costs of competitively priced goods, shield invalid patents and eliminate competition by encouraging collusion and price fixing.
So the keypoint of my comment should be that the necessary act of balancing competition law concerns with intellectual property rights while respecting the freedom to conduct business and the right to property is a long walk on a thin line.
Sources:
Journal of intellectual property law & practice, 2014 vol. 9 No. 2; Oxford University Press
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/patentpool.pdf

Show less
Reply
Gilles Stephane Essomba
The smartphone wars between apple and samsung is the biggest battle in the smartphone industry. Now, we finally get a certain peace after a long chapter of patent battle. This is due to an agreement between the both to work together. Anyway, the first state of judge Koh's has no effect, because after that the war continued. As illustration, we can remember…
Read more

The smartphone wars between apple and samsung is the biggest battle in the smartphone industry.
Now, we finally get a certain peace after a long chapter of patent battle. This is due to an agreement between the both to work together.
Anyway, the first state of judge Koh’s has no effect, because after that the war continued. As illustration, we can remember the two process where samsung was condemn to pay more than 900 million dollars(2013 and 2012).
By the way, we can tell that there is a calm down after a long battle, which is hiding a real desire of revenge postponed. And, no the judge Koh’s stated was a little good effect.
In our opinion, competition can get down the rivalry between the competitor by implementing some actions and some rules to reduce the pressure on the smartphone market.

Show less
Reply
Sebastian Ksiezopolski
I believe that as patent wars last for quite a long time and therefore awareness of the problem rises, the number of attempts to finish them, such as this of Lucy Koh, will grow. I think that competition law can help as it shows the example of EU’s Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia. He made efforts to stop communications companies filling…
Read more

I believe that as patent wars last for quite a long time and therefore awareness of the problem rises, the number of attempts to finish them, such as this of Lucy Koh, will grow. I think that competition law can help as it shows the example of EU’s Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia. He made efforts to stop communications companies filling aggressive patent lawsuits against competitors. His actions were aimed against biggest companies in this sector, including Motorola and Samsung. He explicitly stated that “The so-called smartphone patent wars should not occur at the expense of consumers”. Motorola Company was ordered to resolve its dispute with Apple in Europe at the negotiations, not in court.

On Wall Street Journal’s Blog webpage we can find an article titled “Google Settlement Shows Smartphone Patent Wars Dying Down “. Article gives an example of settlement between The Rockstar Consortium (owned by Apple, Blackberry, Microsoft, Ericsson and Sony) and the sued companies Google and Cisco. It was reported that Cisco paid 188 million $, but the amount paid by Google is undisclosed. Apple and Samsung over this year decided to drop all lawsuits against each other, but they are still fighting in California’s court, where Apple already won two lawsuits.

I think that the governments will work out solutions to discourage big corporations from getting involved in patent wars. It seems that even the companies themselves start to realize that it is pointless to take part in law battles instead of focusing on their core businesses. I believe that a reasonable solution can be worked out to get the process of innovation back on its track. It should result in more dynamic growth of innovations, which are a benefit for the whole society.

Sources:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/29/us-eu-competition-motorola-idUSBREA3S09220140429
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/11/20/google-settlement-shows-smartphone-patent-wars-dying-down/

Show less
Reply
Bernard Vonèche
In many interviews and articles, Lucy Koh is considered as an “Agent for change” and the feat of strength she did in 2012 — Apple vs. Samsung patent-infringement case — is remarkable. "She has an almost peerless reputation for fairness and efficiency in judging the issues of the 21st century." said Tracy Beth Mitrano, director of the Internet Culture, Policy…
Read more

In many interviews and articles, Lucy Koh is considered as an “Agent for change” and the feat of strength she did in 2012 — Apple vs. Samsung patent-infringement case — is remarkable. “She has an almost peerless reputation for fairness and efficiency in judging the issues of the 21st century.” said Tracy Beth Mitrano, director of the Internet Culture, Policy and Law Program at Cornell University (1)

In my opinion, her move was effective in the sense that someone had to calm down this endless battle. It pointed in the same time the fact that the laws are so out of sync with current social norms and technology and that we have no weapons to judge such cases. You can see on the infographic (see article) that Apple and Samsung suit themselves in various countries with different results. A solution will be to create a worldwide patent collaboration to enforce the homogeneity between countries.

However, the smartphone patent war did not disappeared by itself. We could have seen some settlements a few months after Lucy Koh’s move but the problem is much more deep. In 2014, Ping-Chun Chang et al.2 analysed the patent acquisition strategy between Apple — considered as the leader — and Samsung — the follower. They came to the conclusion that:
“The leader will acquire supplementary patent to enhance his original patent portfolios and the follower will go the other way to strengthen his patent portfolios by acquiring complementary patent.”
We can then ask ourselves if the patent litigation are market- or sales-oriented? Indeed, Paik & Zhu (2013) (3) said that “Apple launched a series of intensified patent litigations with the intention of gaining competitive advantage in specific markets”.

As mentioned in the article, the development of new and innovative products nowadays is extremely dependent on standards to ensure compatibility and interoperability between products. I think that, despite the competition law, we still have seen battles arising in relation to the interpretation and enforceability of these FRAND commitments.

A solution will be to open the borders and force licensing instead of patent litigation. The open source solution seems also interesting as it seems that a strong Android ecosystem has emerged in the majority of the world, partly because Android, as an ‘open’ software system, is available to vendors free of charge, and partly because of heterogeneity in the efficacy of different IP systems.

In my opinion, I feel comfortable with Thomas Piketty’s vision which says that we need to stop wasteful patent trolling and unleash innovation! These smartphone patent wars force companies to spend and spend on legal fees; funds that consumers would prefer to see them invest in introducing newer, better products…

Bibliography:
1) Kristen V. Brown, In Silicon Valley, Lucy Koh is the law, 2014. Available at http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/In-Silicon-Valley-Lucy-Koh-is-the-law-5679303.php

2) Ping-Chun Chang; Yu-hsin Chang; Fang-Pei Su; Shu-Jung Chen; Kuei Kuei Lai, “The study on patent acquisition from complementarity and supplementarity: Evidence from Smartphones of Apple and Samsung,” Management of Engineering & Technology (PICMET), 2014 Portland International Conference on , vol., no., pp.2996,3003, 27-31 July 2014. Available at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6921258&isnumber=6920983

3) Yongwook Paik Feng Zhu. The Impact of Patent Wars on Firm Strategy: Evidence from the Global Smartphone Market. Harvard Business School, 2013. Available at http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/14-015_8483575c-1f96-4a34-bcbf-c83d99da8959.pdf

Show less
Reply
Gonçalo Ciravegna da Fonseca
In this comment, I will try to answer the first question: “Was Lucy Koh’s move effective? Did the “Smartphone Patent Wars” calm down over the last months or did they go on with a vengeance?”. In fact, I consider that Lucy Koh’s intervention didn’t worked as expected due to the fact that it is not very simple to stop this problem…
Read more

In this comment, I will try to answer the first question: “Was Lucy Koh’s move effective? Did the “Smartphone Patent Wars” calm down over the last months or did they go on with a
vengeance?”.

In fact, I consider that Lucy Koh’s intervention didn’t worked as expected due to the fact that it is not very simple to stop this problem with a mutual private agreement. Despite her move had good intentions, it didn’t worked as planned because of the particularities of the smartphone industry.
As we know, the smartphone industry is very complex as the products have a short life cycle so there is the need to innovate constantly. Besides that, smartphones are a cumulative innovation because they require the combination of several previous innovations – complementarity – and they are created as a consequence of other first-generation innovations – sequentialy. We can assume that, in this industry, companies must develop in a fast way in order to achieve a competitive advantage. According to this point of view, patents wars are strictly necessary to this industry so that firms can fight for a competitive advantage that will be traduced in more profit. In my opinion, without this war, there will be a decrease in the incentives to innovate.

To sum up, according to different recent news, in the last few months several companies reached a private agreement concerning lawsuits, like the sources state. In other words, firms can decrease their costs in lawsuits and bureaucracies and invest more in R&D in order to innovate in a more efficient way.

Sources:
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/business/technology/2014/05/17/Apple-Google-settle-smartphone-patent-war.html
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/06/apple-samsung-drop-patent-lawsuits-outside-usa

Show less
Reply
Regina Tukhfatullina
An attempt of Lucy Koh to calm down the prolonged “patent war” between the main manufactures seemed like the best solution in this endless and harmful “battle”. It’s obvious that those types of lawsuits has too much disadvantages for all market players – it’s too costly and long procedure, thus companies incur high losses and instead of investing into new…
Read more

An attempt of Lucy Koh to calm down the prolonged “patent war” between the main manufactures seemed like the best solution in this endless and harmful “battle”.
It’s obvious that those types of lawsuits has too much disadvantages for all market players – it’s too costly and long procedure, thus companies incur high losses and instead of investing into new technologies, condemned company files a new lawsuit against another rival in order to win back some money. Most of the suits involve huge technology companies suing each other. One can notice the “eye for an eye” mentality in all this patent litigations.

In 2013 in the US the most frequent target of patent lawsuits was no lesser company than Apple, who was a defendant in 59 cases. Ironically, Apple was also one of the largest beneficiaries of patent lawsuits last year. The company was awarded more than $800 million in damages from Samsung alone. That’s a huge chunk of change, no doubt, but Samsung is still free to sell the infringing devices in the US and other markets. Android, the operating system on Samsung’s devices, has made incredible strides in conquering the worldwide smartphone market. Globally, Android is on 78% of smartphones. Android debuted about 15 months after Apple’s first iPhone and surpassed it quickly, thanks to support from dozens of manufacturers that have churned out wave after wave of impressive devices. Apple still sells tens of millions of iPhones each quarter, but it has also continued to lose market share as Android and its supporters have out-innovated Apple in recent quarters. From this example one can conclude that just to win the lawsuits is not a guaranty of winning the market. In other words you can win the battle but loose the war.

Nevertheless in some cases companies found it reasonable to make an agreement instead of suiting. The bright example is Apple and HTC: in 2012 two companies announced a broad ten-year licensing agreement that settles all of the lawsuits between the companies around the world. The agreement covers current and future patents for both firms. Even this agreement can looks peaceful and friendly some experts claims that that’s just a part of Apple’s strategy – to keep forces for the fighting with two main biggest rivals – Samsung and Google. But in the begging of 2014 Apple and Google have agreed to settle all patent litigation between them over smartphones, ending one of the highest-profile lawsuits in technology. One can assume that in future more and more companies, inspired by successful examples of their competitors, would be involved in the process of settling agreements instead of lawsuits. But a new “war” could start in the world stage.

Due to the DigiTimes a number of China-based smartphone makers could soon be the target of patent infringement complaints in the US and Europe by international brands such as Nokia and Microsoft, now that the fast-growing firms have ramped up sales outside of China. Previously, international brands were reluctant to take action against patent violators as most China-based vendors were focusing sales in the domestic market. But now patent holders are preparing to file complaints in the US and Europe as some China vendors have ramped up their overseas shipments to several ten million units a year.
China-based vendors such as Xiaomi Technology, Coolpad, Meizu, Oppo and Vivo are more vulnerable to patent complaints as these vendors are now eager to ramp up shipments to overseas markets, while having no sufficient patent portfolio, said the sources.
Huawei, ZTE and Lenovo are believed to possess more defense capabilities against patent complaints as the former two vendors hold more patents related to 3G and 4G technologies, while Lenovo has built up its patent portfolio through a number of acquisition deals, including Motorola Mobility, commented the sources.

To cut a long story short, I think that until the manufactures has capacities and there are no significant changes in laws, IP rights and litigation process this “war” could continue for years.

References:

1) http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-17/apple2c-google-settle-smartphone-litigation/5459598;
2) http://www.informationweek.com/mobile/mobile-devices/apple-vs-samsung-apple-wins-battle-but-losing-war/d/d-id/1235068;
3) http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/11/us-apple-htc-settlement-idUSBRE8AA00X20121111;
4) http://www.statista.com/chart/2253/patent-lawsuits-in-2013/;
5) https://www.google.be/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.digitimes.com%2Fpda%2Fa20141114PD200.html&ei=zBJ-VMHoGYnYaraZgtAN&usg=AFQjCNGKb46P75nUcPFaV2fb3aM0NrJ08w&bvm=bv.80642063,d.d2s.

Show less
Reply
Maxime Verheggen
The patent war in the smartphone industry reached a peak in 2012 with the case of San Jose. Apple and Samsung were suing each others on patent infrigement all around the world. The amount at stake was in milliard $ so we can understand the fierce of this battle. But all those successions of trials made the situation very unproductive and…
Read more

The patent war in the smartphone industry reached a peak in 2012 with the case of San Jose. Apple and Samsung were suing each others on patent infrigement all around the world. The amount at stake was in milliard $ so we can understand the fierce of this battle.
But all those successions of trials made the situation very unproductive and unviable. To such an extent that judge Lucy Koh asked for a truce to Apple and Samsung.
Has it been adopted thereafter?

To begin, we need to identify what are the main stakeholders in this war to understand it. We find the operating companies which invent and patent innovation. Then the patent trolls wich purchase patents from operating company to sue big companies in the aim to make money. There is another variant of troll which is called the patent privateers. In this case, they buy patents and go in war but share the benefits to the initial holder. At the end, the sponsors which have an interest in the judicial proceeding. Sponsors give the privateers some support to protect their interest.

What we could observe is that Apple and Samsung have kept going to sue each others. Altough HTC gave up and preferred make a deal with Appel by being under license and paying royalties. As we can see in the animated graph from the Financial Time, the number of judicial proceedings and the number of implicated firms have increased.

In may 2014, Google and Appel anounced a truce for the direct complaints that opposed them. But no truce for the users of Android ( privateers such as Samsung).

On the other hand we could read in the news that Google offered to Samsung to pay for some patents infrigement if they loose their war against Appel. Indeed, Samsung is biggest android consumer and has a marketshare of 30%. So Google couldn’t take the risk to see such a consumer diminishing its sales.

in August 2014, Truce between Samsung and Apple is finally declared. They stop the suing all around the world except in the US. It ‘s due to common decreasing sales caused by the entry of new competitors from France, Russia, India and China. In fact, the chinese smartphone manufacturer Xiaomi is become the 4th bigger seller in the world.

As conclusion, the Lucy Koh’s move was an awareness of this critical situation. Some like HTC gave-up others reinforce their commitment in the patent war. But this war has been raised by attacks between supporters (Apple vs Google) via the privateers and patent trolls ( Samsung, Motorola vs Apple) which was influenced by the sequentiality and complementarity of the innovations.
So we can’t say that Lucy Koh calmed down this fierce feud. The only reason, Apple and Google and obviously Samsung sat down around a table was the fear of new increasingly growing and worrying competitors.

references:

http://affaires.lapresse.ca/economie/technologie/201405/16/01-4767504-guerre-des-brevets-apple-et-google-decident-dune-treve.php

http://fr.euronews.com/2014/08/06/treve-entre-apple-et-samsung-sur-fond-de-baisse-des-ventes/

https://www.ipdigit.eu/2013/06/beware-privateers-patrol-these-patent-waters/

Show less
Reply
Saurabh Gupta
If we look at the facts, I would agree that Lucy Koh’s’ move may have not have achieved what it aimed to. However, I believe that it has opened a new door for the struggling companies today to find a truce that could help both the fighting companies in a long run. Over the years, the smartphone industry has changed…
Read more

If we look at the facts, I would agree that Lucy Koh’s’ move may have not have achieved what it aimed to. However, I believe that it has opened a new door for the struggling companies today to find a truce that could help both the fighting companies in a long run.
Over the years, the smartphone industry has changed vastly and it has become a complex structure of interrelated hardware and software. In such a scenario, it has become more important for involved companies to keep good terms with each other in order to be up-to-date in the market in terms of the product they aim to provide. In today’s world, when the technology is changing so rapidly, it is become almost impossible for the individual companies to build everything from scratch. This is where the need to collaborate arises. The firms have been understanding this fact and thus the need to have a way of truce as Lucy Koh suggested seems like a prime option.
The latest case of HTC and Nokia (http://www.cnet.com/news/giving-peace-a-chance-htc-nokia-settle-suits-in-patent-deal/), where both the companies decided to end all their patent lawsuits explains how firms have been taking the negative effects of patent wars seriously. The two firms even agreed to work together on project involving HTC’s LTE patents and some other future technology collaboration projects.
With respect to the competition law, I feel that having stricter laws would not improve the whole community welfare. The point here is that the competition law, even though it would think of the consumers and market, it would think more of the firms and the peace between them (for the market to sustain). What society might miss here is the lack of innovation. When the firms are required to deal with stricter laws, there is a high probability that they may not get to innovate as much as they could earlier, and hence, it could be a loss to society.
To sum up, in today’s environment, when the innovation has been spearheading the smartphone world with various players getting more and more dependent on each other, it becomes important for the firms to live in peace and collaborate, whenever required. This could also lead to more emphasis on the open source world. The economic viability of the open source solution may be questionable, however, it definitely is worth a thought.

Show less
Reply
Ankit Khandelwal
Both Samsung and Apple have been suing each other since 2011. Apple sues Samsung for 4 patent infringements whereas Samsung has sued Apple for 5 infringements. It should also be noted that Samsung acts as a supplier for Apple. It designs high quality System-On-Chip (SoC) which are invariably used in almost all smartphones. Imagine one day when Samsung refuses to…
Read more

Both Samsung and Apple have been suing each other since 2011. Apple sues Samsung for 4 patent infringements whereas Samsung has sued Apple for 5 infringements. It should also be noted that Samsung acts as a supplier for Apple. It designs high quality System-On-Chip (SoC) which are invariably used in almost all smartphones. Imagine one day when Samsung refuses to supply chips to Apple. Apple having all its patents would face a tough situation changing to a different supplier. Results have shown that Samsung has an advantage over other chip manufacturers.

While it is intriguing to see so many patent claims, it brings us to the old question, “Did the chicken come first or the egg?”. Apple claims that it first patented the design and color of the i-phone and Samsung blatantly copied it. It also brings in the communication by Google to Samsung which warned of too much similarity. On the counter part, Samsung alleges that it began designing the smartphone well before the launch of i-phone.

It is hard to say if the number of claims has fallen since the April 2012 ruling. There are several international litigations with each firm winning in some other geography.

Even competition law would not help much. These laws are enforced when firm play with market competition to rig it and devoid the public of its welfare. Acts could include predatory pricing, colluding, refusal to deal etc. In case of Apple vs Samsung, it doesn’t seem to be the case. Even an out of court settlement is unlikely. This can be analysed from a game theoretical perspective as well. Each firm has the incentive to deviate from the settlement and gain market share by producing more. There is no Nash equilibrium that can be observed. If both firms have a situation where deviating would bring in more loss, then there would be no reason to deviate. Example could be high penalty if they deviate from agreement and sue each other subsequently.

A plausible solution that seems to benefit the entire smartphone making industry is to have more collaboration than competition. Industry associations representing a large number of firms, including buyers and suppliers to devise a framework would help a long way. Things such as geometry and color are vague. Maybe the patent regime for the smartphone industry needs to be rechecked. Patent should be awarded only if there was something innovative and not known to the society in general beforehand. Also it brings us to the last question, “what would Samsung do as a supplier of Apple if it were found guilty of infringement and would Apple go all the way to risk a major supplier for its products?”

Show less
Reply
Pierre-Ami Maudoux
In the face of such a complex web of complement and sequential patent, or “Patent Thicket”, the smartphones industry needs an efficient solution to simplify what has become an unsustainable environment. Indeed, the current situation is detrimental to both consumers and producers as prices tend to go up and court cases take up a significant amount of time and money…
Read more

In the face of such a complex web of complement and sequential patent, or “Patent Thicket”, the smartphones industry needs an efficient solution to simplify what has become an unsustainable environment. Indeed, the current situation is detrimental to both consumers and producers as prices tend to go up and court cases take up a significant amount of time and money for the actors of the industry. We will argue that competition authorities can have a crucial role in the simplification of this IP environment.

A problem as complex as the Patent Thicket can more easily be resolved, in our opinion, through private solutions such as cross licensing agreements and patent pools. Indeed, a central authority would probably never be able to handle such a complicated network of intellectual property rights, but we believe could be very useful to incentivise and control much-needed cooperation among producers.

The issues that must be overcome here are the willingness of actors to cooperate to form such agreements and the risk of collusion arising from such cooperation. To counter these, competition authorities could for example grant temporary tax breaks to induce parties to form cross licensing agreements or patent pools. Economic estimates of the increase in social welfare resulting from such agreements could be used as a benchmark to compute the amount of the fiscal advantage offered by the authorities.

To make sure that the resulting social welfare gains are not made void by a subsequent form of collusion between the parties of the agreement (e.g. price-fixing), antitrust authorities would need to keep a close look on the concerned actors. The latter could even think of additional fines for companies that are proven to collude after receiving incentives to enter in IP agreements from competition authorities.

Source: Shapiro, C. (2001), Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools, and standard setting, Innovation Policy and the Economy, MIT Press, Vol. I, pp. 119-150

Show less
Reply
Augustin de Bernard de Fauconval
Many economists have analyzed and comment the evolution of the patent war on the Smartphone market. I will discuss here a move from judge Lucy Koh. This American judge from a US District Court tried to force a truce between two giants firms on the smart phone market. Indeed, he though that this was going for to long and force…
Read more

Many economists have analyzed and comment the evolution of the patent war on the Smartphone market. I will discuss here a move from judge Lucy Koh. This American judge from a US District Court tried to force a truce between two giants firms on the smart phone market. Indeed, he though that this was going for to long and force the two CEO’s to work something out about this patent war.

We can see that this move was not really effective in the first time. Indeed, since this request from the judge, we didn’t saw any slow down coming from one of the two firm’s. But instead, it appears that they were answering to a lawsuit by another lawsuit. The two companies were suing each other on a lot of different market all around the world. Indeed many websites and trustful sources are showing that this war is not going to be over soon. (1).

The market of Smartphone is submerged with patents war. In this kind of wars, the firms have too much to win or to loose. They will do anything to secure their dominant position and to keep a comparative advantage over their competitors. Indeed, the Smartphone’s companies are investing billion and billion in these new technologies and they want the guarantee that these huge amounts of money that they are spending will lead to some useful patents. These patents will protect their investments by ensuring that their rights will be respected in the future. As many people says, suing another firm can be a strategy to slow the growth of a competitor or to try to boost your own sales by temporarily blocking a competitor’s product.

Furthermore some companies don’t even check if they are violating other patents. As an example, here is what a former Samsung’s lawyer – Sam Baxter- has said: “They never met a patent they didn’t think they might like to use, no matter who it belongs to (2)”.
It seems thus to appear that big companies don’t even care about competitor’s property rights and that they are just using their invention to try to gain market power and new customers.
I think that the big brands are making so much profit that they don’t even care about some lawsuits. Indeed, if by using the technologies developed by competitors they can win new customers or reach new sector or different market and thus win huge amounts of money; they don’t even care about paying some fines.

Besides, some European Commissioner have stepped up and forced some big companies to stop their aggressive behaviour on the Smartphone market. One of the EU commission’s goal is to enhance the competition on the Smartphone market by preventing big firms to adopt abusive “patents war behaviour against their rivals. (3)

To conclude, I think that this move from the judge could have set something in motion. Indeed, as the Guardian says (4), the two giants companies have agreed to drop all patent lawsuits outside of the US. I think it’s a good start and that this decision may arise from Lucy Koh’s first move as it forced the two actors to come together and try to work on this war issue.
Even if the war between Samsung and Apple seems to calm down this last few weeks due to this intention to drop lawsuit outside of the US, it is surely not the case on the whole Smartphone’s market. We can observe that a lot of firms are seeking revenge when they are suited. It seems that company that are suited often reply by suing the other company.
The proverb: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth is a good example to illustrate what appears to be the mentality of the majors firms present on this market.

(1) http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-vs-samsung-patent-war-timeline/#!C4hKQ
(2) http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/06/apple-samsung-smartphone-patent-war
(3) http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/29/us-eu-competition-motorola-idUSBREA3S09220140429
(4) http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/06/apple-samsung-drop-patent-lawsuits-outside-usa

Show less
Reply
Ritej Bachhawat
The two biggest problems of any cumulative innovation (as pointed out in the article) is that of ‘hold-up’ and that of ‘tragedy of anti-commons’. The former is being addressed through ex-ante licensing to the extent possible but the latter, which is a consequence of ‘complementarity’ (many-to-one), leads to excessive consumer surplus drain and results in unnecessary royalty-stacking. Is applicability of…
Read more

The two biggest problems of any cumulative innovation (as pointed out in the article) is that of ‘hold-up’ and that of ‘tragedy of anti-commons’. The former is being addressed through ex-ante licensing to the extent possible but the latter, which is a consequence of ‘complementarity’ (many-to-one), leads to excessive consumer surplus drain and results in unnecessary royalty-stacking.

Is applicability of competition law the solution to the issue of ‘complementarity’? To explore this, we understand the problem first from the angle of competition. In a smartphone patent war scenario, many patents can claim the right to a ‘subsequent innovation’ (as described in the article). Competition law suggests promoting healthy competition and protection of IP rights. If we protect the subsequent innovation from these royalty claims, sure we would de-incentivize the initial innovations and decrease the overall benefits to the society in long-term. But can the competition law be twirled to fit in the requirements of this industry?

One suggestion of doing it would to define the ‘Markets’ narrowly OR in other words define the ‘Patent zones’ narrowly. There can be a product that competes in more than one ‘market’ OR in other words there can be a multitude of ‘patent zones’ defining a particular innovation. When a new innovation props up, it needs to be decided how much dependence that new innovation has on the narrowly defined patents of yesteryears (i.e. prior art). The number of patent zones overlapped would be the measure of depth of claim of the prior innovation. In this way, not all ‘prior art’ patents could claim equally and the royalty claims would be more accurately defined and will perhaps be significantly reduced. Of course, the biggest hindrance in making this move viable would be the significant effort of breaking the breadth of every patent into the narrower ‘patent zones’. Especially, this is a concern for industries where the thicket is already hugely dense.

To conclude, the suggestion above and many more on those lines can encourage more innovation and yet increase societal benefits. It is bound to keep a tight grip on the patent rights and avoid its owners from abusing it. With the patent wars on the decline, it may seem a little less relevant now, but every industry goes through its phase of ups and downs and this decline should not hinder us from putting in the efforts to better organize the patenting process for the longer term.

Source:
http://article.wn.com/view/2014/05/17/Apple_Google_call_truce_in_smartphone_patent_war_7/
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/11/20/google-settlement-shows-smartphone-patent-wars-dying-down/?mod=WSJBlog
http://ipkitten.blogspot.be/2014/10/if-all-patent-trolls-disappear-can.html

Show less
Reply
Adwate Kumar
The smartphone market has become simply too big for this patent war to stop. The litigations are now used as a tool to grab market share in this increasingly short product cycle industry. The potential upside of ban on sale of competitor, however improbable, is too attractive and the costs associated are trivial for firms of Apple and Samsung's size.…
Read more

The smartphone market has become simply too big for this patent war to stop. The litigations are now used as a tool to grab market share in this increasingly short product cycle industry. The potential upside of ban on sale of competitor, however improbable, is too attractive and the costs associated are trivial for firms of Apple and Samsung’s size. Moreover, due to different patent laws in different countries, this war is being fought on multiple fronts.

I believe that Competition law would play an important role in stopping patent war. An investigation into companies to determine if they are using litigations to grab eyeballs or just to prevent the entry of competitors would discourage companies from using this strategy. This investigation should be done on a global scale, since the players and the market are all global. Convergence of global patent laws (or at least patent laws of key smartphone markets) would also assist in preventing companies from simply filing a case in a different country.

Show less
Reply
Debuisson Nicolas
Referring to the second question: Yes, I think that competition law could play a useful role in achieving truce in the smartphone patent war. I think that the two companies (Samsung and Apple) are in a vicious circle. The number of patent for a smartphone is huge; this patent war is meaningless and could last forever. This patent war is…
Read more

Referring to the second question:
Yes, I think that competition law could play a useful role in achieving truce in the smartphone patent war. I think that the two companies (Samsung and Apple) are in a vicious circle. The number of patent for a smartphone is huge; this patent war is meaningless and could last forever. This patent war is very costly for both companies. Finally, it is not beneficial to consumers. I think the authorities have a regulatory role in this area.

Of course, the patent system should be maintained because it is important that every company have profits on the innovations she did. Without patents, companies would have no incentive to spend money on research and development because the technology is easily imitable. Without a patent, each firm would wait for the other firm to innovates, then steal his innovation and benefit from lower costs thanks to the lack of research and development costs.

However, the smartphone have become essential tools of our lives and I think that for the common good, a firm can’t capture a patent for his own use and prevent other companies from using the patent. I think the authorities could for example create a system of fair and equitable royalties for innovations in the smartphones domain, via the creation of patent pool for example. Of course, it would be the authorities to decide the amount of the royalties. This measure would require companies to cooperate rather than to engage in a war of patents.

This type of measurement is very difficult to apply in reality. It is very difficult to determine in advance the amount for fair and equitable royalties. In addition, this type of measure can be applied only international level and it is at this moment not yet applicable.

In conclusion, I think that the patent war is not a good thing for the smartphone industry. The authorities must take responsibility and regulate the market. However, I think this patent war will not always be as intense and destructive. I think the smartphone industry is currently in a growth phase, but the industry will soon reach the stage of maturity. At that time, competition between firms will be less intense and that’s a good thing for this patent war.

Show less
Reply
Jia-Zhun Chen
I think that the patent wars between apple and samsung are mainly about the design; and a bit with the software. Indeed, Samsung is the main provider of electronic components to apple. About the move, If you look for tech news on the internet, you could easily find a lot of articles talking about smartphones. This war is growing and not only between…
Read more

I think that the patent wars between apple and samsung are mainly about the design; and a bit with the software.
Indeed, Samsung is the main provider of electronic components to apple.
About the move, If you look for tech news on the internet, you could easily find a lot of articles talking about smartphones.
This war is growing and not only between Samsung and Apple. There are a lot of new companies that emerged and have lawsuit against
each other like Google, Microsoft, ZTE, HTC, Nokia. Another example is Huawei which was criticized for the copy of other smartphones.All the stakeholders are trying to protect their technologies and to differentiate from others.
So I think that the move wasn’t effective as the war still goes on and that new stakeholders will emerge.However, it seems that Some analysts said the two companies would eventually bury the hatchet and sign a cross-licensing deal, following the usual pattern of patent cases in the technology industry.

R&D of those companies is not in the process but in the technology for the product like apps or design. It is then easily imitable by competitors. It is important to have a protection on the innovation in order to secure market shares.
I do not think competition law could play a useful role in achieving a truce, as the smartphone market is evolving quickly.
Maybe some open patents may improve competitivity and innovation in this sector and I don’t think that the solution to that issue will come with competition law.

References:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/06/apple-samsung-drop-patent-lawsuits-outside-usa
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/03/samsung-ordered-to-pay-apple-120m-for-patent-violation

Show less
Reply
Carlos del Castillo Garzón
First of all I would like to mention that innovation does not consist in not allowing to copy by the other companies. It is right to try to grant privileges to the company which discover something useful but in some cases they could be punishment to the innovation. Coping your idea only shows that you lead the race of…
Read more

First of all I would like to mention that innovation does not consist in not allowing to copy by the other companies. It is right to try to grant privileges to the company which discover something useful but in some cases they could be punishment to the innovation. Coping your idea only shows that you lead the race of development and your competitors are steps behind you. Many firms sometimes think that innovates is carried out in courts.

According to the questions of Lucy Koh, she called for a truce but this did not occur because on the 12th November 2013 and March 2014 there were another courts between Apple and Samsung. This is a war for controlling the market and, moreover, it will be able to affect consumers due to some new mobile handsets are subjecting to these patents and must be removed from the market. But the “Smartphone Patent War” between both of them is not only on U.S. soil, Samsung y Apple accumulate almost 50 demands at more than dozen countries.

Show less
Reply
Ana Martínez Alcaraz
The US District Court Judge Lucy Koh's strategy is similar to the way that a mother would use for solve a problem between her two sons who are fighting. Maybe make them talk for settle their disputes is effective if the parties involved are two little kids, but this don't have the same efficacy if they are two big firms. Nowadays…
Read more

The US District Court Judge Lucy Koh’s strategy is similar to the way that a mother would use for solve a problem between her two sons who are fighting. Maybe make them talk for settle their disputes is effective if the parties involved are two little kids, but this don’t have the same efficacy if they are two big firms.

Nowadays it seems that her strategy is not working properly. The hostilities between Apple and Samsung have finished but only in the EU, where these giants of the smartphone industry kept endless legal fights, trying to ban the sale of the product of its competitor in some countries. European authorities have pressed these firms to stop, but in the US the situation is the same like two years ago.

Samsung and Apple keep a court battle since 2011 and they have been suing the one and being sued by the other around the world for three years. This year, Apple sued Samsung for the use of five patents that cover some iPhone basic features such as slide-to-unlock in several Samsung phones. The finality of this continuous confrontation is not about money. Apple intentions are slow down the progression of the phones that use Android, of which Samsung is the biggest seller and Samsung wants to keep being the market leader. In conclusion, the real purpose is control the market.

Furthermore, the lawsuits between other smaller smartphone companies continue, so, to sum up, the patent war in the smartphone companies is far away from over.

Show less
Reply
Brice vander Borght
After few researches, we can see that in general, the “Smartphone Patents Wars” didn’t calm down yet. I think that the work of judge Koh had some effect on the fight between Apple and Samsung but not on other part of this war. Apple and Samsung had an agreement in Augustus 2014 to stop the fight all over the…
Read more

After few researches, we can see that in general, the “Smartphone Patents Wars” didn’t calm down yet. I think that the work of judge Koh had some effect on the fight between Apple and Samsung but not on other part of this war. Apple and Samsung had an agreement in Augustus 2014 to stop the fight all over the world except in USA where there are too much economics issues. Judge Lucy Koh had some effect but not in her country where the “Smartphone Patents Wars” is still in action and will last a long time. When a trial is over, one of the two protagonists sue the other for another part of the smartphone or software. Each of them goes on a new trial for a vengeance. Apple and Samsung are not lonely in this “Smartphone Patents Wars”, the war between them is maybe over but there are still suing others.
I think that these kinds of “Smartphone Patents Wars” are like “Patent Trolls”. For me, in these 2 situations, companies want to destroy the competition or have money from them. It’s only taking patents in the bad way for me, which is not good for customers and innovation. What can we do to change this? I think that for the problem of complementarity, the collective or shared property is a way to solve it. The only problem of this kind of solution is that a new start-up will have some problem to share a property with a big company like Apple or Samsung(the price). For me, the solution for the sequentially problem is more to give after a time (decided by a commission), at a low price, the patents of new technology like email transfers or video display. On a hand, this situation will help start-up to grow and to develop new product. But on another hand, that will make lose a lot of money for other start-up who has made a new product.
In conclusion, I would say that, this topic is hard, but I think that what Judge Lucy Koh made was honorable but unattainable.

Show less
Reply
Arpit Agal
As per the statistics, the smartphone patent war has definitely slowed down but how much of it can be contributed to Lucy Koh is debatable. As mentioned in the infographic, the law suits were more to gain extra attention and as a result, a sales boost. The lifecycle of a product like smartphone is very small. Given the length of a…
Read more

As per the statistics, the smartphone patent war has definitely slowed down but how much of it can be contributed to Lucy Koh is debatable. As mentioned in the infographic, the law suits were more to gain extra attention and as a result, a sales boost.
The lifecycle of a product like smartphone is very small. Given the length of a trial, both parties were very well aware that out of court settlement is the most likely outcome. Relying on a trail judgement is not suited for this kind of a market. So, the best they can hope to achieve out of these law suits is a better bargaining position for an out of court settlement. Also, these law suits helped them to be in top of the mind of potential customers which was very crucial given the large number of players in the market.
For a product like smartphone , it is nearly impossible to have in-house production facilities and technology for all the components and a manufacturer has to import them from some other third party which may be a competitor also. Given this complex relationship, patent war is bound to happen as no company would be willing to let other gain advantage. This is what happened in case of Apple and Samsung. Over the years, the court cases have reduced as the market matured which is more driven by market forces as compared to the judgement by Lucy Koh, which might have helped, but not to a large extent.

Show less
Reply
Aurore de Halleux
As many websites show, the smartphones patent wars did not calm down after Lucy Koh’s move (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_patent_wars#2013; http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-vs-samsung-patent-war-timeline/#!C4hKQ). The bosses of Samsung and Apple could not find an agreement and the all the smartphones companies are still fighting for their patents. As the smartphone market is really competitive, it seems normal that they keep fighting, as the winner will have…
Read more

As many websites show, the smartphones patent wars did not calm down after Lucy Koh’s move (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_patent_wars#2013; http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-vs-samsung-patent-war-timeline/#!C4hKQ). The bosses of Samsung and Apple could not find an agreement and the all the smartphones companies are still fighting for their patents. As the smartphone market is really competitive, it seems normal that they keep fighting, as the winner will have a real advantage on his competitors.

I think that lawsuits cannot solve such a problem, as revenge is always possible due to the short life cycle of the products. There are a lot of innovations and firms will always fight over new innovations. To reduce the competition for the patent, the way they are given should be changed. So the Patent Office should maybe adapt to the reality of the market and create a new legislation for the smartphones patents.

On one hand, even if completely stopping the war would be possible (which would lead to no competition anymore), it would then reduce the incentives of the firms to innovate and therefore reduce the consumer’s welfare. On the other hand, the consumer’s welfare could also be improved if the smartphone companies would spend less money on lawsuits and trials and even more on R&D and their products.

To conclude, I think that Koh’s move was not helpful at all but at least it pretended to try to reduce the huge costs linked to that war. I think that the solution to at least decrease the pressure on the market has to come from the Patent Office or from a change in the legislation

Show less
Reply
Raidron Charles
Lucy Koh’s intervention was honorable, but apparently not so efficient, based on the fact that Apple and Samsung continued to sue each other, as well as the other companies in the market. I think it is due to the fact that in the US, ways of thinking and doing business are completely different. It is more, as I heard,…
Read more

Lucy Koh’s intervention was honorable, but apparently not so efficient, based on the fact that Apple and Samsung continued to sue each other, as well as the other companies in the market. I think it is due to the fact that in the US, ways of thinking and doing business are completely different. It is more, as I heard, a win or lose mentality. And since Apple and Samsung are one of the best example of business rivalry nowadays, neither of them would choose to stop suing the other, and thus harm their credibility by “giving up” after all these struggles.

Maybe a mutual agreement between them would be the answer, but again, who would do the first step and seem “weak” to the other. Also this agreement should not only regroup those two firms, but all actives one on the market (Blackberry, Wiko,…), in order to be effective, for same reasons stated before (risk of being considered as weak, and so maybe more likely to become a target for claims about patent infringement).

And this situation is indeed, not profitable for consumers, because it can lead to withdrawal of products on the market, so less variety of choice ( but I recently heard that now court try to settle an agreement based on money , instead of imposing the withdrawal of the product concerned by the claim). Moreover, it is also a brake for innovation, which is a paradox in an industry where the only way to become better than the rival firm is to find the small innovation that you will present as the new indispensable feature.

It seems also unlikely that the solution to that issue will come with competition law, since in the US, courts and judgments are more company oriented than consumer oriented. The solution could maybe be, as I already said it before, a common agreement between all the actors in the smartphone industry, but it will be difficult to find a right balance for the smaller companies not to be disadvantaged compared to the industry’s leaders, who will be tempted to abuse of their bigger market shares, or bigger amount of patents they have (as in patent pools abuses: invalid patents will become shielded, inequitable remuneration, incentives to deviate…).

Show less
Reply
Nicolas Bindels
In year 2012, the smartphone patent war was more than often the headline of economic newspapers sometimes with anecdotes such as the rumour that Samsung paid Apple 1 billon $ lawsuit with 30 trucks of coins but sometimes much more serious as the stop of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales in Germany. Indeed, as a smartphone is a cumulative innovation,…
Read more

In year 2012, the smartphone patent war was more than often the headline of economic newspapers sometimes with anecdotes such as the rumour that Samsung paid Apple 1 billon $ lawsuit with 30 trucks of coins but sometimes much more serious as the stop of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales in Germany.

Indeed, as a smartphone is a cumulative innovation, it tends by itself to be the subject of patent war. As it is coming from many different innovations (many-to-one) but also that a first-generation innovation leads to the creation of many second-generation innovation (one-to-many), smartphone are most likely to be the subject of a patent war because of the use of other innovation or “hold-up” fear.

Apple and Samsung started this war but the others followed quickly as show but the Financial times animation. The situation was so critical that both authorities, US as EU, decided to take actions to slow down that escalation.

As explained in the Reuters article, the EU antitrust authorities tried to create incentives for smartphones companies to licensing their innovations instead of suing each other and try to stop other’s sales. But did judge Lucy Kho succeed to slow down that escalation in the US ? It seems that the patent war between these giants slow down since the end of 2012 which was the peak of the press coverage over patent war according to Google Trend Research with the word “Patent War” (http://www.google.be/trends/explore#q=patent%20war) or however in surface… But what is sure is the fact that these giants continue to fill patents everyday (as Apple did today : http://techcrunch.com/2014/12/02/apple-patents-an-iphone-drop-protection-mechanism-that-changes-device-angle-in-freefall/ ) but for which purpose ? And on the contrary, at the same times, others think that open source its patents is more profitable (Tesla Motors : http://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2014/06/12/tesla-goes-open-source-elon-musk-releases-patents-to-good-faith-use/). Maybe open sources is the solution for everyone’s benefit…

Sources :
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/29/us-eu-competition-motorola-idUSBREA3S09220140429
http://fs01.androidpit.info/userfiles/67101/image/AndroidPIT_EN_Patent_War_960_wide.jpg
http://www.google.be/trends/explore#q=patent%20war
http://techcrunch.com/2014/12/02/apple-patents-an-iphone-drop-protection-mechanism-that-changes-device-angle-in-freefall/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2014/06/12/tesla-goes-open-source-elon-musk-releases-patents-to-good-faith-use/

Show less
Reply
Luyanqi Zou
As the Robin Feldman( Professor of Hastings College of the law) said in an interview, few people heard about ‘Smart-phone Patent Wars’ or ‘patent trolling’ before the case of patent between Apple Inc and Samsung Company. In 2011, The Samsung Company, the major competitor of Apple Inc,was sued to the court by accusing the technology giant which copied…
Read more

As the Robin Feldman( Professor of Hastings College of the law) said in an interview, few people heard about ‘Smart-phone Patent Wars’ or ‘patent trolling’ before the case of patent between Apple Inc and Samsung Company. In 2011, The Samsung Company, the major competitor of Apple Inc,was sued to the court by accusing the technology giant which copied the iPhone and iPad technology to design and manufacture in the smart phones and tablets of their own.

As mentioned from the blog, the cumulative innovation of smartphones In some sense,
 exhibit two types of cumulativeness: complementarity and sequentiality. On the one hand, the principle ‘tragedy of the anticommons’, proposed by American economist Michael Heller in 1998, applied to the complementarity because ‘the allocation of strong property rights to separate right-holders results in higher prices and higher transaction costs’. On the other hand, if intellectual property rights are defined too broadly, it’s likely to create hold-up opportunities for first-generation innovators because of the sequentiality. Such as Nokia Corporation,who holds many mobile patents, sued the Apple Inc to the court in October 2009, alleging violated the company’s 3G network and mobile Wi-Fi wireless patents.Many intellectual property experts believe that the smart-phone battle will slow down after a series of licensing and cross-licensing agreement being signed, but before that point, we waste too much time and money. I agree with Michael Carrier, professor of Rutgers School of Law in Camden, said “If companies spend hundreds of millions of funds for litigation, it shows the fact that our patent system exist problems.”

In my opinion, except the law of patent, the law of competition could intervene in the sector of smart-phone to avoid the abuse of dominant position in the market and for protecting the interest of customers. For example, article 102 TFEU dispose that ‘any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States’.

The European law of competition requires the holders of essential patents to the implementation of a standard, grant operating licenses of their patents on ‘fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory’ term. This principle allows companies to concern the benefit from the positive economic effects of standardized technology and to avoid the distortion of competition. In 2012, The European Commission opened an investigation against Samsung Electronics to check if the company has abused its rights of its patents to distort competition in the European market for mobile phone. Because in 2011, Samsung has sought injunctions in several European courts against competing mobile phone manufacturers, on the grounds that they were in breach of the operation of its patents.

I do agree that the patent holders should be fairly remunerated for the use of their intellectual property, but I think the implementers of such standards should also get access to standardized technology on ‘fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory’ terms because consumers will continue to have access to a wide choice of inter-operable products if this balance can be preserved. Anyway, I’m sure that the patent wars of smart-phone should not do harm to consumers’ welfare. Maybe sometimes, the patent wars could be ended by the intervention of the institution de regulation in EU. In April 2012, the European Commission reprimanded Motorola company’s mobility for taking such action against Apple Inc. The Commission ordered Motorola Company to resolve its dispute with Apple Inc in Europe at the negotiating table, not in the courtroom. When the law of patent lost the efficiency, the law of competition can take effect because such legal battles were anti-competitive, stifling innovation and hurted interest of consumers.

Souces:
http://www.techweb.com.cn/ucweb/news/id/2102412
http://tech.163.com/10/1111/09/6L6TFS73000915BE.html
http://www.cctime.com/html/2010-11-11/2010111021723935.htm
http://tech.ifeng.com/telecom/detail_2012_04/26/14173811_1.shtml
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a5a3122e-cf99-11e3-bec6-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3KejhBzqI
http://obsession.nouvelobs.com/high-tech/20120131.OBS0224/samsung-soupconne-d-abus-de-position-dominante-par-l-ue.html

Show less
Reply
Dorian Keuller
Since 2010 a real smartphone patent war has stood between Samsung and Apple. Each one are trying to slow the others leading to huge costs ( about billions dollars). In regards of that, Lucy Koh, an US District Court Judge, have tried to organize a meeting where both giants could talk and try to work out their bitter and prolonged…
Read more

Since 2010 a real smartphone patent war has stood between Samsung and Apple. Each one are trying to slow the others leading to huge costs ( about billions dollars). In regards of that, Lucy Koh, an US District Court Judge, have tried to organize a meeting where both giants could talk and try to work out their bitter and prolonged patent disputes. But that clearly was a fail regarding to the latest suit engaged by Apple (2014) and the $890 million granted to Apple due to the “possibility of copy of the design of the iPhone by Samsung”.

Firstly, the problem is that the smartphone industry is characterized by a short product life cycle. And thus, the obligation to innovate is crucial. Those devices are built with a lot of other innovations which they are obligated to use to fulfill the client’s expectations. As every single competition, a company’s growth depends of market shares and this is why they have to:
– innovate in order to respond to expectations.
– surpass the competitors to grow their market shares.

Secondly, another element that made Lucy Koh’s plan not effective is that a company is not only lead to success by innovation but by the pull-back mechanism as well. Indeed, company wants to stop the product of the competitor and to exhaust their time and resources. In my meaning, such competition can’t be stopped, and shouldn’t be stopped because this is a feature of this industry and because it increases the desire to innovate. Indeed, since competition depends on what product is the “best” (in terms of customer’s expectations), companies are motivated to invest in R&D, and to find innovations. To be the first to innovate is the key in this short-life cycle.

Finally, in my meaning there is no real solution to stop this war. But we may think about a system where we put strong “competition laws” to avoid patent infringements between such giants. Because, for me, peace between them is impossible and could lead to a decreasing in the industry of smartphone since peace will stop the competition and thus decrease the incentive to innovate.
Source
(1)www.vcpost.com/articles/28114/20140929/samsung-vs-apple-iphone-copying-patent-wars-dispute-history-rivalry.htm

Show less
Reply
Christopher Staudigl
Referring to the question if “Competition law play a useful role in achieving a truce in the smartphone patent war? I think it is worth considering several aspects. On the World Intellectual Property site the general issue of patens and competition law is illustrated. On the one hand, patents complement competition laws as a fair market behaviour is enhanced.…
Read more

Referring to the question if “Competition law play a useful role in achieving a truce in the smartphone patent war? I think it is worth considering several aspects.

On the World Intellectual Property site the general issue of patens and competition law is illustrated. On the one hand, patents complement competition laws as a fair market behaviour is enhanced. But on the other hand, patent laws may be abused by its holders and not used in accordance with the original purpose they serve, as can be seen in the case of smartphone patent wars. Competition law’s aim is to prevent the abuse of someone’s market position. But as mentioned in a report in New York Times, acquisitions like the one of Motorola by Google or Nortel by a consortium of Apple and Microsoft seem not to be done because of economic reasons, but instead to have a weapon at court and be best equipped for legal battles. In this respect, I believe that current competition laws failed. The European Antitrust law states for example that a company with a dominant position in a market is prohibited to refuse innovating to the prejudice of customers. While this is not the case for the before mentioned examples, I still wonder if this legislation could be modified in order to account for the fact that companies with market power are actually conducting moves that prevent innovation in the whole industry, like seen in the patent war in smartphones.

Looking at this patent war and all big players like Google, Apple, Samsung, Nokia, Microsoft etc. I believe that it not only needs modifications in competition law, but at the same time, I think it needs even more cross-boarder collaboration as firms like in the discussion mentioned with Samsung, take this issue international immediately and therefore increase the complexity as common worldwide standards do not exist. It is true that this may take significant time and political consensus, but at the same time the whole smartphone industry develops into a direction that is hindering any new development and value for consumers. I would see governments in the role to act together against this problem. Also because while it is true that licensing my solve the inherit hold-up problem and patent pools can address the problem of the tragedy of anti common, I think that transaction costs are too high in order for this solutions to work in practice. This costs may be especially high as complementarity and sequentially render a smartphone an effort of cumulative innovation and there are hundreds of patents for many different parts of a smartphone, which ultimately would need many agreements between parties involved.
To conclude, in my opinion it needs more government involvement to solve this issues, as markets are imperfect and at least currently firms in this industry not in the position to solve it themselves.

Sources:

http://www.wipo.int/patent-law/en/developments/competition.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/de24f970-f8d0-11e0-a5f7-00144feab49a.html#axzz3KfaLMqeV
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/technology/a-bull-market-in-tech-patents.html?pagewanted=all
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/overview_en.html

Show less
Reply
Vinayak Tirakaraddi
The lengthy lawsuit battles involving the smartphone giants Apple and Samsung) have implications primarily on two parties. Firstly, the companies themselves are affected, and secondly, the users of the smart phones. It seems quite straightforward that the end users stand to lose more than gain from the lawsuits. Not only do compatibility issues crop up, users also run the…
Read more

The lengthy lawsuit battles involving the smartphone giants Apple and Samsung) have implications primarily on two parties. Firstly, the companies themselves are affected, and secondly, the users of the smart phones. It seems quite straightforward that the end users stand to lose more than gain from the lawsuits. Not only do compatibility issues crop up, users also run the risk of exposing themselves to a monopoly market if one of the smartphone makers suffers irreparable losses. Hence, from a user perspective, the recommendation to amicably settle the differences, is the right one.

From the perspective of the companies, the lawsuits can be looked at as part of their strategy to outmanoeuvre the competitor in a market that is beginning to get homogenised. Smart phones manufactured by different companies are more similar than different these days. Hence rather than compete on features or price, companies are trying to force the other out completely. A classic case of game theory. But this would be a rather dangerous game to play. Companies are now risking their futures by letting attorneys and judges decide the outcome rather than rely on their competencies to win, and that too in a game where the rules (read patents and rights) are not very clearly defined. Add to that the dangers of patriotism overruling common sense. We are already seeing courts of the countries of respective manufacturers take each others side. Thus, it seems that the companies have decided to wager their futures in a game of luck. Hence, even from the perspective of manufacturers, it seems that the rather “naive suggestion” of Lucy Koh can actually be the most prudent way of settling this dispute.

Show less
Reply
Ankur Kaul
I believe that subsequent events have demonstrated that Lucy Koh's move to get the two sides of the 'smartphone patent wars' to resolve their disputes outside the courts has definitely been effective. Even though at the closure of the famous case of Apple vs. Samsung, the jury held Samsung guilty of breaching Apple's patents, Judge Koh did not agree to…
Read more

I believe that subsequent events have demonstrated that Lucy Koh’s move to get the two sides of the ‘smartphone patent wars’ to resolve their disputes outside the courts has definitely been effective. Even though at the closure of the famous case of Apple vs. Samsung, the jury held Samsung guilty of breaching Apple’s patents, Judge Koh did not agree to Apple’s request for a sales ban on Samsung smartphones. This, it can be argued, prevented further litigation and counter-litigation as each company would have tried to secure the dominant position and decimate the other. Indeed, Samsung and Apple’s decision in August 2014 to drop all patent disputes outside of the United States can be seen as significant lessening of the acrimony that seeme existed barely two years ago. Additionally, Apple, which appealing the decision of Judge Koh, dropped its request for a sales ban of many old Samsung smartphones.
I believe the underlying reason for moving away from litigation, and its appropriateness, can be appreciated by looking at the sequential-complimentary nature of smartphones. Here, not only does a smartphone depend on its predecessors from the same company, but also from its competitors’ company as well, so as to continuously move towards improvements in performance, design, technology etc. Looking at this issue not as a way to help an innovator appropriate the true value of the innovation, but as a means to provide the consumers with continuously improving options can make one appreciate the need to move away from cut-throat competition, which intense litigation is a part of. In this light, Judge Koh’s move is justified, and seems to be delivering results.

Sources:
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0GR24L20140827?irpc=932
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-14/apple-google-shaped-by-silicon-valley-judge-koh-s-gavel.html

Show less
Reply
Maxime Vigneron
Years after years, smartphones are regrouping more and more applications and functionalities and thus more and more patents. The invisble hand of the market doesn't seems to be able to regulate the patent wars between firms, so public authorities have to interpose between them (1). Patent wars is a heavy brake to the evolution of the smartphones, that's why…
Read more

Years after years, smartphones are regrouping more and more applications and functionalities and thus more and more patents. The invisble hand of the market doesn’t seems to be able to regulate the patent wars between firms, so public authorities have to interpose between them (1). Patent wars is a heavy brake to the evolution of the smartphones, that’s why I would like to give my opinion on the second question: “Could competition law play a useful role in achieving a truce in the smartphone patent war? Or are there any other solutions that could push the industry back to a path where consumers benefit more of inventions than patent litigators?”

Simply follow the news to realize that public authorities are often recquire to settle a conflict about patents. But are these lawsuits efficient? Yes and no, yes because mostly one firm is fined but no because it doesn’t solve the problem and firms prepared the next lawsuit.

To understand why lawsuits are not efficient, we must wonder why firms like Samsung and Apple lauched a patent war? As mentioned in the article, smartphones are the combinaison of two types of cumulative innovation (complemantarity and sequentiality) which causes economics question about the opportunity to innovate if another firm could use your first innovation to make money trough a second one, as we have seen during lessons. Combined with the growing number of applications in smartphones I spoke in the introduction, it’s explaining why there is so many lawsuits.

In that context, I don’t see how a lawsuit could be a long-term solution to patent war…

What are the potential solutions?
Authorities should maybe change the patents policy in a way that will solve patent conflict as they do for farmers’ tools in the 1880′s (2).

They could maybe force firms to cooperate on R&D which should reduce the number of patents created…

A important point we have to consider is the power of a capitalist Galactus as Samsung on countries and states (« Ce chaebol exerce un pouvoir immense sur l’administration en soutenant des politiques et des législations correspondant à ses propres intérêts » (3)). Indeed, some firms have so much influences on states, it’s sometimes difficult to legislate against their interests.

Before to make my conclusion, I would like to raise an ethical question. Is this acceptable than firms go to court in democratic states when they clearly don’t respect human rights (4)? In that case Apple pretends to ignore what is happening in their manufactories and now conduct audit but it’s still problematic…

In conclusion, I think lawsuits are not long-terms solutions and I guess public authorities must legislate, as they do in the past for others problems, to solve the patent wars but I am not sure they still have enough power against smartphones firms.

Source:
(1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/02/apple-samsung-apple-patent_n_5256854.html
(2) http://www.maltiel-consulting.com/smartphone-patent-wars-solutions.html
(3) http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2014/01/24/samsung-un-etat-dans-l-etat_4353849_3234.html
(4) http://hothardware.com/News/Report-Details-Continuing-Foxconn-Abuse/

Show less
Reply
Thomas Boreux
Smartphones' sector is a really lucrative industry and it is thus normal that competitors are ready to do everything in their power to gain market shares and competitive advantages. A key element to stay competitive in such a market is on the one hand to be ready to stand lawsuits, and on the other hand to obstruct competitors’ moves by…
Read more

Smartphones’ sector is a really lucrative industry and it is thus normal that competitors are ready to do everything in their power to gain market shares and competitive advantages. A key element to stay competitive in such a market is on the one hand to be ready to stand lawsuits, and on the other hand to obstruct competitors’ moves by suing them. As a first step, according to my opinion, I will describe the efficiency of Lucy Koh’s truce proposition in such a competitive context. Secondly, I will develop my opinion about the implication of competition law in patent war.

Why do Apple, Google, Samsung or other big companies take so much risks and spend so much money in defending their patent ? The ultimate goal is of course to keep a competitive advantage. Every actor wants to obstruct others’ moves in order to be as profitable as possible. In this context, lawsuits is an intrinsic consequence of these fierce competition. That is why, in my opinion, Lucy Koh’s ultimatum is totally useless, however good the intention may be.
According to the « Android graphic”, we can note that Apple and Samsung are constantly suing each other since 2011. Nearly all new products led to a long and costly lawsuit. We can consider this as a cycle. Thus, I think that forcing those two companies to « make peace » is a really naive obligation, and would be at best a short-term solution. We can be sure that the complexe legislation about patents and the pressure related to the competitive market would endlessly lead to new lawsuits between actors.
Moreover, this is one case of war between only two big competitors. However, they are not alone on the market. According to the Fincancial Time’s animated graphic, more than 20 actors are concerned, and most of them have « legal problems » with more than one other company. We can conclude that solve this complexe situation with private agreement is totally impossible.

Moreover, we learned from the first answer that the smartphone’s market innovation structure can be compared to a pyramid. Innovations are build on others’ ones. So, in order to put last piece of stone on the top of the pyramid, we have to collect the agreements people who put stones before. Since there are thousands of patents used in the smartphone’s industry, we can imagine how difficult it can be to find an optimal legislation.
A solution to this complex problem can be patent pools, which are « consortium of at least two companies agreeing to cross-license patents relating to a particular technology [1] ». Nevertheless, it is easy to understand that patent pools are source of time saving, but companies putting their patent in a patent pool can wonder whether it is more profitable to stay outside the patent pool in order to collect more royalties.
Furthemore, «patent hold-ups » are frequent in these kinds of industries, and measures have to be taken in order to restrict them. « A patent hold-up occurs when a patent holder make an intentionally false promise to license essential proprietary technology, and that patent holder’s subsequently breaches that promise and demands higher license fees than promised [2] ». In my opinion, one of the best solutions to counteract this phenomenon is a strengthening of legislation about contracts, or an integration of legal authorities.

To conclude this comment, I would say that this kind of complexe and competitive situation won’t be solved by such an ultimatum. Companies have to much interest in maximizing their profits and being the most competitive on the market. I think the best way to make them positively react is to establish kind of incentives that would awaken personal willingness from concerned enterprises to solve problems. The most drastic way is to establish strength constraints, which can impede the market.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_pool
[2] http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Patent_hold-up

Show less
Reply
Jan Sedek
Of course competition law can play a useful role in achieving truce. However setting such a law is not an easy task. Smartphone industry is probably one of the fastest developing industries right now and it is always hard for legislature to keep up with fast development. Logically there is a certain lag after which legislature can react to new…
Read more

Of course competition law can play a useful role in achieving truce. However setting such a law is not an easy task. Smartphone industry is probably one of the fastest developing industries right now and it is always hard for legislature to keep up with fast development. Logically there is a certain lag after which legislature can react to new conditions in the market. First the new conditions have to emerge. Second they have to be observed and analyzed. Third a new law has to be designed to fit the new conditions. At last the law has to be passed by the legislative system. Whereas we would sometimes like the law to be effective immediately this is simply not possible. If the conditions are changing very fast, the law may be outdated before it comes to life. This calls for a competition law that is sufficiently general as generality makes the laws expire later.
I would guess that precedential judicial system as in United States is probably better equipped for such wild environment as the specifics are decided by the judge during the trial. However it takes time to build up the precedence and it can be done only by going through the process of many lawsuits. This suggests that if the judicial system works in United States we might simply need more rulings and then the war can reach truce by itself. Although it may be too late and a lot of damage can be caused by legal uncertainty in the industry.
I think that in Europe competition law has to be set on European level now by European Commission. This really calls for a question of designing the new law. A well designed law could possibly stop the patent wars. However design of such a law and its implementation is a difficult and timely process. I cannot imagine such a law that wouldn’t be criticized by most of the affected parties later. However this law may be necessary, because I also cannot imagine any way to stop the lawsuits other than changing the legal environment.

Show less
Reply
Céline Rizzoli
It turns out that the "Smartphone Patents Wars" did not calm down. The work of the judge Lucy Koh during the last years did not lead to a peaceful agreement neither to an end of the "fights". Indeed, even though Apple prevailed in the last cast in 2012 (1), the two protagonists, Samsung and Apple, went back to court. Even…
Read more

It turns out that the “Smartphone Patents Wars” did not calm down. The work of the judge Lucy Koh during the last years did not lead to a peaceful agreement neither to an end of the “fights”. Indeed, even though Apple prevailed in the last cast in 2012 (1), the two protagonists, Samsung and Apple, went back to court. Even after his death, Apple clearly still follows the mind of Steve Jobs who hated Android at its very beginning and saw Android makers as thieves of Apple’s ideas. (2)

In the last trial, Apple did not succeed in getting products of Samsung banned. (3) This kind of wish has become harder to obtain since a Supreme Court decision in 2007. Now, parties must rather settle for money. (4) However, Samsung has still not paid anything to Apple, according to SamMobile. (5)

In this new trial, they still accuse each other of infringing patents but on different products this time. (3) Here, Apple accuses Samsung of infringing five of its patents while Samsung claims that Apple infringes two of its patents. The products infringing each other patents are Galaxy Smartphones and tablets of Samsung and iPhone and iPad of Apple. (2)

What Apple thinks Samsung has stolen from it are “a tap-from-search technology that allows someone searching for a telephone number or address on the web to tap on the results to call the number or put the address into a map”, “a Google Quick Search Box” which seems close, according to Apple, to the “virtual assistant Siri” which “answer[s] queries in the iPhone”, the “autocorrection when words are typed” and, finally, “Slide to Unlock, which allows users to swipe the face of their smartphone to use it.” (2)

In this battle court, four of these five technologies above are Google’s products because Samsung uses Android. (3) That’s why Samsung received support from Google which sent experts to defend Samsung and which will help paying damages. (1)

In the future, the ‘Smartphone Patents Wars” never seems to come to an end. First, what should come out of this trial, which might take more than three years, is an appeal of Samsung and/or Apple. (3) According to Shara Tibken, the appeals of the both companies could eventually lead to the US Supreme Court. (6) Also, beyond these five patents of Apple, a sixth one could be the reason of an next trial. Indeed, still according to Shara Tibken, the technology of Samsung which “automatically detect[s] data in messages that can be clicked, such as phone numbers” seems to infring the ‘647 patent of Apple. (7) Yet, even if Apple is the winner of the battle court against Samsung, it could sue again but this time “against other Android handset makers”. (2)

At the end, this war wastes lots of money because of legal fees and none of that money is invested in innovation, which is the incentive a patent should give. The consumer may lose from this battle which leads to “fewer choices, less innovation and potentially higher prices”. (8)

Sources:

(1) LI K., Apple vs. Samsung Lawsuit Summary: Software Patent Trial Revolves Around Android OS and iPhone, iPad Duplication, Latin Post, 2014
(2) Apple sues Samsung for $2bn as tech rivals head back to court, The Guardian, 2014
(3) DUNCAN G., Why are Apple and Samsung throwing down? A timeline of the biggest fight in tech, Digital Trends, 2014
(4) ROBERTS J. J., Why the Apple-Samsung trial was a waste of time for all but fanboys and lawyers, Gigaom, 2014
(5) Danny D., Opinion: Apple’s patent lawsuit against Samsung doesn’t have the potential to change a thing, SamMobile, 2014
(6) TIBKEN S., In patent war, Apple and Samsung may both be losers, cnet, 2014
(7) TIBKEN S., Apple v. Samsung patent trial recap: How it all turned out (FAQ), cnet, 2014
(8) Dr. SAWYER R. K., Apple Wins Patent Case, Innovation Loses, Huffington Post, 2012

Show less
Reply
Julien Horlay
Even though the decision of Lucy Koh’s to force an amnesty between the main players in the unending patent war, I’m not convinced that it would be able to stop the patent war. Indeed, the heavy dinosaurs like Apple, Microsoft, Google … are persistently and fiercely defending their intellectual property. The current “patent war” is crucial for those companies that…
Read more

Even though the decision of Lucy Koh’s to force an amnesty between the main players in the unending patent war, I’m not convinced that it would be able to stop the patent war. Indeed, the heavy dinosaurs like Apple, Microsoft, Google … are persistently and fiercely defending their intellectual property. The current “patent war” is crucial for those companies that invest billions in order to have a step ahead from their competitors. For instance: “2012, Aug 24: Apple wins patent dispute against Samsung and is awarded $1.049 billion in damages for 6 of the 7 patents brought to bear. Samsung is awarded $0 in counter suit. The jury deliberated for 3 days before coming to a verdict that found among other things that Samsung violated the “scrolling bounce back” patent and “pinch to zoom” patent of Apple.”
Generally speaking, the big smartphones manufacturers are more and more protecting their assets and strive to protect them for the coming years by getting the acquisition of new patents. The intention of Mrs. Koh was honorable but hard for the US District Court Judge to impose to those private companies. It’s clear that new law and rules have to be voted but probably not from the US which, as a pro-company country, poorly legislate in term of reducing their flexibility. However, the EU seems to be the ideal environment to constraint the patent war which is more focused on the customers rather than the firms. For instance in April 2014, the European commission succeeded by ending a patent war between on one side Samsung and Motorola (owned by google) and on the other side Apple as these legal battles were “anti-competitive, stifled innovation and hurt consumers”.
According to me, we can wait a long time until the United States of America constraint their firms by making law reducing the patent war. Nevertheless the situation seems more favorable in Europe where I deeply hope that new solution would be taken in order to give incentives to small innovators to enter the market.

Source:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a5a3122e-cf99-11e3-bec6-00144feabdc0.html
“European Commission moves to end smartphone ‘patent wars’ ”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_patent_wars

Show less
Reply
Florian Simon
Even if the idea of Lucy Koh was a bright way to calm down this "smarphone" patent war, it remains true that it was not efficient at all. It can be clearly demonstrated thanks to both these recent articles : http://www.generation-nt.com/samsung-blocage-importation-produits-nvidia-violation-brevets-actualite-1909075.html http://www.phonandroid.com/samsung-pourrait-payer-des-royalties-a-apple-en-plus-du-milliard-de-dollars-dindemnites.html As a matter of fact, Apple and Samsung use lawsuits, not only in order to protect their intellectual property but…
Read more

Even if the idea of Lucy Koh was a bright way to calm down this “smarphone” patent war, it remains true that it was not efficient at all. It can be clearly demonstrated thanks to both these recent articles :
http://www.generation-nt.com/samsung-blocage-importation-produits-nvidia-violation-brevets-actualite-1909075.html
http://www.phonandroid.com/samsung-pourrait-payer-des-royalties-a-apple-en-plus-du-milliard-de-dollars-dindemnites.html
As a matter of fact, Apple and Samsung use lawsuits, not only in order to protect their intellectual property but also as an “attempt to gain a short term sales boots and improve their position for an eventual settlement”. This can be also completed by the animation of the “financial time” in which one can clearly seen that most of smartphone company who is suited also suit the company who suited him (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/de24f970-f8d0-11e0-a5f7-00144feab49a.html#axzz1sr16j7Fi). The patent war seems to fit with the “prisonner’s dilemnna” model. Combined with the fact that there is a huge amount of money at stake, it can be clearly understood that patent war won’t stop soon. The solution is the cooperation. In this term, I mean that Apple, Samsung and others would only use patent in order to protect their intellectual property. In this way of thinking, I would say that the proposition of Lucy Koh was bright. However, the expections was totaly different.

As a result, I think that law could play a role by reducing the number of patent per item or limited royalties in order to give incentives to cooperate and not neutralize each others.

Show less
Reply
Stefano De Martini
There were two main reasons why Apple started a war against Samsung as stated by an article on Bloomberg: “ first of all Apple’s worldwide intellectual-property war against its erstwhile business partner Samsung was primarily a legacy of Steve Jobs’s over-the-top hostility toward the Google Android operating system, which Samsung and other Apple rivals use in their devices. And second…
Read more

There were two main reasons why Apple started a war against Samsung as stated by an article on Bloomberg: “ first of all Apple’s worldwide intellectual-property war against its erstwhile business partner Samsung was primarily a legacy of Steve Jobs’s over-the-top hostility toward the Google Android operating system, which Samsung and other Apple rivals use in their devices. And second of all the furious litigation that seemed irresolvable would eventually … settle. Because that’s what complex business litigation eventually does.” http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-08-06/apple-samsung-put-aside-patent-war-and-we-saw-it-coming-years-ago
Once those two reasons would came up short the war was destined to end.
In fact two of the biggest producers of smartphones are not fighting anymore, at least outside the U.S. In fact after a 3-year war the two companies have now decided to stop arguing over the so-called patent war. As we mentioned earlier all the lawsuits are being with drowned except for the ones in the United States for two main reasons; the U.S. market has a particular and significant importance both for an economic and ideological point of view, it’s crucial for the companies to have the leadership over the United States.
Even before Apple and Samsung decided to call for a truce it was Google, the company that produces android phones, the operating system used by most of Samsung phones, that shook hands with Apple’s lawyers in order to resolve all the disputes related to the Motorola case.
All of those actions can be seen as positives signals, a signal of change in sensibility between the smartphones companies. I believe that the companies started to realize that a patent war is not a war for innovation; in the long run it can only hurt you.
Two years ago, in 2012, the U.S. Federal Jury sanctioned Samsung to pay a fine of 930 million dollars to Apple; another fine of 120 million dollars was set this May. At the same time, though, even Apple was found guilty of violating one of Samsung’s patents.
In other words, even if Apple was somehow winning the war, it was becoming a huge mess and not only for the complications and effort spent on writing huge essays against the competitor but, mainly, because the sentences were not big enough to actually make an impact on the commercial offers and on the accounts of the companies.
The two huge companies don’t want to lose too much time fighting each other while other competitors are rising on the market; they now have challenges from other luxury phones but also in the low cost market, with companies like Huawei and Lenovo. They would be better off by implementing and inventing new patents rather than defending the old ones. This kind of agreement can, in a way, be seen as historic; two of the largest companies in the world calling a truce on patent war can be a starting point for changing the current system.
With that being said it seems like Lucy Koh’s move was some what effective. The Smartphone patent war definitely calmed down, it’s not over yet but the two companies are on the right truck.

Show less
Reply
Fanny Delcroix
The industry of smartphone is one of the most complex sector in terms of intellectual property rights and innovation. This sector is said “ high-tec” , it means that innovation is going very fast and is ephemeral. One of the characteristic in this field is the cumulative innovation. A first innovation comes out and will be improved over time by…
Read more

The industry of smartphone is one of the most complex sector in terms of intellectual property rights and innovation. This sector is said “ high-tec” , it means that innovation is going very fast and is ephemeral. One of the characteristic in this field is the cumulative innovation. A first innovation comes out and will be improved over time by subsequent innovations that will use the primary technology. As we observed in the very first courses of Mr. Belleflamme, patents must be hold to induce innovation and to make innovators satisfied of the protection of their work (they get royalties… Money makes people happy). Then, it comes the problem of additional patents on the improved version of the good. A patent, over a patent, over a patent… Cumulative innovation becomes complex for patent holders and two important problems appear.
1) The Tragedie of Anticommons: it happens when the innovation is either complementary either sequential. Patents protect previous inventions and ensure to its innovator the respect of his work. When innovators need to access to an important number of previous invention, they are trapped into the tragedy of anticommons. It means that multiple patent owners have exclusion rights over the use of a common resource and it conducts to its inefficient under-utilization.
2) The Hold-Up opportunities for first-generation innovators: when the innovation is sequential and too broadly, an early innovator has the potential to claim against subsequent innovations. The effects of this behavior are importantly consequent: it reduces incentives to invest in R&D for this innovation and sometimes not to invest at all.

Competition law holds the role of regulation in the specific area of innovation. It has to ensure that firms respect the rules and agreements but more particularly its purpose is to protect the competition and therefore the consumers. Competition law has to encourage the innovation that will increase customers ’wellbeing. When two major companies such as Samsung and Apple, which have profits around $ 8.5 billion a year, keep fighting on patent’s infringement, they waste their energy in Court instead of spending it in Research and Development. Moreover, the patent war reduces the incentives for smaller firms to innovate as they are scared to be suit for infringement by richer companies. Lucy Koh’s move is ethically well-played but unfortunately it would never stop the patent war between Apple and Samsung or more generally between two of the most competitors in a sector. When there are millions at stake, a meeting in view of calming the war isn’t enough.
Through strict and advantageous measures, the Competition law policy should polish the innovation system. Indeed, due to the tragedy of anticommons problem, Public Authorities had found “patent pools” as a solution. Nevertheless, patent pools have some weak points that make the firms inside of it willing to leave it. In this case, it’s the role of competition law’s to create incentives for the firms to stay. For instances, they could imagine tax advantages or tax reduces for those firms. Weaknesses from the patent pools should be repaired and Authorities have to find solutions to it.
In the case of hold-up opportunities, Competition law thought that licensing agreements would be enough to avoid this second problem between sequential innovators. Unfortunately, it works only in certain situations (private information, symmetry, etc.).

To sum up, the question was “Are there any solutions that could push the industry back to the right path where consumers benefit more of inventions …,”. In my opinion, yes there are solutions. I am not sure if they exist yet but then, they should be imagined. I don’t master enough the subject to find possible and feasible solutions (yet), but what I expect from the Public Authorities is not to let the problems become bigger. It should find monetary advantages for the firms to respect the rules and not to enjoy weak points of the system.

http://www.researchoninnovation.org/holdup.pdf

Show less
Reply
Nitish Aggarwal
The US Judge Lucy Koh certainly proposed a novel solution, opting to believe that the companies will work out their battles themselves instead of enforcing any lawful judgement on the two. However, I do not believe that the decision was particularly helpful as it certainly did not help slow down the smartphone wars. Indeed, just after the ruling, some of…
Read more

The US Judge Lucy Koh certainly proposed a novel solution, opting to believe that the companies will work out their battles themselves instead of enforcing any lawful judgement on the two. However, I do not believe that the decision was particularly helpful as it certainly did not help slow down the smartphone wars. Indeed, just after the ruling, some of the most high profile cases in this war were ruled on and more and more companies got tangled into the web of these wars. Even if we try and ascertain whether anything good came about from the meetings, the submissions made by the two companies to the court seems contradictory and certainly supports the theory that the judge ruling did little to put a stop to the matter.

Looking at a timeline of the smartphone patent wars, this ruling was made by the Judge in April, 2012. However, this was closely succeeded by a number of strongly fought litigations among the various parties involved in the wars, including most notably a ruling in Aug 2012 which awarded Apple upwards of a billion dollars as compensation in a patent dispute. At the same time, multiple lawsuits were going in full flow across various continents – some going in favor of Samsung, while the others in favor of Apple. During this time, the companies brought about all sort of claims against each other and also managed to get other companies like Ericsson, Nokia, Sony and HTC tangled into the web. Even the motions requested against the defendants were strong to say the least, some going as far as requesting for permanent injunctions (Apple got denied a permanent injunction against Samsung in Dec’12 by the same judge). All these evidences certainly show no signs of slowing down of smartphone wars.

Even if we look at the joint submissions to the court’s request, we can see that even as late as May, 2014, both the companies have been fighting head and toe over the issue. In their written submissions, both have tried to place the failure of the 2 year worth of meetings on the head of the other, with Apple especially seeming to be very disappointed. Before this in February, the 2 parties had reportedly notified the court that they were not able to resolve the dispute on their own.

Recent developments have been a tad more positive as both Apple and Samsung have agreed to drop all patent disputes outside US. Although, the firms have no agreed to cross licensing agreements which would have been ideal for consumers, this still represents a step in the positive direction. The companies are still going to contest the disputes within US territories though, one of which is a rather critical litigation – a counter-appeal against the 2012 billion dollar verdict. Hopefully, this does not turn out to be the start of a long and drawn out battle within the confines of the US.

Sources:
1)http://fortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/1894-joint-adr-submission.pdf

2)http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/06/apple-samsung-drop-patent-lawsuits-outside-usa

Show less
Reply
Midas De Bondt
I would like to take a theoretical approach to the second question and would thus like to investigate the role of competition law in achieving a truce in a (smartphone) patent war. I want to emphasize that I would like to take another angle at the problem than the one that Mr. Yann Ménière has taken. I will therefore not…
Read more

I would like to take a theoretical approach to the second question and would thus like to investigate the role of competition law in achieving a truce in a (smartphone) patent war. I want to emphasize that I would like to take another angle at the problem than the one that Mr. Yann Ménière has taken. I will therefore not investigate the problem from the licensing side and competition policy’s ability to force to license under certain circumstances. In this case, I do agree with Mr. Yann Ménière that the role to be played for competition authorities is limited at most. I would like to investigate the problem from an angle of voluntary collaboration. As collaboration may very well lead to collusion, it is clear where the competition policy will come into my contribution.

The landscape of the smartphone manufacturing industry is changing rapidly with a multitude of players that are attacking the position of the historically two largest manufacturers being Samsung and Apple. Competitors like Huawei, Lenovo and LG are increasing their market shares up to little less than 5% in units in 2013. For all three this meant an increase by at least a percentage point over their 2012 figure (IDC 2014). The competition in the smartphone manufacturing industry is therefore increasing, which should theoretically lead to lower prices and thus larger benefits for the consumers.

My opinion on this increasingly competitive industry is now that there is an opportunity to make use of this increasingly competitive industry to allow for more collaboration. In my opinion the increasingly fierce competition will prevent the collaboration to become excessively collusive, as all parties would have to be in on the collusive agreement. The advantages of increased collaboration, on the other hand, can be vast. One clear example is the possibility to create joint patent pools and agreements that prevent each other from litigating on some items. Another really important issue is that if the number of fighting parties in patent wars increase, this will only decrease the propensity to innovate as attacks can come from even more directions and can be directed towards more parties. This will obviously decrease the social welfare.

I believe that the abovementioned intense collaboration kind of behavior in terms of patent collaboration would, for now, be deemed collusion. Especially in an oligopolistic industry as the smartphone industry this would raise some important concerns. If the competition keeps increasing as it has been up to today, I believe that one day the competition authorities will play a very important role in allowing and stimulating deeper collaboration. I also believe that, as industries will only keep evolving faster and patents will be even more sequential and complementary, these kind of issues will become more and more important.
Source: IDC Worldwide Mobile Phone Tracker, January 27, 2014

Show less
Reply
Aditya Chandrasekar
The smartphone patent wars between Samsung and Apple consist of a series of ongoing lawsuits, numbering almost 50, in multiple countries around the world, with each company accusing the other of patent infringement. This has been going on for quite a few years, and has cost both companies billions of dollars in damages. Each company has received certain favorable rulings…
Read more

The smartphone patent wars between Samsung and Apple consist of a series of ongoing lawsuits, numbering almost 50, in multiple countries around the world, with each company accusing the other of patent infringement. This has been going on for quite a few years, and has cost both companies billions of dollars in damages. Each company has received certain favorable rulings and certain unfavorable rulings from courts of different countries.

Though there was an attempt to force a truce in April 2012, by Lucy Koh, a US District Court Judge, there have been no signs of slowdown in the legal battles between the two smartphone giants, and they appear to be going on as furiously as ever. The legal battle in the court of Judge Koh, witnessed the jury deciding in favor of Apple, and Apple was granted almost $1 billion in damages. However, Samsung appealed against the same claiming that there was a case of jury misconduct, as one of the jury members was found to have acted against instructions and influenced the other members with his own prior experience in patents. Decisions have also gone back on forth on injunctions to stop the sale of specific products of the two companies. Appeals have also been filed citing things such as evidence tampering, adverse jury instructions etc.

Recently, Samsung’s appeal has been partially admitted, and they have been given a chance to claim around $400 million of the $1 billion in damages they had initially paid. Also, the second lawsuit has recently begun in North Carolina, and this lawsuit deals with more important patents such as those dealing with auto-correct, and the outcome of this may have a significant impact on the two companies.

Thus, it is clearly evident that this war between the two giants is showing no signs of slowing down, and the number of law suits, claims, counter-claims etc. only seem to be piling up. Where this would all end, and how much of an impact it would have on the ultimate consumer is something that we need to wait and watch to find out.

Source:
1. http://fs01.androidpit.info/userfiles/67101/image/AndroidPIT_EN_Patent_War_960_wide.jpg
2. The smartphone patent wars – By Marissa Oberlander, Martin Stabe and Steve Bernard
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electronics_Co.,_Ltd.
4. Smartphone Patent Wars: Timeline of the Apple v. Samsung Legal Battle – By George Edwards

Show less
Reply
Peeters Pierre-Yves
As the text explained, there is several factors which are reinforcing the patent wars. Not only the complementarity and the sequentiality but also the costs related to these patents. But more than that and this is very specific to the smartphones : The number of patents for one smartphone is incredibly high. This is my answer to the second question :…
Read more

As the text explained, there is several factors which are reinforcing the patent wars. Not only the complementarity and the sequentiality but also the costs related to these patents. But more than that and this is very specific to the smartphones : The number of patents for one smartphone is incredibly high.

This is my answer to the second question :
I think law has a role to play in the smartphone industry. Indeed the costs are very high for the customers due to the royalties. We could imagine a sort of precedents obligating some cooperation between smartphones companies. By cooperation I am thinking of cheaper royalties, and a limited number of patents per phone.

I am convinced that patent war is strongly slowing down the evolution of this technology which has a huge potential. And that is why law must supervise the competition. Reducing the purchase cost and maximising the technologies possibilities is for me the only way where the society could benefit from the innovations.

These days complementarity and the sequentiality are strong brakes to innovation. Giving all what we have learnt, deleting this problem is very hard or even impossible. However I am sure that limiting the number of patents per item (not only smartphones) and reducing the royalties cost would encourage innovation. Indeed it will be more affordable for companies to invest in new innovations based on old ones.

I think that the patent war is not the only domain law has to influence. The actual society and the behaviour of the most important companies must change ! The “Laisser faire” is no more viable. People are struggling to life while companies are struggling to make more and more profits.

Show less
Reply
Ivan De Meunynck
Lucy Koh's idea to organize a meeting between Tim Cook and Choi Gee-Sung to cease the hostilities seemed to be a good one as the "Smartphone Patent Wars" could end up very badly for all the "fighters" ("potential collective suicide, as said in the text). This attempt to calm things down (taken in April 2012) has obviously not worked as expected.…
Read more

Lucy Koh’s idea to organize a meeting between Tim Cook and Choi Gee-Sung to cease the hostilities seemed to be a good one as the “Smartphone Patent Wars” could end up very badly for all the “fighters” (“potential collective suicide, as said in the text).

This attempt to calm things down (taken in April 2012) has obviously not worked as expected. Two and a half years later, we can in fact say that the patent war between the two giants has reached a superior level of intensity…

However, from what I found in a “Delhi Daily News” article from this morning, this war could be close to an end as it is “about to enter its most critical stage”. More precisely, a federal appeals court in Washington will listen to arguments in Samsung’s attempt to avoid a losing jury decision and some 1 billion dollars in comepensations for not respecting Apple’s patents” for 23 products.

As some legal experts think, the final decision could bring a solution to a lot of problems and “could also lead to a settlement.

Show less
Reply
Benoît Petre
I would like to give my opinion on the second question. According to me regulation or public actions should be taken in situation in which the market solutions fails. I would like to apply this principle to the smartphone patent wars issue. The inefficiency of this market is due to the structure of innovation in this field of smartphone which…
Read more

I would like to give my opinion on the second question. According to me regulation or public actions should be taken in situation in which the market solutions fails. I would like to apply this principle to the smartphone patent wars issue.

The inefficiency of this market is due to the structure of innovation in this field of smartphone which is largely cumulative. As a consequence two problems arise : the anticommons tragedy and the hold-up problem. The market try to cope with this with private solutions such as patenting pool in the first case or FRAND licensing in the second one. As the results of those private solutions are limited, the public authorities should intervene. I would like to share some actions that could reduce the damage of the anticommons tragedy and the hold-up problem:

Problem 1 (anticommons strategy) :

The patent pool system is interesting but it has a serieus weakness : every participating firms have strong incentives to leave it. Indeed, if a single firm leaves the patent pool, it may increases slightly its royalty (thus increase its profit) without changing much of the total cost of royalties of all firms (thus without changing much the of final price and so the demand). The problem is that all firms will do so. This will prevent the formation of the patent pool and makes cumulatives innovations more difficult to conduct.

Public authorities may act to changes this incentive to leave the patent pool. For example, tax breaks on the royalties could be given to the firms that are part of a patent pool. firms participating in a patent pool could also get a priority access to court when they file a claim for patent’s infringements and some harsh sentences of justice such as a sales suspension could be limited to firms infringing patents belonging to patent pools. I am not a lawyer so it is likely that those ideas are not workable but I’am sure that it is possible to give somehow legal advantages on firms whose patents belong to a patent pool.

Problem 2 : (hold-up)

this second issue make me think to the air transport market. Indeed airlines own time slots** on airports during which they can take off or land. Those rights are kind of similar to patents because it entitled them to exclude others airlines of using the runway (since runway is a rival good). In this market, the amount of time slot to a given airport owned by a single airline may not exceed a given ceiling. It has already happened that two airlines have to sell back some of their time slots to a given airport after they merged. What can be learned from this? If a company cannot participate in a market without the access to an essential ressources, fair competition may happened only if the public authorities guarantee a minimum access to this ressource to all participants.

In the case of airlines those ressources are time slots. In the case of the smartphone industry, thoses ressources are essentials patents on which most of the others technologies are build on.

We could imagine that the public authorities rate some patents as essentials and make sure that no company own more than a given share of those. As a results, every single of those company would be unable to create a product without the patent of the other one. At the end, those companies would be forced to cooperate and bill one another FRAND royalties.

The solutions to those two problems proposed here have to be implement on a very large scale (EU, USA…) to be efficient.

I think that the solutions explained above could force smartphones companies to stop throwing away ressources in fighting each other and rather focusing on developping new
technologies that could attract and pleased more consumers.

**Source (time slot) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_slot

Show less
Reply
Florent Dauvister
While I do believe that Lucy Koh’s decision to force a truce between the two major actors in the ongoing patent war, I think it would be naive to believe that such an easy solution would be able to stop the patent war even to an extent. Big brands like Google, Apple, Microsoft, Qualcomm, Samsung and many others are constantly trying…
Read more

While I do believe that Lucy Koh’s decision to force a truce between the two major actors in the ongoing patent war, I think it would be naive to believe that such an easy solution would be able to stop the patent war even to an extent.

Big brands like Google, Apple, Microsoft, Qualcomm, Samsung and many others are constantly trying to both protect their intellectual and financial assets. The ongoing patent war is key for those companies who are ready to invest billions in order to buy patents that could possibly help them have an edge over their competitors. In June 2011, Google was ready to buy over 17,000 patents from Motorola Mobilty at $400,000 each, that is over $12,5 billion. Apple and Microsoft teamed up with four other firms to buy $4,5 billion worth of patents from Nortel Networks. The rate at which big smartphone manufacturers are protecting their assets and hoping to be able to protect them in the future through the acquisition of new patents is certainly not decreasing.

Mrs. Koh’s move came from the best intention but one might find it very credulous to believe that private companies would bend to the US District Court Judge this easily. Much stronger rulings have to be made but it is hard to expect them to come from the US. Historically, the US has always been extremely liberal when it comes to guiding companies towards the greater good for the citizens. I can’t help but feel that no court would dare to rule against a private’s company right to protect its assets in such a pro-company climate.

The saving grace might come from the EU, the European Commission and the European Court of Justice are always trying to keep the customers’ best interests at heart. It shows in a ruling that happened in April 2014 that aimed to end the patent wars between the main actors. Both Samsung and Google’s Motorola have both banned from igniting new patents wars against Apple. The ruling coming from Brussels officially stated that “such legal battles were anti-competitive, stifled innovation and hurt consumers.”

It is very interesting to see the difference between Mrs. Koh’s ruling and Joaquin Almunia’s (EU competition watchdog head) ruling:
“While patent holders should be fairly remunerated for the use of their intellectual property, implementers of such standards should also get access to standardised technology on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. It is by preserving this balance that consumers will continue to have access to a wide choice of interoperable products.”
I personally believe that the EU ruling is where the solution might be, patents are the best tools to have the opportunity to take full advantage of a company’s own innovation but things have been getting so out of hand with ridiculous and ludicrous patent claims. It has been estimated that almost 250,000 patent claims can be made for a single smartphone. It hinders competition and innovation.

I do believe that a bundle of patents should be made available for anyone willing to develop new products. How can we expect anyone outside of big companies to come into the market or smaller smartphone companies to stay sustainable in such a highly competitive market when patent protection is starting to be more important than innovation itself?

Show less
Reply
Mathilde Kurz
I think that patent wars have not decreased in intensity during the past few years. Indeed, we have recently seen fights in the eternal conflict between the two giants: Apple and Samsung. Although Lucy Koh’s move for a peaceful behavior is a great idea to decrease the smartphone patent wars, I think that it is not especially effective and sufficient…
Read more

I think that patent wars have not decreased in intensity during the past few years. Indeed, we have recently seen fights in the eternal conflict between the two giants: Apple and Samsung.

Although Lucy Koh’s move for a peaceful behavior is a great idea to decrease the smartphone patent wars, I think that it is not especially effective and sufficient to end those wars up. The smartphone market and its stakes are so big that these two giants firms want to gain patents before the other does.

As an example, a new trial between Apple and Samsung had taken place past few months with many pursuits, appeals, and so on. Indeed, on Augustus 29 2014, one can read on the Silicon Valley website: “Apple revealed that it will appeal U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh’s denial of a permanent injunction on the Samsung products.”

I also think that the smartphone market is evolving very quickly and the consumers always want more and more improvements and innovations that firms have no choice to invest a lot in R&D and pursue the competitor when it copies the product of the other one.

For those reasons, the smartphone war is far to be finish and a new war will certainly come up in the short run with no peace for each other contrary to what Lucy Koh recommended in 2012.

Sources:

http://www.siliconvalley.com/apple-vs-samsung/ci_26431765/apple-v-samsung-apple-appeals-judges-refusal-block

Show less
Reply
Laurence Balis
Lucy Koh’s move was a great initiative but I don’t think it was effective. She tried to make the world’s top two smartphone vendors (Apple and Samsung) find a peaceful field but I think it is just impossible. I don’t think a judge can solve this kind of issues. Maybe the starting problem concerns the Patent Office and the way…
Read more

Lucy Koh’s move was a great initiative but I don’t think it was effective. She tried to make the world’s top two smartphone vendors (Apple and Samsung) find a peaceful field but I think it is just impossible. I don’t think a judge can solve this kind of issues. Maybe the starting problem concerns the Patent Office and the way patents are given and legislated. As Yann Ménière said in his article “Manufacturing a mobile device without using other companies’ patents is a gamble, so producers typically negotiate cross-licensing agreements, though sometimes only after costly legal proceedings.” (Ménière, 2012) This patent war is about to continue again and again because the market is so huge that none of them would accept to loose. This industry has a very high value and contains so many patents that this war won’t stop.

And her move doesn’t change anything because for example, after April 2012, there were still litigations between both companies. By July 2012, there were still more than 50 lawsuits around the globe between both companies, with billions of dollars in damages claimed between them. Each of the company won a judgement in different countries. For example, the last “event” between both firms happened in March 2014: “The $929 million judgement from the US trial Apple vs. Samsung becomes official. Samsung files a formal appeal.” Both are looking for patent infringement to prevent the other firm’s sales but as mobile phones are cumulative innovations it is very hard to determine whose patent it is.

But this war doesn’t only concern these companies. Almost all the big firms active in the smartphone sector are involved, for example, Google, Sony, and Nokia etc. They use patents to protect the methods they use against their competitors and by doing this they try to increase their market shares. So as the market is growing, I think that the smartphone war is an increasing problem that won’t stop soon.

Show less
Reply
Chirag Sachdeva
No, smart phone wars have not by any measure calmed down in the recent past, in fact they risen and will continue to rise in the coming time. To corroborate the above mentioned fact, let’s just look at the last result of the last trial b/w the two giants; it resulted in Samsung paying 290 million to its arch rival So…
Read more

No, smart phone wars have not by any measure calmed down in the recent past, in fact they risen and will continue to rise in the coming time. To corroborate the above mentioned fact, let’s just look at the last result of the last trial b/w the two giants; it resulted in Samsung paying 290 million to its arch rival
So to retrospect was Lucy Koh’s move effective? Well, I don’t think so! Let’s discuss this issue from a pure business sense, I mean, let’s look at what is at stake for both these companies.
Apple is the original creator and promoter of smart phone technology, but is it a leader at this moment, well that is very difficult to agree to. Whereas, what is the current standing of Samsung? Samsung is not just servicing the premium segment unlike its rival. It has phones to offer to every category, at the affordable price range for the category. Now let us look at the industry as a whole. It is still growing; there are so many people who need to be tapped. An original innovator poised against a worthy competitor, how much more ugly could it get?
No one is going to budge when it comes to the companies in question, they will try and take as much from the other company as much possible, because one’s loss is the others’ gain!
In light of the above move was highly mis-timed, and was bound to be a failure from the word ‘go’. To think of a possible solution, the only way to go about it is strengthening the law which governs all this. If companies want to go head on, for which they have a right as well, and then might as well let them go. You can’t impose a truce, but you can impose the law. Make the game fair and square, if you think entering into a war and winning incurs less cost than the profit it is bound to reap, then companies will continue to war, till they have had it all!
So, solution lies in strengthening the law, imposing stricter rules rather than creating opportunities of truce when majority of the market is untapped and ready to be taken on by the competition!

Show less
Reply
Ankit Gupta
With the continual efforts of suing and counter-suing by Apple and Samsung, it is clear that Judge Koh’s move was not effective. Recently, Apple got awarded against the same trial which Koh had tried to settle. As a company’s growth is driven by market share, it is natural for a company to grow only when it can surpass the competitors.…
Read more

With the continual efforts of suing and counter-suing by Apple and Samsung, it is clear that Judge Koh’s move was not effective. Recently, Apple got awarded against the same trial which Koh had tried to settle.
As a company’s growth is driven by market share, it is natural for a company to grow only when it can surpass the competitors. And here we are talking about an industry which is characterized by a short product life cycle – the smartphones industry.
What Apple has been trying to do is to stop the devices of Samsung in the market that were infringing the patents held by Apple rather than settling with the damages which Samsung was ready to pay. This instance in itself is self-explanatory that such a peaceful attempt would not stop these patent wars. If the companies are serving the same type of customers, this type of litigation will go on.
It’s not just the innovation that is leading company to success, but also the pull-back mechanism that it uses on competitors, particularly in short product life cycle. Company wants to stop the current product of the competitor as well as wants to exhaust the time and resources of the competitors in such litigation.
Why would company will be ready to share its market and that too with the patent which it owns – hence I don’t think that these smartphones patent wars have or will calm down. Though there are efforts that leads to intermittent crests of composure. Like Apple going back to Samsung for its processors is pure business move but not a way to end such patent wars.

Show less
Reply
Subhash Bharadwaj Pemmaraju
One very interesting fact about this patent war is that there are no winners. Everybody is suing everybody and everybody’s claims appear reasonable and unreasonable at the same time. So this fact itself should ensure that the industry will eventually autocorrect itself. In an attempt to destroy competitors, the smartphone companies will soon realize that they are threatening their own…
Read more

One very interesting fact about this patent war is that there are no winners. Everybody is suing everybody and everybody’s claims appear reasonable and unreasonable at the same time. So this fact itself should ensure that the industry will eventually autocorrect itself. In an attempt to destroy competitors, the smartphone companies will soon realize that they are threatening their own survival. In the meanwhile, competition law could play its role in attempting to stop this madness. However, its efficacy is debatable. As Yann Meniere has discussed in his blog, it fails to address the fundamental problem. At best, it can help accelerate the process of change. On the other hand, there is also the possibility that these patent wars could go on for a very long time. One reason could be that smartphone companies have hit a wall when it comes to innovations. There are so many models with so many features released year after year that it had to eventually slow down at some point. It is possible that the point has been reached. Which is why companies resort to tactics like patent infringement suits in order to bide their time. If that is the case, then competition law can play a very important role. By discouraging such frivolous suits, companies can be forced to spend more time inventing new features than wasting time and money filing lawsuits.

Show less
Reply
Defoy Gilles
As mentioned in the article the main element which makes this case problematic is the fact that we are dealing with smartphones. Those devices are made of lots of other innovations they are obligated to use to fulfill the clients’ expectations. One solution would be to create many innovations which would make every brand clearly different from the others. Each…
Read more

As mentioned in the article the main element which makes this case problematic is the fact that we are dealing with smartphones. Those devices are made of lots of other innovations they are obligated to use to fulfill the clients’ expectations. One solution would be to create many innovations which would make every brand clearly different from the others. Each of those brands would have its own type of smartphoning. But this is impossible. Because, in this field as in many other business ones, people expect to get something which could work with all their other devices, something which can instinctively use without didactic and complicated lessons. So, we can create revolutionary smartphone which could help brands to distinguish them without dividing the market and decrease the number of their potential clients.

Lucy Koh tried to fix the patent problems through a meeting between Apple and Samsung’s CEO. It was a rational move which could bring back peace between those firms. But the problem is that both companies considerate themselves in a clear position. Apple knows that Samsung used the iPhone shape to their products so they consider people bought the Samsung smartphones because of that point and they want the money back from the smartphones they didn’t sell. Samsung agreed they used the “rectangle with rounded corners” but argues that it product shape wasn’t a key element in the client purchases and only agree to pay back to Apple the patent infringement for the shape (a less important amount).

So they don’t want to change their opinion because the difference between what they asked and what they’re okay to offer is huge. Indeed, the Koh’s move didn’t work. Both firms are still suing each other. Furthermore, Samsung has been recently ordered to pay $290 million more to Apple for violating several patents.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/7/3614506/apple-patents-rectangle-with-rounded-corners
http://www.gizmodo.fr/2013/11/26/samsung-viol-brevet-apple.html
http://siliconvalley.blog.lemonde.fr/2013/11/20/apple-contre-samsung-la-bataille-judiciaire-reprend/

Show less
Reply
Eva Leclercq
The mobile phone industry is a real patent thicket as Shapiro argues in one of his article. This element, combined with the fact that mobile phones are cumulative innovations, contributes to transform this market and particularly the smartphones one into a real minefield. In fact, the number of patent claim is incredibly high. And among all these disputes, one draws…
Read more

The mobile phone industry is a real patent thicket as Shapiro argues in one of his article. This element, combined with the fact that mobile phones are cumulative innovations, contributes to transform this market and particularly the smartphones one into a real minefield. In fact, the number of patent claim is incredibly high. And among all these disputes, one draws more attention: Apple versus Samsung. These two well-known enemies are fighting for a long time now. And last year, Lucy Koh tried to force both parts to find a pacific agreement. Unfortunately this attempt was a real failure.

Even if the two firms have cordial business relations (in fact, Apple buys many components from Samsung and is one of its bets clients), they are not ready to let it go. In fact, for both players, the stakes are heavy and it is important to strike the enemy as many times as possible. Loosing would mean paying a huge amount of money, damaging its brand image and renouncing to an important market which is immature and thus offers a large quantity of new customers to capture. Moreover, I am not sure that any judge or any court could have found an effective solution. I think that the key stands somewhere else, maybe in a modification of the legislation or in a different patent policy. Indeed, for me, Lucy Koh has fulfilled her part of the contract. Riding out a legion of famous and arrogant attorneys is not simple and keeping some critical sense when these lawyers try to test the rules is even harder. Despite her limited experience, she succeeded in doing so and she did not sound intimidated. On the contrary, she scolded Bill Lee publicly (one of Apple’s famous lawyers) and even sounds more informal than usual District judge.

Show less
Reply
Luís Cabral
This is clearly a matter of market share and ethics. Samsung and Apple are fighting for the #1 position and best-seller of smartphones, others are trying to survive (e.g. HTC, RIM). The big question is why all these lawsuits? Are companies taking advantage of intellectual property rights to get short run revenues and to harm others’ image? For instance, Google…
Read more

This is clearly a matter of market share and ethics. Samsung and Apple are fighting for the #1 position and best-seller of smartphones, others are trying to survive (e.g. HTC, RIM). The big question is why all these lawsuits? Are companies taking advantage of intellectual property rights to get short run revenues and to harm others’ image? For instance, Google is currently filling 10 patent applications per day. Are they really interested in developing all these inventions/ideas or just gathering weapons to use against others? All companies claim they are only defending themselves from external attacks.

Patent wars are also kind of expected since it is estimated that there are 250,000 patents only related to smartphones. How is it possible to create and launch a new device without being infringing anything? In my opinion, it makes no sense to have allowed for patents of Iphone’s rounded-corners because I cannot see any innovation in it and it is pretty obvious problems would arise. In addition, the more patents there are the more costly proving whatever will be.

SHOULD “EVERYTHING” BE PATENTABLE?

Lucy Koh’s move was not effective at all as the issue is much bigger than individual moves and too complex to be solved with friendly talks. If companies start collaborating conceding licenses to each other and even “open-innovating”, they will be more alike and the products will be less heterogeneous. Perhaps at that point, companies do not have arguments to convince consumers and competition will be even stronger, therefore, making companies change their minds and drop some of the agreements. This threat makes companies afraid of a competitive environment without patent portfolios protecting them. They seem to prefer taking the risk of paying heavy fines than to pay licenses because the prior may not happen and, if it does, at least it also costs money to the competition.

About the competition law, I am not sure. It is a matter too old to have a clear and straightforward answer/solution. I think competition always calls for regulation and vice-versa. In addition, it would not be easy to decide whether a lawsuit from one company towards another is legitimate or not, i.e. whether it is abusive behaviour or not. It seems to me that the problem is on the patents side and on its effectiveness.

Show less
Reply
Srikanth Ramanolla
Smartphone patent wars are far from ending. There will be many battles but the war will go on. Lucy Koh's efforts will at best slow down things or will only be able to settle some of the issues only. As companies try to add the latest and the greatest features to their smartphones year after year they cannot afford to be…
Read more

Smartphone patent wars are far from ending. There will be many battles but the war will go on. Lucy Koh’s efforts will at best slow down things or will only be able to settle some of the issues only.
As companies try to add the latest and the greatest features to their smartphones year after year they cannot afford to be seen as missing a specific feature. After a specific company comes out with a innovation that sticks or becomes popular with the public, that specific feature will be a must have for any other smartphone to stay in the race.
As companies try to find alternate ways to copy the same feature, they are bound to infringe on others’ intellectual property or at the very least appear to be infringing. In my opinion companies tend to risk legal ramifications arising out of patent infringement cases because they think the cost of fighting or defending such a situation is lesser than the loss of revenue by not trying to include the same feature somehow. Also for the sake of not appearing as a copy cat companies that are sued will try and sue back, even if they know they are going to lose the legal battle.
Smartphone industry is growing rapidly year after year and not being a part of the industry is very costly for most of these players. And in their fight for supremacy or survival patent infringements are going to be the norm for the coming several years and patent wars will not come to an end anytime soon.

Show less
Reply
Cibuabua Yves
The battle around diiferent smartphones constructors is one of those which cost a lot in the world. Patent is a way to protect your discovery against bad use by people who didn't get your permission for this. As noted in the text above, to assembly a smartphone you need to get licensees for some others patents, the cumulative…
Read more

The battle around diiferent smartphones constructors is one of those which cost a lot in the world. Patent is a way to protect your discovery against bad use by people who didn’t get your permission for this. As noted in the text above, to assembly a smartphone you need to get licensees for some others patents, the cumulative innovation.

The real problem, in my view, is the fact that firms possessing the essantial patents technologies are direct competitors. Then, they will try to maximise their own profits and extent their market shares. The judge Lucy Koh tentative is a very good idea, this way firms will try to really innovate in useful technologies and not only patenting everything they can to be sure to sue the ones who do not pay a licensee to use their products.

As the agreement is only about the US market, Samsung and Apple can still fight abroad to continue benefiting from the fees paid by the loser of lawsuits. High royalties levels are incentives for the first innovation holders, but is negative for the second innovator, because it is increasing the costs of production. The big losers of this game are the end-users of smartphones.

Show less
Reply
Hexin Shi
In my opinion i think Lucy Koh's policy wasn't effective and the 'Smartphone Patent wars' will go on with a vengeance. In an increasingly competitive smartphone market, patent war between the companies never seem to stop , they will even use "slide to unlock"(tiny function) continuously launching patent litigation, suppress competition.Apple has gained two important U.S. patents about 'slide to unlock',…
Read more

In my opinion i think Lucy Koh’s policy wasn’t effective and the ‘Smartphone Patent wars’ will go on with a vengeance.

In an increasingly competitive smartphone market, patent war between the companies never seem to stop , they will even use “slide to unlock”(tiny function) continuously launching patent litigation, suppress competition.Apple has gained two important U.S. patents about ‘slide to unlock’, it is to use these patents as a weapon in the worldwide to drag its competitors into patent war.In recent months, Apple has been sued HTC on a slide to unlock patent and other patents in Delaware and Texas .It also uses these patents in Miami and Germany Counterclaim Motorola Mobility, in Australia, the Netherlands and the western city of San Jose, California, filed a lawsuit against Samsung Electronics.

So the smartphone patent war will continue for a long time.”A lot of companies are spending hundreds of millions of money in the lawsuit, which shows there are serious problems of our patent system,” New Jersey Rutgers School of Law Professor Michael Carrier said. “Does it have to think about more harm than good.”

Smartphone market patent war intensified, starting from the terminal manufacturers to system camp. Such patent war has seriously affected the order of development of the industry, the smart phone market probably will stifle innovation.It is understandable that smart phone manufacturers to protect their patents, to increase the awareness of IP, but in order to suppress competitors as the main means let the whole industry into the ocean of patent wars.It will affect innovation and development, consumer perception.Consumers can not enjoy the new products and applications, loss of interest on the purchase. Thus,the ultimate victims will be the entire industry and smart phone manufacturers themselves.

Show less
Reply
Julien van Cottem
When Surfing the web and skimming “tech” press articles (The Guardian, LA Times, Forbes…), you can quickly say that patent war is not over. This war grows and not only between the two leader of the market. In all the recent articles we can read about the involvement of Apple and Samsung but also of Nokia, Sony, HTC and more,…
Read more

When Surfing the web and skimming “tech” press articles (The Guardian, LA Times, Forbes…), you can quickly say that patent war is not over. This war grows and not only between the two leader of the market. In all the recent articles we can read about the involvement of Apple and Samsung but also of Nokia, Sony, HTC and more, in an IP lawsuit. The “move” of judge Lucy Koh was very naive and, one year later, turns out to be completely ineffective.

As we can read on this post, the problem of the smartphone is that it is a innovation-based product. Furthermore, R&D of those companies is not in the process but in the technology for the product, thus easily imitable (because observable by competitors). So, it is very important to have a protection on the innovation in order to secure market shares. It goes through the IP rights. Also, the market is very attractive and then there is little barrier for competitors to enter it with similar product or to adapt their products to be as “technological” as the other, even with the threat of infringement.

This war is a collective suicide for the market. Because the aim is not anymore to protect an innovation but every lawsuit became a response strike to a previous one. And it is the quality of IP rights that made it possible. The number of patents one smartphone can have is unbelievable. Every electronic chipset to common tech as volume buttons are patented. In this situation, it’s unthinkable to believe this war to stop.

Show less
Reply
De Kock Boris
I think as long as the “patent war” will also benefit for the winner, it will continue. Most than one year after the Koh appeal, Samsung is again condemned to pay $290 million more to Apple. Moreover, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has softened its jurisprudence. Now, to prove that he was injured, the plaintiff…
Read more

I think as long as the “patent war” will also benefit for the winner, it will continue. Most than one year after the Koh appeal, Samsung is again condemned to pay $290 million more to Apple. Moreover, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has softened its jurisprudence. Now, to prove that he was injured, the plaintiff has just to prove that “The inclusion of a protected function gave a significantly more desirable product” or that “his absence would have made significantly less desirable”. Whereas before it required to prove that violated patents had played a key role in the purchasing decisions of consumers. That was most difficult. So Apple will again request the prohibition of the sale of several Samsung products. I think we should return to the demonstration of a real damage in the chief of complainant. A bit like that asked the Judge Posner in the Mottorola vs Apple case.

Show less
Reply
Marie KHAMPHANH
The “smartphone patent wars” didn’t calm down over the last months but became relay fierce. Indeed, in the 21th of November, Samsung Electronics had to give to its main rival, the Cupertino-based company Apple, $929 million in damages for infringing Ipod and Ipad patents. A few days later, the federal jury of California awarded the American high-tech firm $290…
Read more

The “smartphone patent wars” didn’t calm down over the last months but became relay fierce. Indeed, in the 21th of November, Samsung Electronics had to give to its main rival, the Cupertino-based company Apple, $929 million in damages for infringing Ipod and Ipad patents. A few days later, the federal jury of California awarded the American high-tech firm $290 million in a retrial of the 2012 lawsuit. That’s why I believe that Lucy Koh’s decision wasn’t really effective.

It proves that a truce hasn’t been found yet. In the smartphone market, companies are filling more and more lawsuit against their direct competitors. They generally assert that that their actions are relevant because they’ve invested massively in R&D field to manufacture their state-of-the-art products. Then, they don’t want anyone to steal their ideas and more particularly use their patent without their agreement. I believe that these firms behave like patent trolls and it affect the quality of their innovation. For example, currently, I have the impression that Apple is just relying on its marketing strategy to sell its smartphones. Indeed, it hasn’t launched any leading edge goods for a long time. Its products are just based on the old ones. In other words, only small improvements have been done. Apple’s brand new smartphone model, the Iphone 5c, is considered as a low cost copycat of the Iphone 5. Whereas, in the meantime, Samsung, certainly motivated by its lawsuits’ defeats, has launched more innovative smartphones. For example, last month, Samsung showed an intelligent phone with a curved screen, the Galaxy Note 3 or Galaxy round. In this case, Samsung is eager to highlight its capacity to innovate and to put itself as a leader place in this new market. Moreover, with these numerous legal actions, Apple tends to forget that many of its components are made by Samsung. Apple depends on Samsung. If it really quarrels with the Asian conglomerate, its rival can refuse to sell him its components and Apple will be unable to manufacture its Iphone last version.

Thus, I have a doubt about the capacity of legal institution to intervene efficiently in this smartphone sector.

References

http://www.lesechos.fr/entreprises-secteurs/tech-medias/actu/0203055821174-samsung-lance-un-etrange-smartphone-a-ecran-incurve-615411.php
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/12/apple-samsung-smartphone-wars-courtroom
http://jewishbusinessnews.com/2013/11/13/smart-phones-trolls-the-current-state-of-the-patent-wars/
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-21/samsung-ordered-to-pay-apple-another-290-million-in-patent-war
http://www.zdnet.fr/actualites/les-iphone-5s-et-5c-font-moins-bien-que-l-iphone-5-mais-39795976.htm

Show less
Reply
Daniel Scurtu  
Competition laws improving patent pools *might* help, but it depends on the CEOs of the firms. And a court ordering them to meet and work out their differences certainly has even less coercive power. In my opinion, patent wars benefit companies like Apple quite a lot. Besides Microsoft, they have the most lawsuits with the most companies. Why is that? Let's…
Read more

Competition laws improving patent pools *might* help, but it depends on the CEOs of the firms.
And a court ordering them to meet and work out their differences certainly has even less coercive power.

In my opinion, patent wars benefit companies like Apple quite a lot. Besides Microsoft, they have the most lawsuits with the most companies. Why is that?

Let’s think a bit strategically. Here’s the issue from the marketing perspective.
Considering the overpriced products they sell that are outperformed in one way or another by many lesser-known products around the world… the main feature of Apple products is the apple logo. As a basis for comparison, you can go to Alibaba and order tablet PCs that have all the options of the most expensive iPad, better technical specs across the board, and pay 100-200 dollars.
If Apple comes up with some small little design feature, they will try to patent it and they will fight the patent to the death. What other company has ever come up with something as ridiculous as patenting rounded corners on windows and icons? Most of their patents are on features/technologies that they haven’t even developed themselves.
If Apple loses monopoly over those features, the product differentiation that they rely on to sell their products begins to dissipate, and the Apple illusion will fade.

So Apple is incentivized to fight for every patent that they filed, in order to keep themselves as unique as they can.
Of course, this strategy isn’t unique to Apple, every big company employs it, but nobody relies so much on it, to the best of my knowledge, because nobody relies so much on hype-marketing as Apple does.

In light of this, large visible companies that sell highly marketed end products to consumers are much less likely to form patent pools. It does seem, indeed, that most patent pools seem to be for actual wide-application technologies, rather than products themselves.
The technologies and the weaving of different technologies are less visible to consumers and therefore less dependent on marketing. The utilitarian aspect takes precedence, therefore leading to more patent pools being formed.

But overall, the patent wars are pretty funny… especially in light of facts such as the iPad’s display being made by Samsung…

http://ipinsiders.com/profiles/blogs/did-you-know-how-many-patent

Show less
Reply
Daniel Scurtu
Oh, and I forgot another aspect. From my observations, most of the patent wars aren't for actual technologies, rather for design/engineering details. Things that are almost universal, such as a certain type of media encoding, are easy to pool together, since there's a network effect. But a certain type of phone doesn't have a network effect. It seems that the…
Read more

Oh, and I forgot another aspect. From my observations, most of the patent wars aren’t for actual technologies, rather for design/engineering details.
Things that are almost universal, such as a certain type of media encoding, are easy to pool together, since there’s a network effect.
But a certain type of phone doesn’t have a network effect.

It seems that the incidence of lawsuits is lower if we look at patents for ideas with a strong network effect.

Show less
Saad Ahmad
In my opinion, the aftermath of Lucy Koh's move proved to be just a temporary solution to the problem. My viewpoint on the apple v/s Samsung patent wars is that the wars are mainly because of shifting focus from genuine innovation in this field to channeling of efforts towards avoidable competitive rivalry. Now what can be done to refocus efforts…
Read more

In my opinion, the aftermath of Lucy Koh’s move proved to be just a temporary solution to the problem. My viewpoint on the apple v/s Samsung patent wars is that the wars are mainly because of shifting focus from genuine innovation in this field to channeling of efforts towards avoidable competitive rivalry. Now what can be done to refocus efforts on genuine innovation in this field? In order to innovate the focus has to shift back on the critical success factor(CSF) of the organization. They need to answer what has led to their success till date and what is likely to make them succeed in the future. What is their point of differentiation? To figure this out they will have to go back and identify their CSFs and invest heavily inorder to strengthen it. If investment is needed to strengthen CSFs of a firm and in line with the overall strategy of the firm then investment can be justified. Investment in this regard can be for 2 purposes –
– To achieve operational efficiency
– To embark on the path of growth
Carrying out an exact cost benefit analysis right at the outset is not always possible and not even advisable given the uncertainties and the practical business environment. So in these cases where an exact quantitative analysis is not possible, a thorough qualitative analysis needs to be performed to determine the strategic importance of the given investment. However, the exact benefit from the investment can only be estimated at the beginning of the planning phase but having established that the investment would augment the CSF and give the firm a competitive edge in future, investment using a ballpark quantitative analysis would be justified and is more likely to be highly beneficial for firms like Apple and Samsung who operate in a fast dynamic environment.

Show less
Reply
Haterte Alexandre
Lucy Koh’s move doesn't seem effective, as Apple asked court to hold Samsung accountable for "unclean hands", thereby trying to preclude Samsung to ask for injunctive relief (for ex: sales and import ban) and thus making a major part of Samsung's legal strategy fall appart. But Samsung and Apple are in relationship, as Apple is one of the biggest client of…
Read more

Lucy Koh’s move doesn’t seem effective, as Apple asked court to hold Samsung accountable for “unclean hands”, thereby trying to preclude Samsung to ask for injunctive relief (for ex: sales and import ban) and thus making a major part of Samsung’s legal strategy fall appart.
But Samsung and Apple are in relationship, as Apple is one of the biggest client of samsung for key components of Iphones and Ipads as microprocessors and touchscreen. We can thus understand that these lawsuits are used as a way to fight competitors and are do not aim at completely stopping them.
I do not think competition law could play a useful role in achieving a truce, as the smartphone market is moving to fast compared to the slawness of law procedures.
The best solution that could push the industry back to a path where consumers benefit more of inventions than patent litigators would be open patents, which may improve competitivity and innovation. It was for example the case when android was launched, offering an open-source alternative to the previous OS, which were expensive at that time, this increased competition as it allowed to decrease costs and let new entrants in the market.

Show less
Reply
Oleg Nikolaiko
“The global tech and software industry has been caught up in a ferocious war using patents as munitions: Apple, Ericsson, Foxconn, HTC, Microsoft, LG, Nokia, Samsung and Motorola have all sued each other for patent infringements in the Australia, Japan, Korea, the United States, the United Kingdom and five other European jurisdictions. Companies like Apple and Google are now spending more…
Read more

“The global tech and software industry has been caught up in a ferocious war using patents as munitions: Apple, Ericsson, Foxconn, HTC, Microsoft, LG, Nokia, Samsung and Motorola have all sued each other for patent infringements in the Australia, Japan, Korea, the United States, the United Kingdom and five other European jurisdictions.

Companies like Apple and Google are now spending more on lawyers than on actual research to fend off irksome lawsuits. “ It’s a nice Introduction from Euractiv (see link below)

Lucy Koh’s move could be very welfare maximizing, not only for the firms which like said above, are spending more on lawyers than on R&D. But this move remains very theoretical and I think that its effectiveness is quite insignificant in the real world. The problem is that acting like these companies, is completely legal. And the biggest players on the market are putting some entry barriers in their industry (for the new firms who think about entering the market) and trying to weaken each other in order to get a better position and also a bigger market share for a moment (when one imposes a ban on the products of the other firm, like it was in Germany, when during a few month some Samsung couldn’t sell some devices on the German territory).

While reading some news about the Apple and Samsung patent war, I see that in August 2012 there was a big suit process, in November 2013 also, we can find more details here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_patent_wars … Although Apple and Samsung are trying more and more to find some agreements; I can conclude that Lucy Koh’s move was negligible.

What Competition law concerns, I also stay a bit skeptic to it, because this kind of lawsuits is International, mixing a lot of different laws from different countries, and the structure of the patent market itself, with complements, substitutes etc. makes it very difficult to regulate.

Sources:

http://www.euractiv.com/specialreport-innovation-digital/smartphone-armageddon-tech-indus-analysis-519817

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/7340.html

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/11/28/the-beginning-of-the-end-for-the-smart-phone-patent-wars/id=30479

Show less
Reply
Bertrand RIbonnet
In the trial opposing Samsung and Apple regarding the violation of several patents owned by the latter, it seems that Apple is taking the advantage. Indeed, the South-Korean giant was sentenced to pay a $1 billion fine to Apple during the summer 2012. The judge Lucy Koh in charge of this affair approved $600 millions from this fine concerning the…
Read more

In the trial opposing Samsung and Apple regarding the violation of several patents owned by the latter, it seems that Apple is taking the advantage. Indeed, the South-Korean giant was sentenced to pay a $1 billion fine to Apple during the summer 2012. The judge Lucy Koh in charge of this affair approved $600 millions from this fine concerning the violation of 14 Samsung’s products. The rest still needed to be discussed due to a procedure approximation from the jury. The final decision was taken on the 21st of November: another $290 millions will have to be paid.

But Samsung is not down and the patent war is not ready to stop. Specialists are expecting a response from this firm. They have several arguments to put forwards. First, their analysts estimated the fine to be $50 millions rather than $290 millions. Secondly, they will try to minimize the impact of their violation by arguing that the violated patents were not the ones that give a real added value to Apple’s products.
Moreover, we have to keep in mind that there is an ongoing similar trial in South Korea and that it is very likely that the country will protect its national champion. It could thus offset a little (the South Korean market being quiet small compared to the U.S. one) the decision of American judges.

When we have a look at the patent involved in this trial, it seems to me that some of them are a little bit weak in terms of added value for the society. Let me stress for example the patent about Apple’s curve-edged rectangles. In my opinion, the authorities should not let Apple create a monopoly on such a basis. Moreover, I think that it would be the role of patenting authorities more than competition law to avoid this situation. On top of that we should remember that such trials, by reducing competition, are ultimately at the expense of the consumer’s expenses.

Source: http://lexpansion.lexpress.fr/high-tech/guerre-apple-samsung-des-nouvelles-du-front_417132.html

Show less
Reply
Senterre Quentin
Firstly, as related in an article of the Huffington Post, an important series of engagements in the Smartphone Patent War between Apple and Samsung was still ongoing in the beginning of August. The U.S. International Trade Commission took a final decision on whether to ban or not Samsung’s product due to infringement on several Apple’s patents – including the «…
Read more

Firstly, as related in an article of the Huffington Post, an important series of engagements in the Smartphone Patent War between Apple and Samsung was still ongoing in the beginning of August.

The U.S. International Trade Commission took a final decision on whether to ban or not Samsung’s product due to infringement on several Apple’s patents – including the « rounded rectangle » patent (a very broad design patent coverage on rectangular devices with rounded corners).

The Obama administration also had to decide whether it would intervene on behalf of Apple and overturn Samsung’s legal victory at the ITC against Apple for infringing some of its core patents.
Both companies, Apple and Samsung, spent massive amounts of man-hours and treasure with tactical gains as only result. They both saw legal victories but these were soon neutralized by legal defeats as well by the speed of technological advancement.

Secondly, according to the article, and what is also my opinion (although I use a lot of Apple’s products) the company has no more rights to own the smartphone market than any other company, even if its CEO believes it. Apple too often forgets that Samsung helped pioneer the underlying hardware that it uses to run its iOS…

Thirdly, I particularly agree with the article because I think that as it says : “smartphone consumers the world over have the right to a competitive ecosystem. Market-driven competition is better for economic growth than choosing winners and losers through political and legal maneuvering. A settlement that results in Apple and Samsung engineers designing products instead of courtroom exhibits is better for all involved.“

Finally, I think that Lucy Koh’s move was not really effective but that it wasn’t the real goal of such a move. It was a brave legal action that must help call out Apple and Samsung to stop their patents’ circus and focus on what they do best : Innovate.
Competition between them is legitimate and benefits to consumers like us because it prevents those companies to raise their prices, what they could do if they were in a monopolistic position.

I will conclude by quoting one last time the article of the Huffington post which really inspired me : “The best scenario for all would be a negotiated settlement that brings back real competition between two technology heavyweights. After all, both Samsung and Apple have the cash reserves and the legal firepower to perpetually bring patent suits. Using political influence to tilt the battlefield to favor one side or the other will merely perpetuate a costly war and lead to more collateral damage to consumers and innovation.“

Sources :

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-j-black/smartphone-patents_b_3677701.html

http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/7/3614506/apple-patents-rectangle-with-rounded-corners

Show less
Reply
Benjamin Sommeville
Since April 2012, we can see obviously that the Lucy Koch’s decision wasn’t effective. In views of all the recent news about the “Smartphone Patent Wars”, the battle is not over and I think that it will continue in the future to a very complex state. Indeed, the latest round in the global battle for supremacy in the Smartphone market…
Read more

Since April 2012, we can see obviously that the Lucy Koch’s decision wasn’t effective. In views of all the recent news about the “Smartphone Patent Wars”, the battle is not over and I think that it will continue in the future to a very complex state.

Indeed, the latest round in the global battle for supremacy in the Smartphone market continues this November 2013. In courts, government tribunals and regulatory agencies around the world, Apple has argued that Samsung’s Android-based phones copy vital iPhone features. Samsung is fighting back, complaining that some key Apple patents are invalid and Apple has also copied its own technology.( http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/12/apple-samsung-smartphone-wars-courtroom)

The two firms have each won and lost legal “skirmishes” over the past few years, and appear oceans apart in settling their differences. Analysts predict continued litigation for months to come. I share a common position. Actually, representatives of both companies declined to comment this last batlles and refused to take part on a meeting since a few months.

Show less
Reply
Georges Cyprien
The smartphone patent war is an issue which started a few years ago and never really stopped. It is quite strange that companies keep on suing each other, which is very costly, while they could aswell try and find an agreement. In fact, as shown in the animated graphic from the Financial Times, we can see that some companies (like…
Read more

The smartphone patent war is an issue which started a few years ago and never really stopped. It is quite strange that companies keep on suing each other, which is very costly, while they could aswell try and find an agreement. In fact, as shown in the animated graphic from the Financial Times, we can see that some companies (like Microsoft for example) have chosen to implement licensing agreements with other companies such as HTC, Amazon and Samsung. Thus, since there exists other strategies which seem very less costly and more efficient, we can expect fims to choose this other strategy, which consists of suing the other as much as they can in order to push them out of the market for patent infringement and get higher market shares because they cannot find an agreement or because they think it would make them too “soft” regarding other companies which might take this as a sign of weakness. Apple and Samsung will keep on sueing each other because the first one that stops will look like a looser and it would not be good for their image. Maybe that all this trials also end up not being to costly, in fact, if they win and loose as much, then it’s neutral at the end of the day.
But, this is clearly inefficient and is very bad for consumers which sometimes end up not being able to buy a product because it is withdrawn from the market, and it is also a real brake to innovation. In fact, the firms will hesitate a lot when they create someting because they will fear of being sued by other firms. So, this is something we should fight.
But I think the problem is we don’t really have the necessary tools to fight this phenomenon. In fact, without a unified and worldwide competition law authority, it is quite hard to get rid of this trials because it seems clear that the US competition authorities will tend to protect Apple as much as Korean authorities would try and protect Samsung. Not saying that they are impartial, but still … Hence, we end up with very different verdict for the same problem depending on the country we are and the authorities in charge. This is not very coherent, and I think that we can not really expect the competiton law authorities to deal with this issue.

Show less
Reply
Lefebvre Jean-Christophe
Last month, the company Samsung lost another trial and has to pay 290 million dollars to his rival, Apple. This is one example amongst other that show that the patent war in the smartphones sphere is not finished. Although, I don’t think that Lucy Koh’s move was not effective. Indeed, Samsung and Apple are actually trying to find an…
Read more

Last month, the company Samsung lost another trial and has to pay 290 million dollars to his rival, Apple. This is one example amongst other that show that the patent war in the smartphones sphere is not finished. Although, I don’t think that Lucy Koh’s move was not effective. Indeed, Samsung and Apple are actually trying to find an agreement. Of course, it won’t happen in one year so to see the consequence of Lucy Koh, we need to wait a bit more. To support that point, there is the fact that Samsung is working again on components for Apple. As we know, few years ago, Samsung made a lot of components for Apple. But, last years, with this patent war, Samsung stopped this activity. Today, Samsung and apple announce that Samsung will build the possessor A9 SoCs for Iphones and Ipads. (http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/07/14/apple-reportedly-taps-samsung-to-build-a9-socs-for-2015-iphones-ipads) It is maybe a first step to a patent peace even though the situation is still intense.

So, the question remains : How it will end? In my view, there are a lot of possibilities but the most probable is that Samsung and Apple find an agreement. Competition law could help but not so much because the problem with that kind of companies is that there are concerned by a lot of countries with deferent laws. So I think that an important point in this war, is the new market of “low-cost” smartphones. Indeed, this market doesn’t stop growing while the market of Iphones doesn’t follow this trend. That point makes enter new competitors in the game. To react, companies like Samsung and Apple will have to stop losing time in a patent war and to go back to return on the basic : innovating. That concerns especially Apple which has now “low-cost” smartphone.

http://www.zdnet.fr/actualites/chiffres-cles-les-ventes-de-mobiles-et-de-smartphones-39789928.htm

Show less
Reply
Alexia Biglia
To answer the first question I’d say that Lucy Koh’s move was not effective. The smartphone industry is a big one and is in expansion. It’s really hard to control it for the moment because it’s not in the maturity phase; some people still need to be convinced. I don’t think that her decision has had an impact…
Read more

To answer the first question I’d say that Lucy Koh’s move was not effective.
The smartphone industry is a big one and is in expansion. It’s really hard to control it for the moment because it’s not in the maturity phase; some people still need to be convinced.

I don’t think that her decision has had an impact on the battle between Apple and Samsung. There is still a lot of consumers that Apple and Samsung can reach so I don’t think it’s the right time for them to sit down and find an peacefully agreement. On the contrary it’s the moment where they need to innovate a lot to convinced the last few people who don’t have a smartphone yet. They also need to complicate the life of their competitors because the time that competitor uses to defend himself is a time that it doesn’t use to attract consumers.
Besides if Apple and Samsung find an agreement it will not prevent smaller competitors to create their own patent war. So it will just move the problem to other firms.
In fact we see that this decision was not effective because Samsung and Apple didn’t reach an agreement. The patent war will continue at least until the market reach the maturity phase. Until then it will be a succession of action against the other in order to slow him down.

I think competition law can help to soften this patent war but not by forcing competitors to make peace. Maybe it can make it more difficult to get a patent so that competitors will be less protected and there will be less suing.

Show less
Reply
Mariama Dicko
The smartphone is a cumulative innovation that raises several economic issues in the matter of IP Rights allocation. As its production requires complementary components, granting strong separate IP Rights on these results in high royalties and transaction costs (“Tragedy of the Anticommons”). Also, giving rights upon current innovations thereby giving to its holders the possibility to deny access to subsequent…
Read more

The smartphone is a cumulative innovation that raises several economic issues in the matter of IP Rights allocation. As its production requires complementary components, granting strong separate IP Rights on these results in high royalties and transaction costs (“Tragedy of the Anticommons”). Also, giving rights upon current innovations thereby giving to its holders the possibility to deny access to subsequent innovators and/or to sue them (“Hold-up”) undermine potential later innovators incentives to invest in R&D.

Even though there exist private solutions to reduce the economic static inefficiency (such as Patent pools to address the “Tragedy of the Anticommons” related to complementary innovations) and to increase the dynamic efficiency (such as Licensing Agreement to avoid “Hold-up” problems (for sequential innovations) – they may not be chosen since the smartphone industry is characterised by a high profitability that gives to its aggressive players strong incentives to reduce competition and gain market share through an abuse of the patent system.

Indeed, some of them build extended patent portfolios and overfill lawsuits against their competitors for alleged patent infringements. Since these patent cases could take several months (even years) to resolve and considering that smartphone’ components have relative short-life cycles: it appears that the aim of firms suing and countersuing each other is principally to gain short-term sales boost and to increase their bargaining power for eventual out-of-court settlements.

Far from the seeking of IP protection, patents are used by companies as “legal weapons” for lawsuits in order to:
– Increase competitors’ costs
– Intimidate/discourage new entrants (in addition of the high barriers at entry due to their portfolios)
– Acquire a better bargaining position during settlement negotiations

The Smartphone Industry presents a wide diversity of players that could also go down this road and – as there is a need for interoperability, it would dramatically damage the industry and harm consumers. Competition authorities should intervene in case of abuse and law-makers could regulate patent litigations.

Lucy Koh’s attempt to force a truce in SAMSUNG and APPLE “Global Patent War” is clearly justified but seems nonetheless ineffective. As long as they could benefit from litigations, this pattern may go on. The move is however a great example for other judges that could spare (society) resource waste by directly pushing companies toward negotiations and imposing a peace-making process – in case of patent war – instead of designating a winner.

Show less
Reply
Miguel Moreira
Due to its incredible growth over the past years, the smartphone market is gaining an incredible dimension and it's getting very hard to control, as these patent wars clearly show. I don't believe judge Koh's decision had a real impact on stopping this battle, as the suing and counter-suing process continued. This war would still go on the same way as…
Read more

Due to its incredible growth over the past years, the smartphone market is gaining an incredible dimension and it’s getting very hard to control, as these patent wars clearly show.
I don’t believe judge Koh’s decision had a real impact on stopping this battle, as the suing and counter-suing process continued. This war would still go on the same way as it went until now, if it wasn’t for the fact that after an investigation, the EU formally accused Samsung of antitrust violations in December of last year, threatening the company with a fine of up to $18.3 billion.
From the way I see it, a peaceful meeting between the leaders of the both giants to discuss a truce is unthinkable at this point, when the smartphone companies still have a lot of consumers to battle for. And even if a truce was agreed between these two companies, which are currently the most dominants in this market, there still are other companies that could eventualy grow and achieve a dimension big enough to battle apple or samsung.
This problem can only be solved, or at least softened, with the creation of a more restrict standard to the atribution of patents of the more basic software, due to the complementarity and sequentiality characteristics of the innovations in this market. If not, we are impeding companies to try to innovate, because they know that the risk of being sued is very high. Other consequence is that companies very often file patents just to prevent others from using their technology freely, always with a suing intention in mind.
So, in conclusion, I don’t believe that this measure taken by judge Koh is the right way to end this patent wars, trying to force big companies to agree a truce won’t e effective. A more strict control is required by the authorities, as the EU did to Samsung. It seems to me that that’s the only way to prevent companies from abusing their power and position in the market.

Show less
Reply
XIEWEN YU
First of all, from my point of view, it will create massive benefits for not only the smartphone industry but also the whole economic environment if Lucy Koh’s move can really work out. From the present stage, this move is not effective in stopping the Smartphone Patent War. Viewing the recent news, companies have been still devoting a large amount…
Read more

First of all, from my point of view, it will create massive benefits for not only the smartphone industry but also the whole economic environment if Lucy Koh’s move can really work out. From the present stage, this move is not effective in stopping the Smartphone Patent War. Viewing the recent news, companies have been still devoting a large amount of time and money in suing and countersuing with each other since 2012. As mentioned in the blog, Anticommons leads to two outcomes of certain wars : none of the smartphone companies can force others out of the business by patent litigation even like Apple which is one of the biggest companies with strong power. In fact patent litigation is just one of the method companies use to face the market competitions. Companies is aiming at the market interest and reallocation of market shares in the future. However, involving in the long-term patent competition brings negative effects to the development of the business. Therefore, finding a balance interest point of both companies is the smart way to go. Example like ZTE vs Ericsson indicates that the cooperation is the inevitable outcome for the businesses to achieve.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-23/zte-ericsson-to-withdraw-lawsuits-against-each-other.html
Kent Walker ,who is the senior vice president and general counsel at google, says that “ the best way to deal with technology companies in patent litigation is to have a strong patent portfolio. In the patent war is becoming competitive means of conventional IT industry, with its own patented technology, not only to protect the sustainable development of enterprises, it is essential to respond to competitive weapon.”
Secondly, I do not think competition law is a useful tool to solve the problem. Smartphone businesses is more complicate than others due to the two aspects–‘Complementarity’ and ‘Sequentiality’. For this business, the ‘Tragedy of anticommons’ and Patent thicket including cross license and patent tools may occurs more frequently than others. It is too complicated to judge in the law and may waste too much time and money for the court to investigate. The better solution may be the Lucy Koh’s move. Although it has not been working from now, cooperation and negotiation with each other is the necessary way for the businesses to avoid the potential collective suicide in the future.

Show less
Reply
Lukas Kelling
To answer the question of whether the ’Smartphone Patent Wars’ recently calmed down, you might argue the battle isn’t quite as heated up as in 2012. One year ago, Samsung suffered a import ban in the US on some of their older mobile phone handsets and, more importantly, was ordered to pay more than a billion dollars for infringing patents…
Read more

To answer the question of whether the ’Smartphone Patent Wars’ recently calmed down, you might argue the battle isn’t quite as heated up as in 2012. One year ago, Samsung suffered a import ban in the US on some of their older mobile phone handsets and, more importantly, was ordered to pay more than a billion dollars for infringing patents to Apple, which for its part lost a trial against Samsung in Japan and was suing HTC as well. Since then, HTC has reached a licensing agreement with Apple and the fine which was due to be payed by Samsung has been cut down to 600 million dollars as the jury realized they did some mistakes in the process of calculating the amount, with a follow-up trial in order to compute the correct sum. However, one has to keep in mind that just two weeks ago, the verdict of this retrial was returned, leaving Samsung with a total of approx. 900 million dollars in damages it is obliged to pay to Apple. Quite possibly, Samsung will try to appeal the verdict and in doing so prolong what by now can easily be considered „[smartphone] tech’s biggest trial“. Thus, main judge Lucy Koh’s mid-2012 appeal to both companies’ CEOs didn’t help much to settle the dispute, as besides fighting infringements of the company’s own patents, another big incentive for taking legal action is to temporarily obtain a better market position than the competitor – a motive she presumably suspected to be of greater importance in this particular trial. In case of a successful verdict, the competitor is weakened for a certain period of time as the firm has to cope with the fines it is exposed to, thus narrowing R&D and overall budget, not to mention the possible threat of an import ban for some products. This is one of the main reasons for me to doubt competition law could be an effective tool for paving the way to possibly achieve a truce in a battle like this, as this kind of laws would not critically affect the firms’ incentive to start litigation as a strategic decision with the objective of, first and foremost, bettering their position in the market. To highlight another aspect: even though a smartphone as a complex innovation might be, as you mentioned in your article, open to a quarter million patents and a single or even several patents might appear to be of very small importance in the grand scheme, this doesn’t change patent law and the fact that a firm cannot sell a product without paying attention to every single patent. As long as the crucial and even minor patents required to sell a smartphone are distributed among many, often opposing companies and the ‚Tragedy of the anticommons’ can be applied, I see no way how a change in laws could alter this situation. Therefore concerning the question of whether there could be way consumers would benefit more of inventions than the litigating companies, I could only imagine the voluntary decision of firms to act more jointly and concessively, to cooperate by means of increasing the number of licensing agreements rather than prefering to take massive and enduring legal action against the respective, possibly infringing company (as far as laws can interfere, authorities could try to establish a maximum amount of fines and awards for trials concerning smartphone technology in order to decrease the incentive to bring an action at law, even though I doubt this to be a reasonable approach). However, as the possibility of awarded damages from a successful trial persists and remains attractive, this outcome appears to be unlikely but it’s not impossible – maybe in the future companies will choose to act accordingly to the latter situation, resulting in less harm for consumers.

Source:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3207848/apple-vs-samsung-complete-trial-coverage

Show less
Reply
Justine Costeur
In April 2012, US District Court Judge Lucy Koh have had enough of the continuous war and suits between Samsung and Apple, and she claimed a truce “I think it's time for global peace,” she said (1). At first glance, Tim cook the new CEO of Apple don’t seem as determined as Steve Jobs that promised a “thermonuclear war” (2),…
Read more

In April 2012, US District Court Judge Lucy Koh have had enough of the continuous war and suits between Samsung and Apple, and she claimed a truce “I think it’s time for global peace,” she said (1). At first glance, Tim cook the new CEO of Apple don’t seem as determined as Steve Jobs that promised a “thermonuclear war” (2), so we may have thought at the time that a break was going to happen. It’s true that a truce between these 2 giants will be a good thing for consumers, who would have more choices and maybe more affordable products available in the mobile phone market.

However, why would the two of them make a truce? As said in Edward J. Black’s article: “After all, both Samsung and Apple have the cash reserves and the legal firepower to perpetually bring patent suits” (3). In fact, the mobile phone industry has reached a value of US$1.18T in 2011! It’s a gold mine for profits. Moreover, since this call for truce, there have been a lot of patent battles not only between Apple and Samsung but also between other technology companies, like Microsoft, Kodak, and Nokia (4). So in the end, it appears that the call didn’t calm down the attacks and/or infringements.
There have also been a lot of articles about the war between Apple and Samsung during the past year, new subjects to lawsuit kept on happening. In fact, the war between Apple and Samsung is extending on many fronts and in many different countries. It had long been Apple who was on top but now it’s hard to tell.

Still, one good thing resulted from this call, in the US, and around the world, it seems that less lawsuits have resulted in significant device bans or damage payments.

There are more than 250,000 patents in play in the market of smartphone (3), so I think it’s nearly impossible for one of the two companies to achieve a complete victory. And, signing a truce would mean trusting each other for not using the competitors’ ideas, or sharing the market, ideas and profits, which must be difficult for the two big companies to accept.

References:
(1) http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/technology/news/apple-vs-samsung-judge-calls-for-truce-1.1437289#.UpySlBxBl2g
(2) http://gizmodo.com/5851937/steve-jobs-was-ready-for-thermonuclear-war-with-google

(3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-j-black/smartphone-patents_b_3677701.html
(4) http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3eda6296-b711-11e2-a24900144feabdc0.html#axzz2mKFDNYy3

Show less
Reply
Yasuhiro Minami
First I want to answer to the first question. I am not sure the actual effectiveness of Lucy Koh’s move. This is because I have no chance hearing from firms about their way of thinking. But I can say that the judge of truce was meaningful for patent wars. The judge in big case is important for the…
Read more

First I want to answer to the first question.
I am not sure the actual effectiveness of Lucy Koh’s move. This is because I have no chance hearing from firms about their way of thinking. But I can say that the judge of truce was meaningful for patent wars. The judge in big case is important for the judge in the future. In other words the courts can judge some litigation using the judge in the past. So, thanks to this move, the conclusion of truce is easier to be given in the similar case. In this meaning, I think that her? move was effective. And the judge of truce does not make profit for both side of the litigation. So, litigators have fear for not getting profits. It is important point of view of patent wars. And I did not heard big dispute about patents like Apple and Samsung. So, I think the “Smartphone Patent Wars” are calm down.

Second I want to answer to the second question.
The competition law could play a useful role in achieving a truce in the smartphone patent war. But competition law has another aspect of possibility of increasing patents war. This is because the law can regulate the competition, so we can regulate or surplus the patent war in the situation going on, but at the same time it can increase the patent war used the law itself. I mean the law can make new field for dispute about patent war about competition. I think it is more effective to make change in patent system. I propose to make some pool of patents for the smartphone. I mean that first a firm register their product’s patent for the pool, and then judge whether it is qualified for the patent or not before it makes some profit. And the profit of the patents are concentrated on a pool and distributed to the company after some discussion for the distribution. I think using this system we can discuss before the profit actually is distributed, so it is easier to make conclusion.

Show less
Reply
Christophe Speth
One easy way to limit the proliferation of patent litigators is to make them internalize the costs they impose on society as they hold up downstream innovators or set higher prices than a monopolist would do when selling complementary patents. For instance, it could be possible to increase the fee that have to be paid to sue a cumulative innovator.…
Read more

One easy way to limit the proliferation of patent litigators is to make them internalize the costs they impose on society as they hold up downstream innovators or set higher prices than a monopolist would do when selling complementary patents. For instance, it could be possible to increase the fee that have to be paid to sue a cumulative innovator. Such a fee should also reflect the expected cost to the downstream innovator of the court mistakenly validating a patent owned by the upstream innovator. However, it is important to distinguish cases where ideas are scarce and cases where they are not. In the former one, patents are very important to foster innovation but in the second case it may be that patents harm innovation because the positive effect of incenting upstream innovation is more than outweighed by the negative effect of slowing the process of innovating downstream because of higher transaction costs (such as verifying that a new innovation is not infringing on a preexisting patent).

Show less
Reply
Domien Frederix
I would argue that judge Lucy Koh's attempt to force a truce was unsuccesfull. For instance, recently a jury sitting in a retrail awarded Apple Inc $290.45 million against Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. But Samsung .(http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/12/apple-samsung-smartphone-wars-courtroom and http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/technology/samsung-ordered-pay-apple-29o-2836335). There does not seem to come an end to this ongoing series of legal battles (http://quandarypeak.com/2013/09/smartphone-patent-wars-the-apple-vs-samsung-legal-battle/). In 2014, for instance, another lawsuit…
Read more

I would argue that judge Lucy Koh’s attempt to force a truce was unsuccesfull. For instance, recently a jury sitting in a retrail awarded Apple Inc $290.45 million against Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. But Samsung .(http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/12/apple-samsung-smartphone-wars-courtroom and http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/technology/samsung-ordered-pay-apple-29o-2836335). There does not seem to come an end to this ongoing series of legal battles (http://quandarypeak.com/2013/09/smartphone-patent-wars-the-apple-vs-samsung-legal-battle/). In 2014, for instance, another lawsuit will take place in California with a potentially huge sttlement at stake regarding utility patents that cover things like the auto-complete function and multimedia synchronization.

Although there might be some progress since Samung has offered to stop taking rivals such as Apple to court in Europe over patent disputes in order to end an antitrust investigation. One could argue, however, that this is solely to avoid even bigger European fines for breaking antitrust rules (a fine that could reach $18.3 billion) and not a “peace offering” on behalf of Samsung (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/17/us-eu-samsung-idUSBRE99G0C820131017).

Due to the highly competitive nature of the birskly growing smartphone market (http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/PressReleases/smartphones-market.asp) i would argue that these kind of tit-for-tat legal cases will not end soon. One has to take into account the fact that there are a lot of players in the game which makes it even harder to reach a general truce (http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/31/apple-microsoft-backed-rockstar-consortium-sues-google-samsung-over-7-nortel-patents/). I think that the only way to minimize the legal battles is a stronger global intervention of government institutions like the European commission in the Samsung case or other legal optimizations, as mentioned here before, higher renewal fees or other disincentives for frivolous litigation. An other option would be to simply wait until some of the major firms realize that these tit-for-tat games are too financially draining to sustain in the long run and the marginal utility of litigation goes down since there is less market share to be gained when the smartphone market reaches its peek.

Show less
Reply
Ruben Savelkoul
As pointed out by my fellow students, I think it is obvious that Koh's move did not calm down the 'Smartphone Patent Wars'. As for the role of competition law, I am afraid that there aren't that many solutions I can think of. This problem is so complex, that for every measure that will improve on one aspect of the…
Read more

As pointed out by my fellow students, I think it is obvious that Koh’s move did not calm down the ‘Smartphone Patent Wars’. As for the role of competition law, I am afraid that there aren’t that many solutions I can think of. This problem is so complex, that for every measure that will improve on one aspect of the problem, it will probably have a negative impact on another aspect.
The reason for this is explained in the blog post itself: the combination of complementarity and sequentiality makes it very hard to install patent laws that effectively motivate firms to innovate while not impeding further innovations. On top of that, the size of the patent thicket ensures that there will always (or often) be firms looking to capitalize on their patents at the expense of other firms and ultimately the consumer.
The fast moving nature of innovation in this market magnifies this effect, as there is only a short timespan in which firms can make a profit from their innovation. Therefore, firms will do everything within their power to make money of their patents. This ensures ‘warfare’, just by the fast moving innovations combined with the existence of patents.
As I stated before, I personally do not see a solution for this problem that doesn’t bring other problems to the table. Maybe if innovations start to move more slowly, the war will cool down, just because firms have more time to reap the profits of their innovation. Maybe then policymakers can have a clear view of the key characteristics of the market and customize patent law to its needs before the conditions in the market change again.

Show less
Reply
Zaniewski Jan
In the light of all the recent news about the Smartphone Patent Wars, we can state that the battle is not over since April 2012. Moreover, the conflict about smartphone patents has evolved to a very complex state where many different companies are suing each other : It does not only concern Apple and Samsung nowadays. The verdicts about patent…
Read more

In the light of all the recent news about the Smartphone Patent Wars, we can state that the battle is not over since April 2012. Moreover, the conflict about smartphone patents has evolved to a very complex state where many different companies are suing each other : It does not only concern Apple and Samsung nowadays. The verdicts about patent infringement claims have remained constantly high since Lucy Koh’s move, we can thus imagine that the effect of that good intention was like a drop in the ocean.

Here are some facts to support this statement :

A quick look on the Guardian news page about Smartphone Patent Wars tells us that many court decisions have been taken in several countries about claims between Apple and Samsung (1) Between many news about those two firms, we can also notice some affairs involving other companies like Google, Microsoft, ZTE, HTC, Nokia, and many others. This proves that all the actors of that sector are trying to protect their technologies and to differentiate from others. But on such a fast evolving market, with many parts of the phones produced by big producing companies, it seems to be hard to secretly develop a technology without being copied.
Many news appeared in the last months, that shows that the battle still goes on. The discussion continues in front of the courts and not in a cooperative atmosphere.

Some observers have also noticed in August 2013 that “The patent conflict has devolved into a WWI-style war of attrition with both sides expending massive amounts of man-hours and treasure with few tactical gains to show for their troubles. Apple and Samsung have seen legal victories quickly neutralized by legal defeats as well as the speed of technological advancement.”(2) It’s nothing good to stay in this situation, neither for consumers and innovation, neither for the companies and the technological advancement.

Other findings show that “Android market share grows faster in weak IP countries than in strong IP countries as the patent war intensifies. […] Firms use markets with strong IP protection as a natural battleground for their patent enforcement strategies, which leads to increased litigation risk for other participants in those markets.”(3)

Recent news also report a big move from Microsoft, Apple, RIM, Ericsson, and Sony : operating under the name “Rockstar Bidco”. In the beginning of November, those companies launched a big patent attack against Google. This is the proof that the war has become global in terms of countries but also in terms of involved companies. (4)

All those analysis and news about the Patent Infringement War prove that the battle is still going on, and that the move from Lucy Koh has not been very effective in stopping that complex war.

(1) http://www.theguardian.com/technology/smartphone-patent-wars
(2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-j-black/smartphone-patents_b_3677701.html
(3) http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/7340.html
(4) http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/patent-war-goes-nuclear-microsoft-apple-owned-rockstar-sues-google
(4bis.) http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/microsoft-and-apple-team-up-to-barrage-google-in-the-smartphone-patent-war-8917682.html

Show less
Reply
Sylvain Choquet
The Main aspects of the patent wars between apple and samsung (and I think that is also true for other patents lawsuits) are on the design, and the operating software. Most of the electronic hardware are out of claims (mostly because Samsung is the main provider of electronic parts to apple). Competition law could prove useful in order to stop the current…
Read more

The Main aspects of the patent wars between apple and samsung (and I think that is also true for other patents lawsuits) are on the design, and the operating software.
Most of the electronic hardware are out of claims (mostly because Samsung is the main provider of electronic parts to apple).
Competition law could prove useful in order to stop the current patent wars, but I think that in the future other claims will emerge, and this could go on and on.

For the OS part of the claims, I think that a patent pool with all the innovation could prove useful.
Firstly because it will allow “complementarity” and “sequentiality”, which could burst innovation.
Unfortunately this could be hard to achieve mainly because the models are extremely different between android (with a really open environment, and applications market) and apple (extremely controlled software, no app available without the approbation of apple).
However, if the companies could cooperate, this could be beneficial for the consumers and it will not necessarily be harmful to the companies, and competition. This should particularly be the case for companies that make android smartphones because it’s a one-to-many software, and the hardware of the phones are different between companies. If they cooperate, they could develop specificity to the OS for their phones (and not make the same phones for the same OS).

For the design part, I think there begin to have innovations, mainly due to new materials (OLED screens and flexible screens) that could differentiate between competitors. Furthermore, companies will start to differentiate to acquire specific consumers.

In conclusion, I think that the patent wars will still continue for some time because it’s only the beginning of the smartphone technology and the market is not yet mature. A lot of people do not have smartphones. Once the market will be mature, real innovations will be more lucrative than small innovations (such as design innovations). At this moment, companies will need to cooperate to use previous patents in order to innovate. Competition law could thus prove useful because of the appearance of dominant position, or cartel (android vs. apple could occur for instance).

Show less
Reply
Sourav Das
On March 31, 2014, Apple and Samsung are scheduled to begin another patent infringement trial in the Northern District of California. This one is far more significant in terms of the impact of an injunction sought by Apple because the patents involved are more powerful than those considered earlier. This November, Apple won the latest episode of the patent…
Read more

On March 31, 2014, Apple and Samsung are scheduled to begin another patent infringement trial in the Northern District of California. This one is far more significant in terms of the impact of an injunction sought by Apple because the patents involved are more powerful than those considered earlier. This November, Apple won the latest episode of the patent war against Samsung which in short, was a trial to determine the correct amount of damages to be paid up by Samsung.

Clearly, Judge Koh’s move was not effective. Instead as we will see it added more fuel to the raging feud.

In April 2012, Koh had refused to ban Samsung devices that were claimed to incorporate features of the Apple phones. She merely asked Samsung to pay damages which the firm was ready to pay at that time. But Apple was not too happy with the judgment claiming that the monetary penalty was just a slap on the wrist of Samsung and it demanded that the offending devices should be banned. Indeed, last week the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (which specializes in patent-related appeals) ruled that Judge Koh should reconsider the ban on the models that infringed upon Apple’s three “utility patents” (regarding the basic iOS gestures: pinch-to-zoom, the bounce-back, and the double -tap that were replicated by Samsung in its devices). Clearly if I were Apple I would be in no mood to back out after this.

After the April, 2012 judgment was passed, Samsung’s lawyers carefully analyzed the verdict poring through all the transactions that had led to the purported one billion dollar damage figure. They discovered that the jurors had made errors and Koh later agreed. This mistake led to further court trials in which Samsung has tried its hardest to reduce the damages figure. In addition to this, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office declared recently that it should never have given Apple a patent for “pinch-to-zoom” in the first place, because somebody else had already invented it. Samsung seized this chance demanding that the patent infringement case be frozen until Apple’s patent troubles are sorted. Samsung’s aim is to stick to its guns, delay the jury verdict thus allowing its devices to stay in the market for a longer period until it finds a way out of this mess. The patent war is in no way close to abating.

Sources
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/09/apple-samsung-drop-one-patent-each-from.html
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/11/a-patent-war-with-few-winners.html

Show less
Reply
Edward Still
As mentioned in the article above, in April 2012, judge Lucy Koh asked both Samsung and Apple’s CEO’s to meet in order to try and come to a mutual agreement regarding the different law cases that they had opened against each other. Has this have any kind of a positive lasting outcome? It seems as though it hasn’t. As early…
Read more

As mentioned in the article above, in April 2012, judge Lucy Koh asked both Samsung and Apple’s CEO’s to meet in order to try and come to a mutual agreement regarding the different law cases that they had opened against each other. Has this have any kind of a positive lasting outcome? It seems as though it hasn’t. As early as August 2012 Apple sued Samsung for a different patent infringement as it sought to ban eight Samsung phones from the US market. A few months after that, in December 2013, the patent verdict was revisited again as Samsung insisted on a new trial. It was finally announced only a few days ago that Samsung would in fact have to pay “only” $290million rather than the $1.2billion that was first ordered. However they are again going to appeal this latest ruling.

The Smartphone industry is so huge and incredibly complex that it is near on impossible to “control” it or monitor it by any form of competition policy. The technology evolves at such an unbelievable rate that it makes keeping track and fully understanding every evolution and innovation very difficult; it is a case of the latest innovation being outdated by the time it reaches the market. On top of that there are huge economic and financial incentives for the firms involved and for the markets as a whole that are linked to these innovations. If it wasn’t the case then maybe such a peaceful meeting between the two firms might be possible.

The situation between the two giants really is a war; a battle to gain market power, to gain public recognition and to increase share price and financial return. Even if they did come to a peaceful agreement though the battle wouldn’t stop there given the presence of other powerful firms on the market. This was illustrated at the beginning of November when the Rockstar Consortium, a group of tech giants, filed a lawsuit against Samsung, HTC, Google and others regarding alleged patent infringements. So the fact that the technology is evolving so quickly and in such an unpredictable way a times, the size of the market and the size of the other firms on the market, as well as the significant financial returns that are at stake means that a peaceful agreement is near on impossible. Maybe if the current economic model was to evolve away from being “profit and market-power at all costs” and if innovation was to be the goal rather than just a means of satisfying shareholders’ desiderata, then maybe a peaceful and sustainable outcome could be reached.

So rather than trying to find solutions to solve the negative consequences of such wars, it would be more interesting to approach it from a different perspective and by looking at the bigger picture and trying to see if it isn’t the general economic landscape that the war is evolving in that needs addressing. As mentioned above, that could mean for example that you set innovation as a goal; firms cooperate in terms of R&D in order to come up with the best innovations possible and offer the best products possible, rather than competing in order to dominate the market and maximize the returns of shareholders.
It is of course an idealistic view, but certainly a more productive and sustainable one, and one that would increase social welfare far more than is currently the case.

(1) http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/de24f970-f8d0-11e0-a5f7-00144feab49a.html#axzz1sr16j7Fi
(2) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24771421
(3) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20635961
(4) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25041852

Show less
Reply
Antonio Ouwerx José de Mello
Recently, Samsung has stated that it will stop taking competition to court over certain patent infringements for the next five years. The Korean electronics firm has decided to raise the white flag because the EU had accused Samsung of stifling competition by bringing a series of SEP (Standard Essentials Patents) lawsuits against Apple and other rivals. From this lawsuit the…
Read more

Recently, Samsung has stated that it will stop taking competition to court over certain patent infringements for the next five years. The Korean electronics firm has decided to raise the white flag because the EU had accused Samsung of stifling competition by bringing a series of SEP (Standard Essentials Patents) lawsuits against Apple and other rivals. From this lawsuit the group could suffer a fine of $18.3 billion. The European Commission’s vice-president in charge of competition policy, Joaquin Almunia, believes “when patents are standard-essential, abuses must be prevented so that standard-setting works properly and consumers do not have to suffer negative consequences from the so-called patent wars”. This action taken by EU’s commission against Samsung is one example of a government institution active role play in this major patent war. I truly think that government intervention could be a solution to smooth this tension and create a better environment for IP.

This mobile firm war is mainly related to software patent. One of the main problems around this is the fact that these patent claims increasingly cover the goal of the software, and not the specific code written to reach that goal. There are many ways to provide a same service or goal, for instance streaming a video. So a patent should cover the specific means to reach that goal or service of streaming, and not the act of streaming. This could be a first solution for governments to look-up; they should try to give a concrete and reasonable legal definition to software IP that could both stimulate the run for software innovation and decrease the number of litigations.

Another interesting solution to the patent wars is given by the professor James Bessen. He thinks lawmakers should raise the fees that patent owners pay to keep their patents in force. With high enough renewal fees, companies would think carefully about which patents they want to keep and which they would let expire. High renewal fees would be like a tax on companies that accumulate large amounts of litigation. We could see it like a pollution tax: those patents pollute the environment, and by a tax you’re discouraging that kind of pollution.

I think governments have an important role to play around the patent war in the mobile industry because it affects firms, innovation and consumers, and therefore economies health. It is not an easy task but solutions have to be brought up to the table as the early mentioned.

Sources:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-11/how-to-end-the-patent-wars.html
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/04/apple-samsung-suit-means/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24567049
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/news/could-new-laws-end-the-tech-worlds-patent-wars-11711611

Show less
Reply
Alexis Winders
One week ago, a Californian jury ordered Samsung to pay $290m more to Apple because the jury of a first trial had miscalculated the fine to pay to the American firm. Samsung, on the other hand, calculated that this extra-fine should have been only $50m and argues that Apple overestimated the worth of its patents. (1) With this example, we…
Read more

One week ago, a Californian jury ordered Samsung to pay $290m more to Apple because the jury of a first trial had miscalculated the fine to pay to the American firm. Samsung, on the other hand, calculated that this extra-fine should have been only $50m and argues that Apple overestimated the worth of its patents. (1)

With this example, we clearly see that the bitterness and the intensity of the dispute haven’t dropped between the two leaders of the smartphones’ market.

If we can understand that this fight is important for both of those companies as a way to ensure a maximum market share, we can still wonder if this fight will have an impact on price and profit. Although we now that, compared to their turnover, those fines are not that important, a lot of coming lawsuits and dispute may lead the firms to reconsider some budgets and their price policy.

The risk is indeed (and is actually already going on) to see a climbing number of lawsuits and counter-lawsuits, for technologies that will be obsolete in the coming months. We can there also wonder why those firms invest so many time and money in trials where they are almost certain to have a counter-offensive of the rival.

What is also a bit disturbing in this patent war is the fact that national courts are judging litigation between companies from different countries. Without judging the contents of the case, we see that some trials take place in the US. Therefore, you cannot exclude a nationalist and protectionist feeling. The other trials are running, but it will be interesting to compare the “winner” with the judging country…

(1) http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/21/samsung-apple-290m-patent-infringements

Show less
Reply
Valentine Lowagie
Lucy Koh’s move was probably effective as Samsung recently (October) offered to stop suing rivals for infringing on some of its patents. Samsung was indeed facing an investigation of the European Commission about how it may have abused a dominant position by suing Apple. In fact, according to the Commission, the seeking of injunctions in this case may be abusive…
Read more

Lucy Koh’s move was probably effective as Samsung recently (October) offered to stop suing rivals for infringing on some of its patents. Samsung was indeed facing an investigation of the European Commission about how it may have abused a dominant position by suing Apple. In fact, according to the Commission, the seeking of injunctions in this case may be abusive in the sense that Samsung could impose royalty fees that concerned companies could only afford under the threat of excluding their products from the market. As a result, licensing negotiations would be distorted, leading to consumer harm through higher prices, reduced product choice and stifled innovation on the smartphone market.

More concretely, the proposal of Samsung concerns standard essential patents affecting mobile devices. It is a commitment for a period of five years and conditional to the agreement of the concerned company to a particular licensing framework. This proposal may allow Samsung to avoid a $18.3 billion fine. The smartphone company proposed a negotiating period of 12 months with interested parties. If the negotiation fails, Samsung wants to let a court or an arbitrator decide on a fair and non-discriminatory fee.

The European Commission said that interested companies had a month to comment on Samsung’s offer.

References

http://www.cellular-news.com/story/62533.php
https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/eu-samsung-offers-ceasefire-in-patent-wars/
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/360961,samsung-offers-ceasefire-in-smartphone-patent-war.aspx

Show less
Reply
Labye Stéphane
As you wrote in your article, the value of the mobile phone market has reached a so high peak that it will be, in my view, very difficult to control the sector and to calm down the patents war. In fact, since Lucy Koh's intervention in April 2012, we cannot say that things have calmed down. Several examples attest to…
Read more

As you wrote in your article, the value of the mobile phone market has reached a so high peak that it will be, in my view, very difficult to control the sector and to calm down the patents war. In fact, since Lucy Koh’s intervention in April 2012, we cannot say that things have calmed down. Several examples attest to this. This article (http://quandarypeak.com/2013/09/smartphone-patent-wars-the-apple-vs-samsung-legal-battle/) explains the main facts about the war between Samsung and Apple since the spring of 2011 and as you can see, it has been a real ping-pong game. Moreover, it will probably not be finished this year since a second lawsuit will begin in March 2014.

You can also see on this timeline (http://quandarypeak.com/wp-content/uploads/Apple-v-Samsung-Timeline.jpg) that this imbroglio involves several players, such as USPTO, as well as the US Court or Foreign Courts. This does clearly not participate to simplify the war…

The retrial that will take place in 2014, and well defined and detailed in this article (http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/11/the-truth-is-neither-court-nor-parties.html#anotherretrial), seems to be more important regarding the patents (auto-complete function and multimedia synchronization) and their values than in the first trial. This also makes me think that the war is not ready to be finished…

To conclude, I would say that Lucy Koh’s try was not an effective move but on the other hand, it was a good start. I think that this kind of intervention must be more sustained by a more powerful competition law. Indeed, everybody (even Apple and Samsung), seems to suffer from this patents war.

Show less
Reply
Hippolyte Dispa
As Carl Shapiro explains in its article “Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting”, several solutions exist to attempt to solve the problems linked to a highly patented environment. If we look at the problem of compatibility in the smartphone industry, one can think of rather obvious solutions that might solve the issue. First of all,…
Read more

As Carl Shapiro explains in its article “Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting”, several solutions exist to attempt to solve the problems linked to a highly patented environment. If we look at the problem of compatibility in the smartphone industry, one can think of rather obvious solutions that might solve the issue. First of all, when facing a “many-to-one” problem, patent pools, where at least two companies enter in cross-licensing agreements thus forming a pool of patents, have proven to be efficient. If we look at some ongoing development in the Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) domain, the patent pool initiated in 2005 seems to be working fairly well. An other initiative quite similar to patent pools is the 4G Open Patent Alliance launched in 2008 by companies such as Acer, Cisco, Intel Corporation and Samsung Electronics. Their primary goal is to foster a global ecosystem that will ensure and stimulate the adoption of 4G wireless technology (1). These are examples of competitive behaviors that might actually help solve the war. But the smartphone patent war is also concerned with the problem of sequentiality, as many different components such as wifi access, email transfers and video display have to be included in the devices, it confers great power to first generation inventors. In order to regulate the sequentiality issue, licensing agreements can be negotiated. As shown in the animated graphic by the Financial Times (2), many companies have become aware of the benefits brought by licensing and major players such as Microsoft, Samsung, HTC or Amazon have entered into some agreements. In a nutshell, I believe that these types of competitive agreements can play a useful role in the process of achieving peace in the smartphone industry. However, I do not think that these initiatives only will be sufficient.

I also think that governmental agencies, such as the Patent and Trademark Office in the US or the Korean Intellectual Property Office that respectively grant patents to Apple and Samsung Electronics, have a greater role to play in the industry. By granting some questionable patents, I am hereby referring to Amazon’s 1-click patent regularly turned down in Europe but still enforced in the US and to Apple’s pinch-and-zoom patent (3), they are reinforcing the patent thicket: what was initially built as a mean to foster innovation is now holding it back. This is why I believe that the problem should be tackled at its root instead of trying to find short-term solutions afterwards.

Sources:
1 http://ipinsiders.com/profiles/blogs/did-you-know-how-many-patent#.Uph4k425Z7w
2 http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/de24f970-f8d0-11e0-a5f7-00144feab49a.html#axzz1sr16j7Fi
3 http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jan/24/smartphone-patent-wars-intellectual-property

Show less
Reply
Henrotte Philippe
In 2012 Lucy Koh decided that Samsung was guilty of using Appel's pattent (for example the : "pinch to zoom") without Appel's permission. But she also stated that this pattent wasn't a selling argument and therefore she stated that Samsung could still sell smartphones in the U.S.. She ask the two CEO to find an agreement. But Apple don't see…
Read more

In 2012 Lucy Koh decided that Samsung was guilty of using Appel’s pattent (for example the : “pinch to zoom”) without Appel’s permission. But she also stated that this pattent wasn’t a selling argument and therefore she stated that Samsung could still sell smartphones in the U.S.. She ask the two CEO to find an agreement.

But Apple don’t see it that way. The compagny appealed the judgment saying that Samsung’s product that where inspired by Apple made tham lose a lot of money. They also ask that Samsung should be ban from the U.S. market and that it would be a good warning for the competition. The judgment is not definitive yet, but Samsung already owns 600 million dollar to Samsung.

As a conclusion, I would say it is obvious that theLucy Kho’s decicion wasn’t effective because the two CEOs did’t reach an agreement. I believe that the war will continue in the future. If they can Samsung will probably ask money to Apple in the future !

Sources : http://www.journaldugeek.com/2013/11/20/apple-vs-samsung-le-combat-continue/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500247-37/apples-big-win-over-samsung-what-does-it-mean/

Show less
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use simple HTML tags to add links or lists to your comment:
<a href="url">link</a> <ul><li>list item 1</li><li>list item2</li></ul> <em>italic</em> <strong>bold</strong>