Most Popular
-
1
Ador CEO denies allegations, accuses Hybe of mistreating NewJeans
-
2
Medical reform committee kicks off despite boycott from doctors
-
3
10-man S. Korea lose to Indonesia to miss out on Paris Olympic football qualification
-
4
Hybe-Ador feud should have limited effect on Hybe's overall performance: analysts
-
5
Second Gimpo civil servant found dead, after apologizing for not finishing work
-
6
DP leader says he will meet Yoon without conditions
-
7
Over 9,000 hotline calls made by stalking victims in 2023
-
8
Monthly users on local streaming platforms outpace Netflix, Disney+
-
9
[Hello India] Hyundai Motor vows to boost 'clean mobility' in India
![[Hello India] Hyundai Motor vows to boost 'clean mobility' in India](//res.heraldm.com/phpwas/restmb_idxmake.php?idx=644&simg=/content/image/2024/04/25/20240425050672_0.jpg&u=)
-
10
Seoul to promote luxurious side of the city
![[Hello India] Hyundai Motor vows to boost 'clean mobility' in India](http://res.heraldm.com/phpwas/restmb_idxmake.php?idx=644&simg=/content/image/2024/04/25/20240425050672_0.jpg&u=)
‘애플도 카피캣...대법원 삼성 손 들어줘야’
미국 연방대법원 120년 만에 디자인 특허 심리…삼성 상고
By 이지윤Published : April 14, 2016 - 12:01
베스트셀러 ‘모방경제’ 저자 UCLA 로스쿨 칼 라우스티알라 교수 인터뷰
‘실리콘밸리 기업들 혁신 위해 삼성과 연대할 것’
[코리아헤럴드=이지윤기자] 미국 연방대법원이 삼성과 애플의 특허 공방을 심리하기로 결정했다. 미 연방대법원이 디자인 특허를 심리하는 것은 122년만이다.
지적재산권 전문가인 UCLA 로스쿨 칼 라우스티알라 교수는 최근 코리아헤럴드와의 인터뷰에서 “검은 사각형에 둥근 모서리가 자신들만의 디자인이라는 애플의 주장은 터무니 없다”며 “대법원이 합리적인 판단을 내린다면 하급심 판단을 뒤집을 것”이라고 말했다.
지난 2011년 애플은 삼성을 상대로 디자인 권리 침해 소송을 냈다. 주요 쟁점은 삼성이 아이폰의 ‘둥근 직사각형’ 디자인을 따라 했다는 것이다. 1심 재판은 삼성에 1조2000억원을 배상하라고 판결했다.
하지만 삼성은 배상금이 과다하다며 항소했다. 현재까지 디자인권을 침해할 경우 해당 제품 전체에 대한 이익을 손해배상금으로 책정하는데 수만개의 부품으로 이루어진 스마트폰에 같은 법을 적용하는 것이 부당하다는 것이다.
항소심은 이에 배상금을 6000억원으로 삭감했지만 삼성은 대법원에 상고를 했고 이번에 심리가 허가된 것이다. 실제 이 법은 수저나 카펫 등 디자인이 결정적인 영향을 미치는 제품에 적용된 것으로 미국 내에서도 논란이 계속되고 있다.
대법원의 심리 결정에 대해 전문가들은 하급심 판결이 완전히 뒤집히기는 어려울지 몰라도 적어도 디자인권 침해에 대한 배상 기준은 획기적으로 변할 것으로 예측하고 있다.
라우스티알라 교수는 “지적재산권은 반드시 보호되어야 하고 지나친 모방은 분명히 문제다. 하지만 IT업계 자체가 서로 조금씩 모방하고 재창조하면서 발전해 온 것을 감안하면 지나친 특허권 주장은 혁신을 가로막을 뿐”이라고 말했다.
“삼성이 아이폰을 일부 모방한 것은 맞지만 이는 애플이나 다른 기업들도 마찬가지다. 대형 디스플레이를 채택한 아이폰 S6 플러스 역시 삼성의 이른바 패블릿(갤럭시 노트)이 나온 이후이다.”
구글, 페이스북 등 실리콘밸리의 대표적인 혁신기업들이 최근 대법원의 디자인권 심리를 환영하며 삼성과의 연대를 표한 것도 같은 맥락이다.
그는 “이들 기업들도 하급심 판결이 애플에 지나치게 관대했다고 생각한다”며 “그들 역시 디자인권이 지금과 같이 지나치게 강조될 경우 끊임없이 혁신하는 IT생태계에 부정적인 영향을 미칠 것이라고 우려하고 있다”고 말했다.
라우스티알라 교수는 공동 저서인 ‘모방경제(원제: The Knockoff Economy)’에서 모방과 혁신은 불가분의 관계이고 모방이 혁신을 낳는다고 주장하기도 했다.
기업들이 모방을 통해 혁신하고 경쟁하면서 보다 다양한 제품들을 내놓게 되고 이는 결국 소비자들에게 이익으로 돌아간다는 것이다.
“모방은 경쟁을 낳고 기업들은 더 좋은 제품을 싸게 내놓게 되는 것이다. 삼성과 애플의 공방 역시 궁극적으로 소비자들에게 혜택으로 돌아것이다.”
(jylee@heraldcorp.com)
<관련 영문 기사>
‘Imitation spurs innovation’
Author of ‘The Knockoff Economy’ calls Apple’s patent claim ‘just wrong’
In the ever-evolving technology industry, companies build on each other’s ideas and continue to reinvent themselves. But tech giants Samsung and Apple are trying to slow each other down in a drawn-out patent battle.
The U.S. Supreme Court has recently decided to review the high-profile courtroom fight between the two top smartphone makers, the first time it has looked at a design patent case since the 1800s.
The rare decision comes after Samsung filed a request with the top court last year to reexamine the case that it lost to Apple, which resulted in the former paying $548 million to the latter.
“If the Supreme Court is reasonable, it would overturn the lower court decision,” said Kal Raustiala, professor of UCLA School of Law, in a recent interview with The Korea Herald in Seoul.
“The idea that Samsung needs to discourage all its profits on the infringed phones when the patents represent only a small part of the reason why consumers buy the phones doesn’t really make sense,” he added.
The two companies have clashed since 2011, spending billions of dollars in court. Apple has claimed that Samsung infringed its design patents, including the iPhone’s rectangle design with curved corners, while Samsung has fought back by saying the ornamental design is just a piecemeal part of its complicated devices consisting of thousands of components.
One of the issues is the so-called entire-profits rule, under which the infringer must pay its total profits from infringing products. But Samsung is asking the court to apply on design patents the same damages standard for utility patents, in which courts must allocate the damages based on the value of the infringing feature.
Many legal experts expect that it will be unlikely for the court to overrule the lower court decision, but it has the potential to significantly diminish the power of design patents, at least on high-tech products.
“Apple’s claim that the rectangular device design is unique to it is just wrong,” said the professor. “If upheld, it would really constrain the ability of consumers to have a variety of products.”
He added that the fact that many big companies in Silicon Valley such as Google and Facebook are supportive of Samsung suggest that the lower court went too far and they need to rectify the balance between innovation and imitation.
“They agree Apple basically received too much from the lower court,” he said. “There is also concern that if design patents are powerful as they appear to be right now this could be very disruptive to the industry.”
Raustiala, one of the coauthors of the best-seller “The Knockoff Economy,” claimed that innovation and imitation are closely linked and that imitation can spur innovation.
“Samsung is without a question a company that has imitated some aspects of Apple. But likewise Apple has imitated other companies,” he said, referring to Apple’s iPhone 6S Plus, which had a bigger screen compared to previous versions of the iPhone and was launched after Samsung’s Note phablet.
He pointed out that consumers also benefit from companies imitating one another.
“Copying too much is a problem. But some degree of copying can lead to cheaper, better products for consumers. So I think in the end the rivalry between Samsung and Apple will genuinely be good for consumers,” he said.
By Lee Ji-yoon (jylee@heraldcorp.com)
‘Imitation spurs innovation’
Author of ‘The Knockoff Economy’ calls Apple’s patent claim ‘just wrong’
In the ever-evolving technology industry, companies build on each other’s ideas and continue to reinvent themselves. But tech giants Samsung and Apple are trying to slow each other down in a drawn-out patent battle.
The U.S. Supreme Court has recently decided to review the high-profile courtroom fight between the two top smartphone makers, the first time it has looked at a design patent case since the 1800s.
The rare decision comes after Samsung filed a request with the top court last year to reexamine the case that it lost to Apple, which resulted in the former paying $548 million to the latter.
“If the Supreme Court is reasonable, it would overturn the lower court decision,” said Kal Raustiala, professor of UCLA School of Law, in a recent interview with The Korea Herald in Seoul.
“The idea that Samsung needs to discourage all its profits on the infringed phones when the patents represent only a small part of the reason why consumers buy the phones doesn’t really make sense,” he added.
The two companies have clashed since 2011, spending billions of dollars in court. Apple has claimed that Samsung infringed its design patents, including the iPhone’s rectangle design with curved corners, while Samsung has fought back by saying the ornamental design is just a piecemeal part of its complicated devices consisting of thousands of components.
One of the issues is the so-called entire-profits rule, under which the infringer must pay its total profits from infringing products. But Samsung is asking the court to apply on design patents the same damages standard for utility patents, in which courts must allocate the damages based on the value of the infringing feature.
Many legal experts expect that it will be unlikely for the court to overrule the lower court decision, but it has the potential to significantly diminish the power of design patents, at least on high-tech products.
“Apple’s claim that the rectangular device design is unique to it is just wrong,” said the professor. “If upheld, it would really constrain the ability of consumers to have a variety of products.”
He added that the fact that many big companies in Silicon Valley such as Google and Facebook are supportive of Samsung suggest that the lower court went too far and they need to rectify the balance between innovation and imitation.
“They agree Apple basically received too much from the lower court,” he said. “There is also concern that if design patents are powerful as they appear to be right now this could be very disruptive to the industry.”
Raustiala, one of the coauthors of the best-seller “The Knockoff Economy,” claimed that innovation and imitation are closely linked and that imitation can spur innovation.
“Samsung is without a question a company that has imitated some aspects of Apple. But likewise Apple has imitated other companies,” he said, referring to Apple’s iPhone 6S Plus, which had a bigger screen compared to previous versions of the iPhone and was launched after Samsung’s Note phablet.
He pointed out that consumers also benefit from companies imitating one another.
“Copying too much is a problem. But some degree of copying can lead to cheaper, better products for consumers. So I think in the end the rivalry between Samsung and Apple will genuinely be good for consumers,” he said.
By Lee Ji-yoon (jylee@heraldcorp.com)
