Posted by Nicole Boodhoo.
About 6 years ago, Apple first sued Samsung over the design of their Galaxy S series. Apparently, the designs of the phones infringed on a patent that was created over the design of the original iPhone. The court closed the case in December of 2016, ruling in Samsung’s favor saying they did not need to pay the $399 million to Apple, but it is now reopened. The court case is not going to be about whether Samsung did or did not infringe on the patents created by Apple but rather how damages will be calculated. Originally, Samsung would have had to pay Apple a percentage of each sale. However, the justices disagreed and stated that they only needed to pay for the components that were claimed to be infringed upon.
According to the article written by Julian Chokkattu, he stated,
“In delivering the court’s majority opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that “article of manufacture” — the legal term that refers to both a product sold to a consumer and a component of said product — has a “broad meaning,” and that an “article” could refer to “a particular thing.” In Samsung’s case, an “article” could be an infringing smartphone’s appearance, for instance, or software feature” (1).
The design patents are at question in this case. A design patent is what protects the look of the product and what makes the product unique. In 2012, the court sided with Apple stating that Samsung did copy the design, featuring “the black rectangle shape and rounded corners, the bezel, and a patent that covered the graphical layout of icons of the iPhone” (Chokkattu 1). The law states that whoever applies the patented design, without license of the owner, is liable to said owner “to the extent of his total profit, but not less than $250, recoverable in any United States district court having jurisdiction of the parties” (1). Samsung and all the supporters believe that total profits should not be included in the reward since smartphones are filled with hundreds if not thousands of components that are patented from neither of these two companies.
Apple feels that everything within the phone, as well as the looks of the phone, is what sells the smartphone and states that, “removing the need to pay total profits would hamper legal protection for new products and designs” (Chokkattu 1). Although Apple agreed that “article of manufacturer” could represent only specific features of the product and not the whole thing, financial damage would prevent people in the future from pocketing designs of other products. As the discussion goes on, the design on the Beetle is brought up as a reference stating that one may not buy the car for just its looks, but might be a primary factor into driving sales up. The article states that, “the infringement wasn’t found on the whole phone,” Samsung attorney Kathleen Sullivan said after the hearing. “It asserted three narrow patents. The patent doesn’t apply to the internals of the phone, so Apple doesn’t deserve profits on all of Samsung’s phone” (Chokkattu 1). She also states that if they do win and are awarded total profits that it would devalue all of the other patents within the smartphone, which roughly has about 250,000 patents. Apple states that this is the 11th time Samsung has copied an idea and they have been found guilty of it. They believe that if this continues it will pose risks to future designs. In the last 100 years, a design patent case has not been ruled on in the Supreme Court.
Nicole is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.
Posted by Kesha Patel.
In 2012, four employees of tech giant Apple filed a lawsuit against their employer in San Diego. Apple allegedly failed to give their employees proper meal and rest breaks in addition to not paying them in a timely manner. In 2013, the case became a class action lawsuit that included about 21,000 employees who had worked at Apple between 2007 and 2012.
California law states that any employee that works for five hours or more must get a thirty-minute meal break; any employee that works for four hours is required to get a 10 minute rest break.
Jeffrey Hogue, an attorney representing the class action said the $2 million verdict had came but Apple could owe more. Although Apple made scheduling changes in 2012, the aura of secrecy keeps its employees from discussing the company’s working conditions.
Kesha is an accounting student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2019.