There is more to the Apple versus Samsung trial than meets the eye. As the two-year dispute draws to a close, several issues are still hovering over. The new law that becomes effective the following year under the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). It calls for a €first - to-file' rather than €first to-invent. ' While the government intends to simplify the patent application process and improve quality of patents, many consider otherwise. This would mean additional costs, which maybe challenging for the individual entrepreneur as sole inventor. Companies would be more likely to benefit from the right.
Other facts have come into focus since the recent verdict. It is indeed a celebratory victory for Apple who has won the patent infringement case and awarded USD one billion as compensation to be paid by Samsung. However, despite the weak case presented by Samsung, media has shown all sympathy towards the losing party. This is not because of they justify Samsung's actions, but that the trial may lead to the formation of a law that could be rendered as an injustice to the technology sector altogether.
Apple has several reasons, besides the obvious rightful ones, to have shown an aggressive front against Samsung. The former may have even panicked following a report released during the course of the trial by business analysts, Kantar. The interview-based study reported the highest smartphone sales in Europe were that of Samsung's S3 at 45 per cent, while Apple's was a bare 16 per cent. As if to counter the success, Apple managed to stop sales of the Galaxy Nexus smartphone as more bans are expected following the verdict.
Perhaps the worst affected are mobile app developers in the US who have been going through a wave of insecurity. Some mobile apps have already been withdrawn from Apple and Google stores as a result. The Guardian reported the mibile developers were afraid they might face patent lawsuits as well.
Patentability varies from country to country. Luckily, for Samsung, the punishment for patent infringement falls under a civil lawsuit in the US. In some European countries, the infringement is a criminal offense with heavier penalties. In addition, the patent copyright in the US belongs to the owner or owners, whereas some countries have made it mandatory for company where the inventor works has a right to claim the patent.
The law may sound off a simple statement €patents provide the right to exclude others.€ To elaborate, an owner of a patent can modify the invention, but will also require a patent for the new version. On the other hand, if another inventor or inventors modify, they will have to seek permission from the original patent owner prior to making any changes. This is conditional to whether the patent period is not expired. Once permission is obtained, the modifier with no rights to the original owner can claim the modified version's patent. The legality sounds plausible. For instance, Wilbur and Wright would surely not want to sue the present day modern aircraft. Unfortunately, it is not as simple when applied to technology inventions or innovations and their intellectual property rights.