Decisive judicial punch

Decisive judicial punch
April 4, 2017

Three hours of arduous deliberation ahead of the signing of a federal jury’s decision to fined Korea’s Samsung for nearly $ 1 billion for infringing Apple’s intellectual property rights. Before the signing, Judge Lucy Kuh, a federal judge for the Northern District of California, One of the most famous lawyers in the United States, some of whom are Apple, some of whom are Samsung, said: “When will this conflict end?” Is not it time for peace all over the globe? “I am confident that the friendly solution will be the best choice for consumers, smartphones and all parties.”

Although the statement by Judge Lucy has sparked a whirlwind of controversy around the world, the witness is that the wrath of this judge, who is one of the youngest judges in the court and is well versed in intellectual property issues, is that these conflicts will not depend on the extent Which began in October 2010 when Motorola Motor Company filed a complaint against Apple accusing it of violating some of its inventions, followed in the same month by Apple against Motorola Mobile.

But Apple was alerted that it had to change its strategy, move commercial competition and commercial innovation into the courts and begin to sue competitors relentlessly. In April 2011, it filed a lawsuit against Samsung. By July 2012, In the United States, Apple won one lawsuit in the United States, while Samsung won in return in some cases in South Korea, Japan and Britain.

The court has ruled that the Supreme Court of England has issued a ruling in favor of Samsung forcing Apple to publish an official apology on its website in the UK that has confirmed that Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 has not infringed rights Apple’s intellectual property. In order to enforce the court’s decision, Apple decided to circumvent the ruling. The apology is published by placing a link at the bottom of the page on its website and leading the link to another page where the apology was written in a small font that is barely visible.

But the court alerted to the trick, “Apple”, issued a memorandum obliging them to publish an apology in a font not less than 11 points, and ordered the judge to keep this announcement on the site, “Apple” in Britain for a month and a half, but Apple “claimed to the court that there are problems A technique that prevents the implementation of the resolution and it needs days or weeks to implement, but the excuse was not convincing, and gave the court “Apple” only 48 hours to implement.

In return for the US jury’s decision to charge Samsung $ 1 billion, which raised questions about the readiness of judicial facilities to consider such complex patent and property rights issues, and the extent to which these issues have been depleted for limited human and financial judicial resources, On the Court’s full-time capacity to decide fateful issues for individuals and small businesses.

On the other hand, some wonder that it was not more useful, as Judge Lucy said spend millions of lawsuits and lawyers, consultants and legal experts on scientific research that supports the development of this industry and technology?

“Samsung sold the first phone almost 20 years ago, when Apple was manufacturing and marketing its first smartphone. Without Samsung’s efforts and inventions in the field of smart phones, Apple would not be able to invent its smart phone,” said Samsung. “We can not deny the importance of the accumulation of knowledge and technology in the development of technology and that the reach of Apple is the product of the efforts of workers in the industry.

The world is changing, creativity and innovation are the main engine of this change, and economic excellence has become the most important measure of ideas and inventions, so these innovations and innovations have become valuable national and economic wealth, and this leads us to understand the importance of new legislative and judicial frameworks that keep pace with this development and preserve these wealth and encourage creators To continue to innovate, but at the same time it is necessary not to shed the sword of legislation on innovators, preventing them from starting where others have ended.

This led Prime Minister David Cameron to say in 2010 that intellectual property laws, which had been put in place for more than three centuries to create economic incentives for innovation by protecting the rights of creators, were the same that hampered the innovation and economic growth of the United Kingdom.

The British government has begun a comprehensive review of intellectual property laws to re-read it in the light of the rapid technological development to prevent the killing of creativity and the development of inventions and innovation. These new amendments or frameworks proposed by the Conservative government will allow innovators to invest in modern technologies that will help to flourish the creative business sectors and make intellectual property law more open On technology, for example, YouTube movies and comedic social networks will be exempted from intellectual property laws, and this step is likely to be followed by further steps towards supporting the content industry In addition to giving the consumer the right to copy the books and music that he buys on many personal devices without complying with the formula or format of the producing companies.

The updates also include allowing teachers to use copyrighted materials in the classroom, and gaining greater access to the data needed to develop their research projects.

The amendment of the laws is an opportunity for the development of small enterprises and the creation of career opportunities and anti-monopoly, has proved creative work.