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

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.