• Great articles on other sites
  • RSS Great articles on other sites

  • Opinion - Written by on Thursday, August 4, 2011 10:08 - 3 Comments

    Apple’s Samsung lawsuit raises wider patent questions

    This article is by Kim Weatherall, a senior lecturer in law at the University of Queensland. It was first published on The Conversation.

    opinion The mobile patent wars, it seems, have reached Australian shores.

    On Monday, representatives of Apple and Samsung were in the Australian Federal Court, fighting it out over Samsung’s Galaxy Tab tablet computer.

    Apple is alleging infringement of a series of Australian patents – mainly related to gesture-sensitive touch screens (see list below) – as well as, it seems, breaches of consumer protection law (by misleading people into thinking that the Galaxy Tab is the iPad, or is licensed by Apple).

    The hearing on Monday ended with Samsung undertaking not to sell its US Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia (without permission from Apple first), and to give Apple, seven days before launch, samples of an allegedly different “Australian version” of their tablet. The parties are back in court for a procedural hearing at the end of this month.

    But this is far from an isolated battle. It’s a very small part of a global battle over patents in the mobile space. Apple and Samsung are currently involved in litigation in at least nine other countries, and these fights aren’t all one-way: in some, Samsung has countersued Apple for infringing Samsung’s patents. Apple is also fighting with HTC and Nokia.

    Microsoft, too, has been filing patent infringement suits against companies using Google’s mobile system, Android, and observers have commented that Google’s recent patent acquisitions have a lot to do with these battles. Just recently too, all the big companies in this space had a battle for a portfolio of 6,000 wireless patents previously owned by communications equipment manufacturer, Nortel.

    The reasons for the breakout of patent litigation in the mobile space aren’t all that hard to understand.

    Historically, the big mobile phone companies (Nokia, Ericsson etc) had plenty of patents, but ended up licensing each others’ technology. The entry of Google, via the Android system, and Apple into this space must have been a massive disruption to these comfortable arrangements. And the result has been war.

    It is entirely possible – even likely – that the Federal Court will never get to rule on the case – either because the parties settle all the litigation, or because rulings by courts elsewhere lead to a settlement of the remaining cases.

    In a way, that’s a shame, because the proceedings raise some interesting legal and policy questions.

    The key legal question is whether these patents are valid – whether Apple can really claim that the inventions described are really new and inventive across the full scope of the claims. Even once the Australian Patent Office issues a patent, it is still possible for someone sued for infringement, such as Samsung, to allege the patent shouldn’t have been granted.

    And the breadth of the monopoly Apple is claiming, particularly in patent 2007286532, is breathtaking. On my quick reading, that patent seems to cover most commands given using more than one finger on a touchscreen of any computing device (mobile phone, tablet, or anything else). Think “pinch to zoom” and everything else.

    I’d like to think Apple won’t be able to maintain a claim that broad, but in patent law, you never know – it all depends on what existed before the date of the patent.

    The policy questions raised by this case – and all its foreign cousins – are whether the patent system is encouraging innovation in software and mobile technologies, and whether the costs these patents have for competition are just getting too high. What if we were to tote up all the legal fees and expenses, the costs in court time and the diversion of efforts away from innovation and towards litigation, the costs in getting the patents in the first place, and fighting over them worldwide, and buying the patents of defunct companies?

    Do you think we’d be convinced the costs are worth it? Apple and Samsung are big enough and ugly enough to take care of themselves in this kind of battle. But I do worry about the little guys. And I worry about the impact on competition.

    If the case settles, we’ll forget these issues for a while – we’ll get our Galaxy Tabs and all the rest. But the patents will stay with us until the mid 2020s.


    The Australian patents Apple alleges Samsung infringed are:

    Innovation Patents

    • 2008100283: List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display
    • 2008100372: Electronic device for photo management
    • 2009100820: Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image
    • 2008100419: Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image
    • 2008101171: Portable electronic device for imaged-based browsing of contacts

    Standard Patents

    • 2008201540: List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display
    • 2005246219: Multipoint touchscreen
    • 2007283771: Portable electronic device for photo management
    • 2009200366: List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display
    • 2007286532: Touch screen device, method and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics

    Should companies be able to patent ideas such as those listed above? Leave your comments below.


    This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.

    Image credit: Samsung

    submit to reddit

    3 Comments

    You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

    1. looktall
      Posted 04/08/2011 at 4:42 pm | Permalink |

      patent wars are rubbish.

      companies should concentrate on innovation, not litigation.

    2. Eric
      Posted 06/08/2011 at 11:00 pm | Permalink |

      Protecting patents protects innovation – copying is not innovation.

    3. Posted 25/05/2012 at 10:52 am | Permalink |

      efmjnjufs, jJPSbui, [url=http://theeliteporn.com/]efmjnjufs[/url], rqejsyM, http://theeliteporn.com/ efmjnjufs, wCkKfRg.




    Get our 'Best of the Week' newsletter on Fridays

    Just the most important stories, one email a week.

    Email address:


  • Enterprise IT stories

    • Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp facepalm2

      If you have even a skin deep awareness of the structure of Australia’s superannuation industry, you’ll be aware that much of the underlying infrastructure used by many of the nation’s major funds is provided by a centralised group, Superpartners. One of the group’s main projects in recent years has been to dramatically update and modernise its IT platform — its version of a core banking platform overhaul. Unfortunately, the $250 million project has not precisely been going well.

    • Qld’s Grant joins analyst firm IBRS peter-grant

      This week it emerged that Peter Grant, the two-time former Queensland Whole of Government CIO (pictured), has joined well-regarded analyst firm Intelligent Business Research Services (IBRS). We’ve long had a high regard for IBRS, and so it’s fantastic to see such an experienced executive join its ranks.

    • Westpac dumps desk phones for Samsung Android mobiles samsung-galaxy-ace-3

      The era of troublesome desk phones tied to physical locations is gradually coming to an end in many workplaces, with mobile phones becoming increasingly popular as organisations’ main method of voice telecommunications. But some groups are more advanced than others when it comes to adoption of the trend. One of those is Westpac.

    • Ministers’ cloud approval lasted just a year reverse

      Remember how twelve months ago, the Federal Government released a new cloud computing security and privacy directive which required departments and agencies to explicitly acquire the approval of the Attorney-General and the relevant portfolio minister before government data containing private information could be stored in offshore facilities? Remember how the policy was strongly criticised by Microsoft, Government CIOs and Delimiter? Well, it looks like the policy is about to be reversed.

    • WA Govt can’t fund school IT upgrades oops key

      In news from The Department of Disturbing Facts, iTNews revealed late last week that Western Australia’s Department of Education has run out of money halfway through the deployment of new fundamental IT infrastructure to the state’s schools.

    • Turnbull outlines Govt ICT vision turnbull-5

      Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has published an extensive article arguing that the Federal Government needed to do a better job of connecting with Australians via digital channels and that public sector IT projects needn’t cost the huge amounts that some have in the past.

    • NZ Govt pushes hard into cloud zealand

      New Zealand’s national Government announced a whole of government contract this morning for what it terms ‘Office Productivity as a Service’ services. This includes email and calendaring services, as well as file-sharing, mobility, instant messaging and collaboration services. The contract complements two existing contracts — Desktop as a Service and Enterprise Content Management as a Service.

    • CommBank reveals Harte’s replacement whiteing

      The Commonwealth Bank of Australia has promoted an internal executive who joined the bank in September after a lengthy career at petroleum giant VP and IT services group Accenture to replace its outgoing chief information officer Michael Harte, who announced in early May that he would leave the bank.

    • Jeff Smith quits Suncorp for IBM jeffsmith4

      Second-tier Australian bank and financial services group Suncorp today announced that its long-serving top technology executive Jeff Smith would leave to take up a senior role with IBM in the United States, in an announcement which marks the end of an era for the nation’s banking IT sector.

    • Small business missing the mobile, social, cloud revolution iphone-stock

      Most companies that live and breathe the online revolution are not tech startups, but smart smaller firms that use online tools to run their core business better: to cut costs, reach customers and suppliers, innovate and get more control. Many others, however, are falling behind, according to a new Grattan Institute discussion paper.

  • Blog, Enterprise IT - Jul 5, 2014 13:53 - 0 Comments

    Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp

    More In Enterprise IT


    Blog, Telecommunications - Jul 5, 2014 12:12 - 0 Comments

    What should the ACCC’s role be in guiding infrastructure spending?

    More In Telecommunications


    Analysis, Industry, Internet - Jun 23, 2014 10:33 - 0 Comments

    ‘Google Schmoogle’ – how Yellow Pages got it so wrong

    More In Industry


    Blog, Digital Rights - Jun 30, 2014 22:24 - 0 Comments

    Will Netflix launch in Australia, or not?

    More In Digital Rights