Samsung v Apple

Describe the business implications of the SCOTUS decision & discuss whether businesses have to change their modus operandi after the decision?

Because of this SCOTUS decision, businesses are able to infringe on patents without having to pay the full amount of profits in damages depending on what the "material....(look up)" is.

Is society better/worse no & is this issue better handled by another branch of government?

I think society would be better off after this decision because this ruling encourages innovation. No one would want to create different types of smartphones if all their profit would go to company with a certain design or utility patent. It encourages competition between businesses as well. This ruling still provides some punishment to the company that infringed on a patent without stifling innovation.

What are your thoughts on the public policy implications of the SCOTUS decision?

I think that ...

If you were King/Queen, how would you have handled this legal/ethical issue?

I would have ruled the same way because I too value innovation. Although some believe it is unfair for Samsung to deliberately infringe on Apple's patent I think it encourages competition between the too companies by allowing Samsung to challenge Apple's smartphones with their own.

How do the ethical frameworks support or contradict the majority opinion in this case?

Mills utilitarianism: if we don't enforce the proper use of patents, it may deter people from creating new inventions which is bad for society as a whole. It benefits the most people if patents protect inventions so people continue to advance technology to improve society. Bentham's utilitarianism: for Samsung, they thought using Apple's patent would bring them the most happiness and the least pain because they thought the cost of getting sued would be outweighed by the profits, but because they lost all of their profits, they experienced more pain than pleasure making it unethical. Deontology: VE:

What legal topic was at issue in the case and does the majority's interpretation of the law take the correct approach in your opinion?

Patents: I think they interpreted the law correctly because Samsung used Apple's patent for the rectangular screen with rounded edges without permission. This is a direct violation of the law. (look up patent act and talk about it here)

Explain the essence of the SCOTUS decision in plain English

SCOTUS ruled that Samsung should not have to pay full damages of their entire profits because they weren't just selling the screen, they were selling the entire phone that used the screen as a key component meaning Apple is entitled to a portion of Samsung's profits.