Apple vs Samsung vs Goophone, Research Paper Example

The issue of intellectual property rights has surfaced on a large scale over wireless devices and patent laws, most notably making the headlines in the Apple versus Samsung case; in addition, other countries such as China have also become involved in the conflict. There are several technical and business matters addressed by these cases. This paper will discuss international patent law and the way it has or has not impacted technology and sales of the major companies involved.

In reality, there is no such thing as an international patent, despite the fact that there is a “World” patent application process. Under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, many countries accept national phase patent applications, and the World Intellectual Property Organization keeps a database of published international patent applications (Patent Laws around the World.) However, this is a relatively meaningless exercise because in fact, patents are only given out by the government of a country and are only valid within its jurisdiction.

Although the battle between Apple and Samsung has been the most prominent conflict over wireless technology, China has also been involved in the dispute because it has been accused of stealing intellectual property and using it to manufacture counterfeit products based on technology which closely imitates products produced in other countries, notably the United States. The controversy became even more prominent with the development of the Goophone, made by a Chinese phone company which claims to have patented the iPhone 5 design in that country before the iPhone 5 had even been offered. In advance of Apple’s official introduction of its newest product China has threatened to begin legal action on the basis of patent violations (Goophone versus Apple: In a Patent Battle, Who Would Win? 2012.)

In the recent case in the United States courts, Apple Inc. sued Samsung Electronics for patent violations, claiming that Samsung had violated a series of Apple’s patents pertaining to the software and design of its mobile devices (Wingfield, 2012.) In addition, the jury in that case found that all of Apple’s patents were legitimate and that Apple had not violated any patents belonging to Samsung. There were several technical issues that were involved, specifically that Samsung had copied Apple products by scrolling via pinching and zooming, tapping to zoom and center, as well is imitating Apple’s iPhone’s face, screen, and speaker slot and the icon arrangement on the home screen. The only aspect that the court found in Samsung’s favor was that it had the right to offer a product that had a rectangular shape and rounded corners similar to that of an iPad. Apple, which was awarded $1 billion in damages, is based in California, but its battle with Samsung extends over four continents: the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and South Korea (Rosenblatt.)

Apple, however, is not necessarily destined to win all of such battles: recently, the International Trade Commission ruled that it had infringed on a Motorola patent (Long.) Apple’s strategy had been to patent every feature on its devices, but it is being challenged by many companies, including Microsoft, Google, and Samsung, all of which market smartphones. It is believed that a change in the smartphone intellectual-property marketplace is going to occur, if it is not already happening, because Samsung has put a tremendous amount of resources into 4G technologies, including handset and memory chips, and right now, is the largest owner of 4G applications. While Samsung is by far the largest holder of 4G patents, Apple does not even appear on the top 10 on that list.

Apple’s recent victory in the courts, however, has certainly had a chilling impact on rival companies who now need to be worried about being sued for patent infringement if they develop similar products. The result is that Apple maintains a significant monopoly on the market, virtually eliminating competition and creating a losing situation for customers who might not be able to afford Apple products and would be in the market for similar, less expensive devices which will now most likely be more difficult to find.

The impact of smart phone sales and technology on globalization has been significant, with the United States leading in sales but most of the components being manufactured in China. Apple products are all manufactured in that country, reducing their labor costs because of the low wage scale in China; recently, Apple received a great deal of negative publicity because it was revealed that their products were being manufactured in factories with abysmal working conditions, laborers being forced to work back-to-back shifts for nearly 24 hour periods as well as enduring substandard work settings and treatment. The result was that Apple, while continuing to utilize Chinese factories to mass produce their gadgets, made a commitment to remedy the conditions in the factories for those workers. In the United States, virtually all of the electronics are outsourced because of the free trade agreements enacted during past presidential administrations, with the result that so many of the technology jobs have ended up in Asia. The growth of the wireless technology industry has been a tremendous boon for companies in the United States who, through globalization, are able to have products made for very little money which they can then offer at substantially higher prices at home, creating a booming profit margin.

Works Cited:

“Goophone versus Apple: Who Would Win in a Patent Battle?” 8 September 2012. GizChina. 18 September 2012 <http://www.gizchina.com/2012/09/08/goophone-vs-apple-who-would-win-in-a-patent-battle>.

Long, Steve. “Smart Phone Patent Wars: The Coming Sequel.” 26 April 2012. The New York Times. 19 September 2012 <http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/smartphone-patent-wars-the-coming-sequel/>.

“Patent Laws around the World.” Patent Lens. 19 September 2012 <http://www.patentlens.net/daisy/patentlens/ip/around-the-world.html>.

Wingfield, Nick. “Jury Awards $1 Billion to Apple and Samsung Patent Case.” The New York Times 24 August 2012: A 1.