Samsung v Apple
Is society better/worse now & is this issue better handled by another branch of government?
- Society is better off because companies cannot go money hungry when suing for a breach of trademarks / copyright / etc. - The supreme court handled it well, but the legislature branch could give more guidelines of how to do the math to see how much money was done in damages.
Describe the business implications of the SCOTUS decision & discuss whether businesses have to change their modus operandi after the decision?
- The business implications evolved in this case is that businesses need to make sure they aren't directly copying another businesses' goods or services. Businesses have to be very conscious of patents, copyrights, & trademarks so they avoid getting sued. - The ruling of the supreme court case in this situation doesn't really require a change by business but it further shows that they need to be very careful of directly copying something from a different business
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?
- The legal topic at issue during this case was patents and whether or not apple's phone shape classified as a design patent - In my opinion, I think the law took the correct approach just because with something as significant in our world as a smart phone it is important that the competing markets are too similar and if Apple had patented their design they have the right to use the design just themselves
Explain the essence of the SCOTUS decision in plain English.
Apple sued Samsung because of their similarly shaped rectangle with rounded edges phone design. The holding of this case was that because you can't separate the screen from the phone and sell it, it is part of the end product, however, Samsung did have to re design their phone screen shape and pay apple the damages that were caused by the situation.
If you were King/Queen, how would you have handled this legal/ethical issue?
If I were queen of the world I would have handled this case the same way, the supreme court did. I think that today in the competing technology market, it would be important to the company who created the design to be the sole owner of the design
What are your thoughts on the public policy implications of the SCOTUS decision?
It has the potential to create stricter rules for patent infringement and what companies can/cannot take from each other. Defining what articles of manufacture are makes the subject and the rules more clear.
How do the ethical frameworks support or contradict the majority opinion in this case?
Deontology - Shouldn't steal from other people - Categorical imperative test - don't want to live in a world where that happens, society probably wouldn't function if everyone started cheating off each other
