An 'innovative' decision in the Apple Samsung case?

As posted by me on SpicyIP. 
-----


" For us this lawsuit has always been about something much more important than patents or money. It’s about values. We value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth." 

- Tim Cook, in his memo to Apple's corporate employees after the $1.049 billion dollar verdict that went Apple's way in it's smartphone patent battle with Samsung, in US District Court, Northern District of California.   

 "Good artists copy. Great artists steal" 

- Steve Jobs, 1994 

This post was meant to review the implications that this decision would have on innovative activity, however I came across some very interesting bits while I was looking deeper into the decision. As far as my take goes on it, the short version is that while Apple is no saint, Samsung did willingly copy certain features and designs. And Samsungs 141 pages of internal documents pretty much admitting the same certainly helped their decision. However, the jury did a very suspect job in deciding the verdict here and there are certainly shoddy aspects that went into the decision. In any case, this is not over yet and this will almost certainly go into appeal. Having said that, at least on first look, it appears that this is good for innovative activity. For the long version and the implications and explanations, read on.

Apple started off by claiming almost everything they could think of - a huge list of trademarks, trade dress registrations (including on the packaging boxes!), design patents and utility patents. Frankly, some of their claims just seem ridiculous to me - take a look at the analysis of the claims in this link here. Judge Koh got the list trimmed down substantially and the trial started with one registered trade dress claim, limited unregistered trade dress claims, 4 design patents and 3 utility patents - by Apple. The 3 utility patents were the 'pinch to zoom', the 'bounceback to signify no more scrolling space' and the 'tapping to zoom' patents. These claims were to be examined against about 25 Samsung products each. And 5 counter patent claims by Samsung including the 2 FRAND patents regarding 3g technology. These 2 patents cover industry standard technologies so it should've been a given that Apple was using them. There were settlement talks which failed which could only mean that Apple and Samsung could not agree on settlement terms. Apparently Apple had asked Samsung for $30 per phone. If this is true, I think I can understand why Samsung refused to settle this and may have even come out better with the $1 billion in damages. 

A 9 member jury decided the verdict after being given a 100 page jury instruction document and a 20 page verdict form with about 700 questions and came back in less than 22 hours of deliberation! That is to say, 9 ordinary members of society unanimously decided a complicated and nuanced suit, which also happens to set precedence for this issue, in 22 hours. I frankly think a panel of well read IP scholars would've had trouble deciding and agreeing on all these issues in such a short period. That is, not to say that the jury was malicious, but it does seem quite likely that with a weekend ahead of them and with their mindset already favouring Apple after Samsung clearly infringed upon some of the patents at least, the jury went ahead and hurried through the process. And unsurprisingly, there is proof that the jury was not as thorough as it could've been.

Inconsistencies: 

In one instance, the jury said that Samsung did not infringe, but then assigned about $2million in damages for inducement. When there is no infringement, proving inducement to infringe seems a bit of a stretch. In another instance, they ruled no infringement at all but still had damages for a few hundred thousand dollars. It makes one wonder then, one what basis they handed out any of their damages. Judge Koh sent these inconsistencies back to the jury and the jury asked the judge what the inconsistencies were. These were then sorted out and Samsung had ~$2million removed to bring the total damages down to $1.049 billion.

There are some other aspects which I haven't quite understood about the verdict yet. Apple went into the case with an injunction against the Galaxy Tab for infringement of design patent, yet amongst the devices that the jury decided on, the iPad was the only clear loss for Apple with the jury stating there had been no infringement. 

More confusingly, with respect to some of the software patents, some devices were found to be not infringing. Given that Samsung's phones all run the same Touchwiz interface on Android 2.2 or 2.3, how is it that most Galaxy devices were found to infringe upon the 'bounceback' patent for instance, but not the Ace or the Intercept. I'm really curious as to what was different about the few devices they found non-infringing when all the others were found to be infringing. 

To be perfectly honest, it almost seems like the jury was randomly throwing in a few questions in Samsung's favour so as to not appear like they've gone all out in Apple's favour. 

Added to this: Samsung's 2 FRAND patents (patents which are required to be licensed on Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory terms as they are necessary to comply with standard setting bodies) were being used by Apple. What's important here is that Samsung offered Apple these licenses at a 2.4% rate or at $14.40 / iPhone or iPad and Apple claimed that this was unreasonable. The infringement seems a given in this case and the question seems to be more surrounding FRAND terms. Instead the jury just found non-infringement in this case. Presumably, they were convinced by Apple's argument in court that Apple bought the parts from Intel, and Intel had valid licenses from Samsung and that patent exhaustion would apply in this case. Personally, I am confused why Apple negotiated (and disagreed with) licensing terms with Samsung if it did not need to at all. 

                                                

Statements from the jury:

A few statements from the jurors with added emphasis by me: 

Most tellingly, the statement from the jury foreman Velvin Hogan, that the jury had reached the decision without needing the instructions. 

In an interview after the trial, he also then said "We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable." 

Unfortunately, not just one but two of the rules that the jury didn't read (as mentioned above), specifically say that the damages were not to penalize but merely to compensate. 'Jury'-activism much?

After the trial, CNET spoke to a another juror. 

"It didn't dawn on us [that we agreed that Samsung had infringed] on the first day," Ilagan said. "We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce-back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art [about similar technology that Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted]. [Velvin] Hogan was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself...so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art."

"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down."

He continued on to state that they were not impatient through the process though. 

It may be too late for Apple to start hoping that the jurors stop speaking out about their jury duty as these statements are probably already cause enough for Samsung to take up with the court. 

Conclusions and Implications:

As for this case, the only conclusion seems to be that this is far from concluded. There seem to be enough grounds for Samsung to appeal and in the meanwhile Apple is sure to go in for stronger claims as well. This is a battle that will probably go on to the Supreme Court. 

The big question is what the implications to innovation are and what the effect this will have on consumers - and I agree largely with what the team at Verge seems to think about this. The implications to Samsung beyond the money in damages will not be much. Apple does not have any injunctions against Samsung. It certainly is a possibility that Apple will now ask for these injunctions, but it is too early to tell which way that will go and if it'll matter at all. Most of these phones are being phased out and the new line have either worked around Apple's patents already or are not endangered by them.  The Android OS development will no doubt have a huge role to play in this but one can rest assured that Google is observing and making notes from all these developments. The software developments here have been proven against Samsung's Touchwiz interface and claiming them against HTC or Motorola or any other company would probably not be bolstered too much by this decision. I could be wrong however and I think Rajiv will be following up on with a post on the impact this will have on the Android ecosystem.

Given that Samsung already has such a large section of the smartphone market, this decision will certainly not throw them off completely, if at all. But they will be more wary of their competitors' patents. Microsoft with their new Windows phones will probably be very happy with this decision as this might help boost their products. 

However, given that patents are here, whether they like them or not, companies will be more likely to (a) be more wary of them and (b) cross-license and settle. Apple was able to wield such power this time because they had a huge advantage coming in strong with patents. This is not likely to happen again since eyes are always following patent filings nowadays. One can also hope that weak patents (such as 'rectangle with rounded edges') will be challenged before they can be used as offensive patents. Software workarounds will probably become the norm - so there will be plenty of duplicative work but given  the three factors which somehow combine here - (a) that companies will be more wary of patents and (b) at the same time want to increase their market share, while (c) software workarounds are relatively easy to do, I would guess that innovative activity is likely to increase. Unfortuntely, more immediately, all the litigation expenses that companies are all going through with these patent wars, will probably translate into higher costs for the consumer. 

I'm less sure what this means for Apple though. Apple has been very trigger happy in these patent wars so far and I'm really not sure what they're so worried about to be filing suits all over the world at the rate they are. Apple makes beautiful, easy to use products and frankly, Apple consumers generally already know what they're buying when they buy Apple products. 

But these court cases represent huge litigation costs for them and one that they are apparently willing to make. It does also seem to appear that their product improvements have not been as large in the past year or so and Steve Jobs' demise is probably a factor in this. Are they worried that they can't keep up with product development and hence are trying to stop their competitors? Because if this is the reason, they may have unknowingly triggered faster improvements from their competitors by being so over-zealous with their patent rights. But then again, Apple has given surprises to the market before - perhaps they can still continue to surprise. In any case, these patent wars certainly do represent a huge waste in resources and it is very very unfortunate that it seems to be leading to companies wasting resources duplicating efforts with workarounds rather than forging straight on. The only clear winners here seem to be the patent lawyers and it is certainly a good time to be one. 

--

For this post I collated data from several websites and news sources across the internet. However much of my information came from several pages within the very informative Groklaw and The Verge.

Google may need to change their motto

(As posted by me on SpicyIP)

Coming this week, Google will be making what could be a ground breaking step in it's search algorithm. Google will start downranking sites in proportion to the the number of valid copyright removal notices that the site receives. According to Google, "This ranking change should help users find legitimate, quality sources of content more easily". While on the surface, this seems like a good anti-piracy move, I shall explain why I think it could be a major problem. 

I had earlier covered some of the problems with the 'personalization' that online giants seem to be doing. That argument was more controversial - essentially claiming that they are not giving people what they want, but rather that they are giving people what Google (for eg) thinks they want (based on their search history) and this limits their information intake and presents a less balanced / less neutral result. I would go further to add that even if they kept giving people what they wanted on a search term, ie, something they're looking up information on, but limiting it to results based on the user's history, this is akin to encouraging a society where views are discouraged from being contradicted and debate and discussion takes a backseat. 

However, this new change to algorithms gives rise to an easier argument : that the search engine giant is presenting users what others want them to see and this is inherently a problem. Google emphasizes that it won't remove content unless a valid copyright removal request is received. However, copyright is certainly not a black and white affair. Do you create an algorithm that detects fair use? Or public domain? No, it's not possible. So what about the notices that target content that falls in these categories? And those could still be good-faith mistakes. What about all the bad-faith / reckless notices that MPAA / RIAA have had no hesitation in sending out (including to dead people and a homeless man!)? Also, Google states that they would be taking down sites with high number of removal notices. What about the following (hypothetical) situation: A small site 'swarajshare' which gives out only pirated media but only stores 500 movies -- vs -- vimeo or veoh or viddler or youtube even! They are all massive and certainly store more than 500 movies. But they probably receive 1000s of valid takedown notices. Does n't this now mean that youtube or vimeo would be lower in their search results than swarajshare even when users are not looking for pirated material? And does changing their algorithm the first step onto a slippery slope? Do other search engines now also give in? Does Google start contemplating more such steps to 'stop piracy'? These are all questions that we will probably see answers to in the near future and can only hope that access to knowledge and creativity aren't killed in the guise of protecting content. (On that note, slightly tangential but a here is a thought provoking study on one of the effects of No copyright - though to be clear I am not an advocate of 'no copyright' but rather of more limited copyright protection)

Rohan George puts it aptly when he says "More than anything else, this signals the end of an era when Google's main interest was delivering information and not 'content'". 

Some sources speculate that Google could be conceding this change because it needs media companies to keep them in their good books in order for them to successfully build an eco-system around their all-in-one Google Play store. And of course, this certainly seems legal and above-board... but I'm not so sure that restricting access to knowledge unnecessarily is really 'doing no evil'. 

IP as an innovation system

(For the meat of the post, you can scroll down to the 4th paragraph)

While there are many justifications and theories of intellectual property, I'll be approaching IPR from the perspective that regardless of the theories/justifications of IP, it is the primary method of incentivising innovation in our world today. (Having said that, this approach does more or less fall under the 'utilitarian theory'). I'll also be ignoring the politics of IP and the developed-developing country issues - the picture below pretty much sums that bit up. I've actually already done a bit of both of those approaches over here. I'm not even looking at the fallout effect of a badly managed but well intentioned patent regime such as excess litigation and overburdened patent offices. For the textual part of my post today, I'm simply looking at the basic concept of patents and copyrights today and explaining what I think their problems are. 

Personalized blog-art credit to Madiha Tallat 

Do feel free to stop and admire the cartoon above.

Ok, So moving on.
What are innovations? Simply put, they are gains in current information or knowledge which optimally can be implemented in products/processes and allow for the further production/discovery of more information or knowledge. Defined as such, innovations are naturally very valued in society and any reasonable society would try to formulate systems for improving the rate of innovative activity. Our society, reasonable or not, has also formulated some systems towards this goal and these are largely encompassed under the heading of 'Intellectual Property Rights'. 

It is obvious that the spread of information and knowledge is fundamental for society's growth and development, therefore any restriction placed on this spread should necessarily be a justified one. Conceptually, this is what patents and copyrights are. Temporary restrictions on the spread of information/knowledge present so as to provide the innovator a time period within which s/he can capture rents for the production of that information, thus serving as an incentive for innovators.

So on the one hand, these temporary restrictions price out one sector of consumers and restrict the flow of information while on the other hand, these restrictions may be the incentives required to quickly bring these innovations to light. The emphasised portions are the key trade-offs in this equation. It's clear what the negative is but on the benefit side, it may not be so clear as to why I'm emphasizing how 'quickly' the innovations are brought to light. The reason for this is that given a certain amount of information and knowledge, it is only a matter of time before an innovation is made from that information. There is no practical way of measuring how long/short this duration may be. Which means there is no practical way of knowing how much incentive is required to bring about an innovation earlier than it would have otherwise taken.

And this is what is causing many of the problems in the patent as well as copyright world today.

Even without actually examining why 20 years was eventually chosen as the standard patent term, it is clear that in the best case scenario it was a best-guess as to what the term ought to be. To add to that uncertainty, the advent of the internet has certainly made a tremendous impact on the spread and accessibility of knowledge and information. With the amount of information available to anyone who has access to a computer and internet connection, the spread of ideas is happening at a much quicker rate in nearly all fields, thus rendering the 'best-guess' of 20 years even more moot.

Unfortunately, discussion and debate in the actual policy setting has been far from transparent in the IP world, with normative solutions for society going lower and lower on the priority list.

Admittedly, patents and copyrights are two very different beasts and as such, I'll discuss them separately.
Copyrights tend to have a 'moral' edge to them, in that, they are more often the result of creative application of someone's mind. The idea remains free for others to use, while the person expressing the idea gets 'ownership' over his particular form of expressing that idea, so it's easy to see why people find it inherently easy to believe that copyrights are justified. This 'inherent justification' also partly explains how copyright terms have been pushed senselessly from 14 years to a currently possible 100+ years. Copyright mostly applies to 'culture' heavy sectors, so it's not very easy to even vaguely estimate if there has been any net benefit or loss due to copyright. However, the fact remains that copyrights can and have been exploited continuously. It's been a long while since our education has been through the means of stories passed on to us. The written word is how we learn and how we are taught now.  If knowledge is valued, then there must be more than a 'less than vague' estimate of net benefit to society by restricting it. Copious copyright term extensions also apply to academic publications. Recently the Spiegal wrote about a study by economic historian Eckhard Höffner, which says that Germany's current industrial might is a spillover effect of the proliferation of academic papers allowed by the absence of copyrights for about 130 years after the superpower of the time (Great Britain) instituted them. In pertinent part from the study:

"Publishers in England exploited their monopoly shamelessly. New discoveries were generally published in limited editions of at most 750 copies and sold at a price that often exceeded the weekly salary of an educated worker. London's most prominent publishers made very good money with this system, some driving around the city in gilt carriages. Their customers were the wealthy and the nobility, and their books regarded as pure luxury goods. In the few libraries that did exist, the valuable volumes were chained to the shelves to protect them from potential thieves.

In Germany during the same period, publishers had plagiarizers -- who could reprint each new publication and sell it cheaply without fear of punishment -- breathing down their necks. Successful publishers were the ones who took a sophisticated approach in reaction to these copycats and devised a form of publication still common today, issuing fancy editions for their wealthy customers and low-priced paperbacks for the masses."

"This created a book market very different from the one found in England. Bestsellers and academic works were introduced to the German public in large numbers and at extremely low prices. "So many thousands of people in the most hidden corners of Germany, who could not have thought of buying books due to the expensive prices, have put together, little by little, a small library of reprints," the historian Heinrich Bensen wrote enthusiastically at the time.

The prospect of a wide readership motivated scientists in particular to publish the results of their research. In Höffner's analysis, "a completely new form of imparting knowledge established itself."" 

Hoffner's is the first study to look at the effects of copyright over a long time and the fact the Britain and Germany existed with and without copyright respectively made it much easier to compare. This period free of copyright laid the foundation for Germany's rapid industrial expansion soon after. Certainly other factors were involved in their continued expansion but the industrial foundation as well as approach to scholarly literature was already set.

So coming back to my point - restricting the spread of knowledge certainly requires strong justifications and strengthening a system with weak foundations seems incongruent with that. I'm not quite advocating no copyright, but it does stand to reason that copyright restrictions should be as minimal as possible.


Products/processes which receive patents on the other hand are generally considered more 'hard' drivers of innovation. This is because they have more tangible benefits to society. Modern IP policy however, has curiously landed on 20 years as the duration of a patent for any and all sectors of technology. This implies that all sectors of technology require the same amount of incentives for innovation. This, however, is simply not true.

Common business sense and wanting first mover advantage is often a huge driver in innovation. Simply put, no one wants to be left behind. Sufficient competition will nearly always lead to innovation. The only normative reasons to give exclusion rights over products/processes are when (a) first mover advantage is likely or is viewed as likely to be insufficient to regain capital expenses and/or (b) when innovation is unlikely without extra incentive due to non-capital related reasons such as market stagnation or contradictory interests.

Pharmaceuticals are the best example of the first scenario where first mover advantage is insufficient to regain capital expenses due to the quick and cheaper reverse engineering that can be done to produce generic drugs. However, pharmaceutical patents come with a host of other problems, which require much explanation on their own and which I'm likely to be highlighting in future posts.
Battery technology is probably the best example of the sector specific innovation stagnation and this is probably due to the fact that improvement of battery capability leads to selling less batteries... But I really don't see how the patent system is helping this problem? If anything, it is part of the problem here. If the incentives to innovate it were tied to the social value of the better batteries rather than to it's sales revenues, there would likely be very quick development in the field.

Let's leave this reasoning aside and look at yet another problem. That of lack of contextualization. Different countries have different domestic strengths. International trade is based on comparative advantage, yet when it comes to patent rights, countries are not allowed to choose sectors for which they feel stronger or weaker patent protection is required.

In other words, despite different incentives required for innovation in different sectors, and despite different countries having different priorities and levels of development, patent policy is broadly the same world over.

The IP system can and will be argued over and teased and pulled in different directions by clashing interest groups... However in my eyes at least, it seems this is not a battle that can be won. Stakeholder interests by default will continue to clash with one another and often unfairly so, in each of their eyes. One way or another though, thanks to the WTO TRIPS Agreement, IP is here to stay. If alternative innovation systems do come up, they will have to somehow bypass the IP system and carve out their own niche.