My Answers to HWCase1, Q1

[singularityswebsite]

The source of my case is:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/jul/01/apple-google-patent-case-john-naughton-comment?CMP=twt_gu
as well as
https://www.reuters.com/article/apple-samsung/update-1-apple-launches-new-legal-attack-on-samsung-phones-idUSL4E8DD0KS20120213

For additional information on their other lawsuits view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation

Five important facts are

1. The lawsuit was started by Apple and the defendant was Google over patent infringement and Google's recent acquiring of Motorola.


2. A well-known high class judge named Richard Allen Posner got himself assigned to a lower court to deal with the case.


3. The patent Apple was suing Google over was based on the 'slide-to-unlock' feature that many phones have today.


4. Apple's reasoning for filing the lawsuit was because Google had a tap to unlock feature and Apple argued that a "tap is a zero-length swipe".


5. Posner threw the case out, but Apple has repeatedly sued other company's over similar things since the case originally occurred in 2012.

Three important questions to ask about the case are:

1. Apple has repeatedly sued companies for what most people consider basic functionality in phones, like swiping to unlock, home buttons, tap to zoom, on-screen icons, and even rectangles with rounded corners. Should companies like Apple be able to patent features such as these?


2. In many cases when companies that sue for patent infringement lose they don't experience any negative side effects. The judge threw out the case in this scenario, but Apple did not face any punishment. Should companies that pursue a patent infringement lawsuit and fail experience repercussions?


3. After having seen what Apple has done with patents in the tech field, many feel that they are stifling Innovation in the industry. Apple was the first company to have a major release in the smart phone field so it can be argued that they are right in their defense of this technology. Do you think that they are vindicated in their lawsuits, or do you think they are abusing the patent system? And if you don't agree, what could be done to fix the system they abuse?

Three additional standard questions:

• What does virtue ethics say about this case?


• What does utilitarianism say about this case?


• What does deontology say about this case?

Comments

My Answer to What Does Utilitarianism Say about this Case?

[studentfs]

A utilitarianist would probably take the side of Judge Posner. Weighing the well-being of everyone equally, There is no benefit to anyone's life in the decision of this lawsuit. Legitimate arguments are one thing, but Apple was looking for a "cash grab", a way to slow down google in a ridiculous way. So the ruling really encapsulates the utilitarian ethics model. Everyone goes on about their business and we all benefit from the choice of using an Apple product or not.

[johnmssmith01]

Attempting to sue other companies for basic design and functionality of their phones in such a massive stretch (i.e. the argument that tap is a zero-length swipe) is already a sign to me that Apple is only using the court to attack and undermine other companies. Apple should not be able to patent such features unless they have a very specific design and functionality in mind.

Virtue Ethics

[kayland_childress94]

I do not feel that Apple should have sued Google for using a different way to unlock a phone. In reality, Apple is much further behind than android phones, and are trying to catch up to android. So the fact that Apple keeps suing companies for things behooves me.

Answer to Q1

[blogofethics]

Functions such as home buttons and swiping are on most phones. Apple should not be able to patent these since there are so universal. However, whenever it comes to design, companies should be able to patent that since they have their own unique look.

Should companies like Apple be able to patent features such as these?

[discuss_ethics]

I think that it is unethical for companies to try to lock down accessibility features like a "press-to-unlock" feature. From a utilitarian viewpoint it would not be ethical to gatekeep these features, as less people would be able to utilize the device that the feature is on; smart phones in this case. Closed-source software does not allow for the free development of technology, which is essential to the rapid betterment and development of mankind. Thus, I feel that all closed-source software is unethical. Ensuring profits for an individual does nothing for the betterment of mankind as a whole.

[bearmits991]

To answer your second question, while Apple has historically been ridiculous in their lawsuits, I do not think suits between companies should not suffer repercussions, unless they directly affect production. Companies like Google and Apple have entire divisions dedicated to situations like this, so they do not lose production time. However, repercussions should be given if the frivolous lawsuit is company-individual or individual-individual, as one party loses time during the process.

[riverranbanevoyager2]

In this scenario, I think Google was in the right, and Apple acted unethically. Virtue ethics says to not bring others down or hurt others, and in this "zero length swipe" lawsuit, they're clearly trying to hurt a major competitor.

Where can you draw the line on patents

[wsilver]

This one is close to me. Apple does come off as ridiculous, but it is an interesting question of where can you draw the line on patents. Apple came out with the first of a lot of things, including the first smartphone, and it shaped an entire industry. Apple now ultimately sells it's brand though, which can't be copied, and its features are pretty irrelevant to that. Whether or not something is too simple is always a very vague argument though. If it is really simple to design, then why wasn't everyone already doing it. I think patents should pertain to intellectual property with a degree of uniqueness, and anyone who gets too close to that idea should have to pay or not be allowed to use it. Ethically, there is a balance you have to find with allowing patents for protection and allowing new ideas to still flourish. A utilitarian approach might look seemingly small patents like a swipe to unlock screen as obviously benefitting more people if it was universal than opposed to one company monopolizing them. On the other hand, deontologist might argue against it wondering if it could be universalized that these small things don't really matter. I do think your second question is a good point though. At the very least a company should have to pay for the lawyers of the opposing side if the bring them into a needless lawsuit. Especially as costly as it is to go to court with a large company like Apple.

Answer to Question 1

[ethicalprofessinalism]

Was Apple the first one to have a Lock Screen on a phone? Was apple the first one to have an always on display? Was apple the first one to put Touch ID on a phone? The answer to all of these is no. Are they all features of an iPhone? yes. Its always a tough question of where to draw the line with copyright infringement, especially in a space where copying the competitors is so frequent. I don't know if I can say if the amount of copying that goes on in the smart phone industry is ethical or not, but the utilitarian in me would be quick to point out its benefits. The experience I have on my iphone is constantly improving because of the improvements that Android makes. Likewise Android is constantly improving because of the improvements that IOS makes. It's one of the reasons that smart phones have improved so rapidly in the fifteen years since the first iphone came out.

Answering Question 2

[ethicsincompsci]

In regards to your second question, I don't believe there should be repercussions unless they continually try again and again. The first time it might be more of an annoyance, but give them a chance to learn their lesson from it. If they continue to hound companies for trivial things, then put a limit on it and insert punishment as needed.