In following a trial as big as the Samsung V Apple trial there are small things that popup over the course of a case this large and this public. We have already found out that both Samsung and Apple tend to release the number of units “shipped” to investors rather than the number of units actually sold. This is not an uncommon item as when product is shipped to a company like Best Buy or Target they are still listed as a unit “sold” for many companies. But there are other items that come out as well; one of these is only visible if you look closely. This is the strength of the actual claim(s) involved. Although both sides often object just to make things annoying for the other what we have noticed is that Apple appears to want considerably more real data and evidence blocked than Samsung.
Yesterday we talked about a finding posted by the US Federal Trade Commission and sent to the US International Trade Commission on how product bans hurt consumers. Although the finding by the FTC was geared toward standards essential patents it also could be argued that any product ban is harmful to consumers unless the product in question was an outright copy. The comment was aimed at Apple and their pattern of filing for broad patents to ensure they have ammunition against competition.
A couple of days ago, while researching information for another article, I stumbled across an article on patents and how they have evolved since their beginning. I will not go into a full blown history lesson, but I do want to cover something that was very interesting. The first true patent laws were enacted in the US back in the 1790s. This simple law established the patent system to “promote the Progress of Useful Arts” under the original laws a patent could only be granted for up to 14 years and then only if the device was “sufficiently useful and important” and in many cases a working model of the device had to be submitted.