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.”
<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)
