Supreme Court Sides With Samsung In Apple Patent Damages Dispute

Question: Discuss about theSupreme Court Sides With Samsung In Apple Patent Damages Dispute. Answer: Introduction The concepts of intellectual property are a widespread topic of discussion. A business owner on fundamental level needs to understand the law which helps in protecting their creation and concepts from any unfair competition. The concept of intellectual property consists of so many distinctive products that companies may have created and the one that provides some economic advantages (Cornish et al., 2013). It is imperative to seek some professional kind of experience from the intellectual property based attorney to assist the company in properly planning the overall success and also ignore any theft, designs and another kind of concepts. It is important to ensure that the planning and execution come under a well-planned strategy as soon as the company is established or in a process to invent something unique. The report will discuss in detail about popular Samsung and APPLE case where the latter company blamed Samsung to copy their design plainly. It is important to understand that deterring any cyber crime is an important part of the national cyber-based security issue and it consists of many critical kinds of information along with infrastructure protection based strategy (Balakrishnan, 2016). Discussion of the Article As per the Supreme Court in the US, Samsung has no liability to pay an amount of $339 million to Apple (Kim et al., 2015). The issue started in the year 2011 when Apple sued Samsung to copy their designs along with many other things plainly. The lower court passed judgment for Apple. The penalty was based on the fact that if the party is copying as well as applying the patented design of the producer, then the company becomes liable to share their profit with the manufacturer (Samuelson, 2017). However, Samsung counters back by saying that the companies only liable to pay profit from the elements that are infringement. It is important to understand here that the process of filing and sometime again filing of an IP-based application can be a very expensive process and it can also waste some crucial time if not done in a proper manner (Bently Sherman, 2014). It further helps in deciding what is needed to be saved when it comes to IP concepts: - Determining what ideas comes under what specific protection options. Filing as quickly as possible which further decreased the chance on losing out on the overall protection level (Bently Sherman, 2014). It is also important to investigate many types of global patents along with people who are registered in the US. The overall fight against the security of companies policies and manufacturing designs require a comprehensive kind of approach. It is also important to understand here that technical measures alone cannot save such crimes and it becomes very critical for the legal systems to properly investigate and persecute such cases in an efficient manner (Biagioli Galison, 2014). Following are some important types of IP protection for the businesses: - Copyrights: the concept of copyrights is based on saving the original work of the authorship of work of literary, dramatics, works and much more like graphic work or like in the case of Apple, design. The act helps in providing rights to change, distribute, create and further copy the work (Lemley, 2016). Patents: this concept grants some rights in property on cases like invention which permit the patent holder to eliminate other people from making, selling or even using the idea. Samsung in the case exactly that which means the company copied the design from Apple. On a basic level there three type of patents like design, utility, and plant. Trademarks: this concept can be treated in multiple ways like a phrase or a word, or designs that can divide the basic source of the products of one concept and from the competitors (May 2013). Trade based Secrets: A trade secret can be treated as a process, device or other data of business that organization primarily keeps private to provide them an advantage over the competition. Some of the trade secrets can be customer lists, an algorithm of a computer, soda based formulas and customer lists. Classical Theory Deontology These theories questions basic morality based on specific duties or any obligation and also claims that specific actions can be strictly right or wrong. It can be right or wrong despite any consequences that may later follow. What further adds to the choice of calling the action right or wrong is based on its conformity with a moral based norm. Samsung actions were clearly wrong despite them winning an argument in Supreme Court (Torremans, 2016). The company holds liable to share some amount of compensation to Apple in whichever way possible. Utilitarianism According to the concept, different actions on moral basis are right if in case they have the capacity to increase the goodness. The concept of good is based on the overall pleasure or welfare of the well-being. However, in the case discussed Samsung actions does not come under good and asking for the total profit from Samsung doesn't make Apple an ideal company (Lemley, 2016). Virtue Ethics The concept of virtual ethics claims that idea of ethics is all about the agents and does not include any action or consequences. It is important to live an ethical life which may consist of the possession of right kind of character characteristics and also as an outcome come under right moral character (Lemley, 2016). Social Contract The concept of moral behavior is based on some set of rules that any rational employee will agree upon, and it is done for any mutual benefit that provides people, in general, to obey them in a proper manner (Dratler McJohn, 2016). Under such cases, there should be no place for any industry since the overall fruit is not particular. In the end, there is neither type of culture on neither earth nor use of products that can be imported by water in the form of sea or commodious based buildings, no product based on moving and eliminating many things as needed with much force. Conclusion Companies like Apple are struggling to save the intellectual property, and the process is very significant to the success of the business. Every company must ask a crucial question like what the intellectual property is and how to save it from unfair practices. The concept consists of many items that are discussed in detail above and have also created with some uniqueness and also provide the company with specific economic based advantages (Dratler McJohn, 2016). The concept of intellectual property covers any kind of original work like invention, designs, trade secrets or authorship. The process of intellectual property entirely depends on types of intellectual property the company has. Reference Balakrishnan, A., (2016, Dec). Supreme Court sides with Samsung in Apple patent damages dispute. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/06/supreme-court-rules-for-samsung-in-apple-patent-case.html Bently, L., Sherman, B. (2014).Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press, USA. Biagioli, M., Galison, P. (2014).Scientific authorship: Credit and intellectual property in science. Routledge. Cornish, W., Llewelyn, G. I. D., Aplin, T. (2013). Intellectual property: patents, copyright, trade marks allied rights. Dratler, J., McJohn, S. M. (2016).Licensing of Intellectual Property. Law Journal Press. Gans, J. S., Murray, F. E., Stern, S. (2017). Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication.Research Policy,46(4), 820-835. Kim, K. H., Baik, J. H., Yeo, J. M., Lee, M. H. (2015).U.S. Patent No. D734,340. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Lemley, M. (2016). Anticompetitive Settlement of Intellectual Property Disputes. Lemley, M. (2016). Beyond Preemption: The Federal Law and Policy of Intellectual Property Licensing. May, C. (2013).The global political economy of intellectual property rights: The new enclosures?(Vol. 3). Routledge. Samuelson, P. (2017). Supreme Court on design patent damages in Samsung v. Apple.Communications of the ACM,60(3), 26-28. Torremans, P. (2016).Holyoak and Torremans intellectual property law. Oxford University Press.