Before it entered the world vocabulary as the “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria,” the name “Isis” was already relatively ubiquitous. Usually referring to Isis, the Ancient Egyptian goddess of nature, childbirth, healing, and magic, the word has been used for retail shops, restaurants, and even baby names. But in its current context, it has caused a lot of issues for those people who used the “Isis” name for completely peaceful reasons.

Take for example Isis Books & Gifts in Denver, Colorado. The business specializes in spiritual books and products from a variety of world religions. Last weekend, it was vandalized for the fourth time in recent months when a brick was thrown through the sign outside. Owner Karen Charboneau-Harrison explained that she didn’t exactly know the motivation of the vandal, saying:

We’re all very heartbroken (about the Paris attacks) so I don’t know if somebody walking down the street just saw our name on the sign and kind of lost it for a moment and threw a rock through it. Or if it was an ignorant person who actually thought this was a bookstore for terrorists, I don’t know.

But this isn’t just a problem for Isis Books & Gifts. There’s a California-based Isis pharmaceutical company, which is considering changing its name. There’s also an Isis Collections in New Jersey that specializes in wigs and hair pieces, and a bridal shop in California. According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, there are 270 products or businesses who use the name “Isis” in the United States alone.

TV comedy “Archer” removed the name of the spy organization, ISIS or the “International Secret Intelligence Service,”  that its title character works for from the show, and even rerecorded some lines from earlier seasons to erase it completely.

Then there are all of the people (overwhelmingly women) named Isis, usually after the Ancient Egyptian goddess. Last year in the U.S. alone, there were just shy of 400 babies named Isis. One of them, Isis Anchalee, from San Francisco tweeted that Facebook recently shut down her account after it was flagged as fake or offensive.

Facebook thinks I’m a terrorist. Apparently sending them a screenshot of my passport is not good enough for them to reopen my account.

— Isis Anchalee (@isisAnchalee) November 17, 2015

With these controversies in mind, some are pushing to stop calling ISIS by the acronym, instead arguing for the term “Daesh” or “Islamic State.” The use of ISIS seems popular, however, and not about to go away anytime soon, so hopefully people realize the very important distinctions.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bad Luck: The Struggle of a Business Named “Isis” appeared first on Law Street.

Google and Microsoft are finally putting a five-year legal battle to bed. A series of roughly 20 lawsuits in the United States and Germany over various patents and technological innovations were all settled, based on an agreement between the two tech monoliths.

The two companies were involved in disputes involving a wide range of products, including Motorola phones and Xbox technology. It’s unclear what sort of financial agreements were exchanged between the two companies.

The statement put out by Google and Microsoft executives included the following explanation:

As part of the agreement, the companies will dismiss all pending patent infringement litigation between them, including cases related to Motorola Mobility.

Separately, Google and Microsoft have agreed to collaborate on certain patent matters and anticipate working together in other areas in the future to benefit our customers.

So what does this mean for Google, Microsoft, and the tech industry as a whole? Well it may be indicative of the fact that these companies have bigger and more menacing enemies than each other. For example, both companies have been fighting patent trolls. Patent trolls buy up patents and then use them to file a number of lawsuits, but without any intention of actually utilizing the patents. These lawsuits are pretty prevalent in the United States, and with the European Union setting up a new patent court, Google and Microsoft are both lobbying to pass legislation that will ensure these kinds of lawsuits won’t explode in Europe as well.

Additionally Google and Microsoft, as well as a whole bevy of other tech companies, are working on a project called the Alliance for Open Media. Other partners in the venture include Cisco, Amazon, Netflix, Intel, and Mozilla. The purpose of the project is to create media formats, particularly video, that are royalty-free and work “across devices of all kinds and for users worldwide.” This will save these companies money, and probably lead to less expensive patent fights between them when it comes to video streaming. Moreover, it’s a smart PR move, as it will allow customers who probably don’t much care about patent battles between tech companies to more easily share videos across a wide range of devices.

So, Google and Microsoft burying the hatchet, at least in part, may be indicative of an overall shift between the two companies. However there are still some legal issues between the two companies pending, and there’s no guarantee that more–including patent issues–won’t arise in the future. For now, however, it looks like Google and Microsoft are mending some fences.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Google and Microsoft End Long Patent Battle appeared first on Law Street.

A new drug called Sovaldi, developed by Gilead Sciences Inc., is now available on the market that cures between 80-90% of users from Hepatitis C Virus (HVC). This is a ground-breaking development in medicine, as approximately 3.2 million Americans currently suffer from Chronic HVC according to the Center for Disease Control. This new drug is administered as a twelve week treatment and costs $84,000 which is considerably lower than traditional forms of treatment at $300,000. But here is the problem: according to University researcher Andrew Hill, Sovaldi only costs $150 to $250 per treatment. How can Gilead charge such an unreasonable price for a life saving drug?

Bringing A Drug to the Market

Before we draw any conclusions about the reasonability of charging $84,000 for Sovaldi, we must understand the process of how drug manufacturers bring a new product to the market. Our government attempts to guarantee protection for consumers from unsafe products through regulatory oversight, which means that not any product can simply be sold in stores. A new product must complete a twelve step process of human and animal phase-testing, facility inspection, drug labeling, application review, and review meetings.  This process can easily cost a billion dollars, meaning that the initial investment for drug development is steep one.

This high-cost initial investment creates a problem, namely, it can discourage innovation. In order to cover the start-up costs in production phase, a company needs to charge an inflated initial price  to make up for the original high-cost investment. The problem is that another company could easily replicate the drug and make a knock-off product to sell at a much lower price, as they don’t need to worry about making up initial investments. This hiccup, of stifled innovation, has been dealt with by government intervention and protection. In order to incentivize medicinal innovation, the government provides extended patent protection, preventing companies from being undercut by sales replicate drugs at a cheaper price. Such patents can give companies an effective monopoly for quite some time.

The Ethical Concern

Although this form of patent protection ensures continued innovation, there is some concern regarding possible abuse of these safeguards. When we revisit the question regarding the reasonability of Gilead charging $84,000 for the treatment, it is understandable that they must charge an initially high price. However, what happens when these costs have been covered? Mike LaBossiere reports that “when asked if Gilead would reduce the cost once it recovered its money, the vice president [Gregg Alton] of the company said, ‘that’s very unlikely that we would do that. I appreciate the thought.” Alton defends this position by claiming that, “those who are bold and go out and innovate like this and take the risk — there needs to be more of a reward on that. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for people to make that investment.”

Alton’s claim seems reasonable, yet Gilead’s opposition to lowering the price of Solvadi, after covering investment costs,  raises serious concerns regarding public welfare. It appears that a company like Gilead might be exploiting this fact when they develop the “fair price” at which to sell the drug.

The Solution of State-Capitalism

Government patent protection of new medical products should be coupled with temporary partial government ownership of the company as a stockholder. Essentially, for a certain period of time, drug companies would function as a public sector undertaking. This would have two benefits. First, the drug company still functions as a profit based competitive initiative keeping the reward system to spark risky business ventures like developing a new drug. Second, having the government as a large shareholder would help combat extreme price inflation that prevents accessible medicine for the severely and terminally-ill.

Some may be hesitant about the idea of state capitalism, but we shouldn’t be too hasty to throw it out as a possible solution. In fact, government owned businesses are some of the most successful ones in the world. The Economist reports,

State capitalism can also claim some of the world’s most powerful companies. [Such as] China Mobile is a mobile-phone goliath with 600m customers. Saudi Basic Industries Corporation is one of the world’s most profitable chemical companies. Russia’s Sberbank is Europe’s third-largest bank by market capitalisation. Dubai Ports is the world’s third-largest ports operator. The airline Emirates is growing at 20% a year.

If it is the case that government owned businesses have the ability to stimulate innovation, prove successful, and protect the public from exploitation, we may want to consider them as a possibility in cases like drug and medicine development.

 [TPM] [FDA] [NPR] [The Economist]

Bo Donoghue

Bo Donoghue is a student at The George Washington University. Contact Bo at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Need a Cure: It Will Only Cost an Arm and a Leg appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to adjudicate the highly contested issue of which software innovations may be eligible for patent protection. The impact of this case will be decisive in determining the extent that a technology company can utilize an aspect of another’s software without being subjected to a patent infringement suit. At the same time, the decision may make it easier to challenge a patent for want of validity without having to sort through the particulars the patent includes.

Alice Corporation vs. CLS Bank is the case that has motivated the Supreme Court to sift through this heavily-weighted issue. Briefly, the case involves a company that held software patents covering methods of conducting online financial dealings. CLS Bank contended that the patent was invalid for lack of patentable subject matter, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed. But why? Well that was the issue — they didn’t exactly know, releasing six different opinions, none of which was supported by the majority. In fact, another recent case involving the same question of patentable software was determined on a basis that was unclear as well.

Pushed by companies such as Google, JP Morgan, and Netflix that contend that patent standards are too lenient and vague, the courts are faced with a question that will decide the future of technological innovation. To be eligible for patent protection, an invention cannot be obvious or merely an abstract idea. The policy behind this is to preclude a patent holder from claiming an entire innovative field. Instead the application of an abstract idea to a certain process or structure may be patent eligible.

Stick with me. The crux of this issue is determining guidelines for what types of methods meet the patent eligibility standard, right? But what I’m confused about is why it makes any difference if a method is embodied in a machine or tangible article versus being written on computer software. A computer is indeed a structure (as required by the seminal case, Bilksi) and the software is intended to carry out the novel process. Whether a method is carried out by software should not be decisive in determining whether it is patent eligible. It shouldn’t be a factor for consideration. Software can most certainly envelope novel processes without monopolizing an entire concept, as seems to be the concern of anti-patentable-software advocates. For example, a software that writes a method for connecting Garage Band data to Guitar Hero by utilizing the music data created in Garage Band to formulate different levels in the Guitar Hero video game should be allowed to gain patent protection even though it may involve computer algorithms. For argument’s sake, it’s a non-obvious process that was executed through a machine — a computer. Why should it matter if the process was made to occur through some tangible box connecting your computer to your PlayStation? Why should this factor grant one innovator patent protection and not another?

The other side of this coin is no less convoluted. Arguing that software may simply cover a thought process or computation, companies such as Microsoft are asserting that software patents may stifle innovation. They claim that the patentability of these computer-executed methods may open the gateway for patent applicants claiming the rights to innovative tools that may be useful to a category of inventions. I disagree with this notion for the reasons stated above. Furthermore, the Patent and Trademark office considers whether a process transforms the thing through which it is employed to determine patent eligibility of a method as well. Wouldn’t employing a software on a computer undoubtedly transform it? A computer with iOS is vastly different from one with Windows, and, thus, a computer with any software added to it has been transformed because it is then a different piece of machinery facilitating different tasks.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in March or April and release a decision by July of 2014.

Gena.

—

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts.

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Computer Software Patents: To Be or Not to Be Eligible for Protection? appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Thanksgiving!! I hope everyone takes at least three trips to the dinner table, two naps in your bed, and one family outing — whether it be to see Hunger Games, look at Christmas lights, or pick up more beer for your uncles. Do it. And if you run out of topics to discuss or if you’re one of those people who just remember things better when they’re in list form then this is for you!

Here are 7 things that I think you should know about intellectual property. Before you take that first nap of the day, think about it. Think about your thoughts — how you express them and how you can protect that expression. What about that business you wanted to start — what did you want to call it again? How would you like it if someone tried to capitalize off of the goodwill you built behind that name?

That’s what I thought.

1. You don’t need to register your creation with the US Copyright Office to have copyright protection. The moment you place your expression on paper (or in some tangible form) it’s protected by copyright. But here’s the catch: if someone infringes on your copyrighted material, you will have to register to bring suit.

2. Federal registration of a trademark isn’t necessary either! You have trademark rights in the name or slogan that you create the moment you place it into commerce. (Commerce = in the market.) Also, you don’t need federal registration to use the TM symbol either. The ® is off limits unless you’re registered though.

3. There are two types of patents. Design patents are for, well, novel designs. For example, the sleek makeup of iphone display stands is covered by a design patent. Utility patents protect new inventions and processes, i.e the detection of your headphones in your phone or the analysis of your face to unlock an Android. Clearly, I have phones on the brain today.

4. Applications filed with the Copyright Office are public records and only $35. Why not register your art with the Copyright Office? Shine bright like a diamond, Riri.  But keep in mind that this is not the avenue you want to take if you’re trying to protect your family’s mac-and-cheese recipe.

5.  Registration of a mark is not guaranteed upon filing. Your potential mark may cause confusion with another owner’s mark, among other issues. It’s $325 to file a trademark application online and $375 to file for federal registration on paper. Your money may not be refunded so it’s a good idea to conduct a preliminary search (or hire an attorney to do so) before you file.

6. Copyright Law doesn’t protect ideas, only the expression of those ideas. Don’t rely on Copyright Law for that great business idea you have brewing. I would recommend nondisclosure agreements. If you’re meeting with investors to build your capital, get them to sign nondisclosure agreements so that if they share or utilize your idea beyond the bounds you establish you’ll be able to bring a breach of contract suit.

7. Timing. Copyright protection (for works created after ’78) lasts from the moment of creation until the end of the author’s life plus 70 years. Trademark registration can last indefinitely as long as you file the requested paperwork the years you are told. Utility patents filed after June 8, 1995 are granted protection for 20 years from the date of the application. Design patents have protection for 14 years from the date the patent is granted.

Learn more at these sites:

On Copyrights

On Trademarks

On Patents

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Lynn Friedman via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 7 Things to Place In Your Back Pocket appeared first on Law Street.

Technology is becoming increasingly invasive awesome-sauce with developments such as Android allowing you to scan your face and Apple requesting that you use your fingerprint just to unlock your phone. I don’t know how the possibility of a tattooed tracking device could have evaded my imagination. Enter Google’s Motorola Mobility neck tattoo: a mini microphone and lie detector that can be embedded in your skin with a tattooing device.

Last week, Motorola Mobility filed a patent application with the Patent and Trademark Office for this new technological advent. Let’s call it the ‘G-too.’ (Call me if you’re interested in this name, Google. It would only cost you the accumulation of my student loans. You’re welcome.) The primary purpose of the G-too is to produce higher sound quality in mobile phone calls by giving consumers the option of activating the neck tattoo as a microphone. The mic could also be used to command the phone with one’s voice. Sure. There’s no doubt in my mind that the amount of background noise and disruptions during calls could dramatically be reduced, but when has technology surpassed personal boundaries? Maybe a better question is, do people even have personal boundaries anymore?

The actual name of the patent is “Coupling an Electronic Skin Tattoo to a Mobile Communication Device.” The next logical question here is, how would you charge the batteries? Well, fret no more. The patent application explains that the device may “employ solar panel technology, capacitive technology, nanotechnology or electro-mechanical technology.” Yea, I have no idea what “capacitive technology” is either, but it sure does sound a lot better than watching people lean up against outlets trying to juice up their G-toos. Or does it? The visual alone has given me the utmost joy.

Back to this lie detector feature. The tattoo would also be able to identify fluctuations in skin responses to determine if someone is lying based on their level of nervousness/confidence. Why on Earth would anyone want a tattooed indicator of their dishonest mishaps? I’m guilty of telling a few white lies here and there, and I’m positive I don’t need a spotlight and siren to tell the world.

The patent applicant also offers a collar that could be worn around your neck if you don’t feel comfortable with the idea of the tattoo. But I mean…if you want to be tech-savvy badly enough to wear a collar, you really might as well ‘be cool’ about it and go balls-to-the-wall with the tattoo.

No one likes someone who does something half-assed.

 Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [flyingpurplemonkeys via Wikipedia]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Google’s Neck Tattoo: The Ink That Makes You Think appeared first on Law Street.

As I’m sure you are all aware, Twitter is planning to go public and aspiring to make $1 billion, despite profits that have come up short. Sure, nearly 500 million tweets circulate throughout the service daily, but Twitter has a dirty, dark secret that may hold it back from the greatness it envisions for its IPO.

Twitter only holds nine U.S. patents.  Nope, not 90, but nine.  [You can check for yourself.] This is child’s play when compared to the nearly eight hundred patents owned by the formidable Facebook when it was gearing up for its initial public offering in May 2012.  But this is actually commendable when we look into Twitter’s reasoning for owning so few patents. They want to allow their engineers and web designers to maintain ownership of their own creations.  Well look at that – a company using our intellectual property laws as a spearhead to invite more innovation.

This past May, Twitter effectuated the Innovator’s Patent Agreement, which puts the choice in the inventors’ hands as to whether they want their patents to be used offensively.  YES! I must say my heart twerked for proprietary joy when I learned that Twitter was implementing such measures.  Shouldn’t an inventor be allowed to determine if she wants her patent(s) to potentially be a weapon for patent trolling? Licensing your patent to a major company shouldn’t carry the consequence of possibly creating barriers to creation by others.

Although the benevolent intentions behind Twitter’s actions should be applauded, it may prove to be detrimental for their upcoming IPO.  Patent ownership allows investors to place a value on the technological innovations created by a company. And unfortunately, this makes plenty of sense. For instance, if Twitter were to be faced with a patent infringement suit, their minimalistic approach to patents doesn’t give them much foundation to file a counter suit.  Also, investors are cognizant that innovators who own their own inventions may very well pack up their bag of tricks and take them to a competitor willing to pay a higher licensing fee.

So what’s a lady to do when her pleasantries cause her skirt to bunch up? Well for one, there’s always the argument that the scarcity of patents doesn’t equate to an empty barrel of IP ownership. The San Francisco based company can still litigate on the basis of copyright law, which may not carry the same financial momentum as patent suits, but can still pack a mean punch when used against the right defendant. Also, the naysayers mustn’t forget about Twitter’s recent acquisition of Bluefin, a company that merges tv and twitter events into a service that can be used to boost ad sales.  And finally, our nation should want to support a company that encourages the minds of our engineers and voices of our innovators.

Here’s to hoping patents will one day be restored as the deputies of novelty:

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Andreas Eldh via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Twitter: When Being the Nice Guy Bites You in the Offering appeared first on Law Street.

What is really going on in the patent world these days?  Last week I told you about the allowance of Apple’s ban on Samsung’s imports of infringing products. The Obama administration proclaimed Samsung ban bad, Apple ban good. And the American Gods were pleased. But this week, there seems to be a different narrative in the loop.

Nokia, the maker of my first flirtation device, doesn’t seem to be having the same luck as Apple these days. InterDigital, a company that states they are in the market of developing and licensing wireless technology, brought a patent infringement suit against Nokia for the use of certain mobile phone technology. The International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled in Interdigital’s favor, and Nokia appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. And here’s where it gets juicy: among the arguments presented, Nokia asserts that the ITC shouldn’t even have jurisdiction in this case.

Nokia contends that the ITC should not hear a case if the company’s business is solely to patent troll. I agree! The ITC can prevent the import of products that infringe on a patent to the detriment of a U.S. business. But is patent trolling conducting business in the US?  I think not. The ITC is allowing itself to become a shopping mall for these patent mongrels that just acquire patents with the sole purpose of litigation them and collecting royalties. Of course, InterDigital contested this label by stating that they actually research and develop patents versus just buying them to defend or sell the rights. Some of our favorite companies – Amazon, Hewlett Packard, and Red Hat – filed briefs against InterDigital with supporting evidence to the contrary. But ultimately, the whole discussion proved to be futile as the ITC determined that a business with the purpose of patent collection is still a “US business” and, thus, may be protected by import bans imposed by the ITC.

Here’s what really chaps my cheeks: the purpose of the ITC is to “treat information quality as integral to its development, including creation.”  How are they furthering this purpose when they’re hindering innovation and promoting the procurement of patents, not as a means to protect creation but as a way to obtain licensing fees?  Why should InterDigital be able to stop the import of certain 3G devices when they aren’t even making any themselves?

Given our current economic deficit, you’d think we would refrain from sustaining unfair trade practices against our own businesses.  I’m not following the logic behind the rejection of this case when it’s an issue that so conspicuously needs further discussion.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [ngader via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Patent Trolls: Monsters vs. America appeared first on Law Street.

Apple recently requested an import ban against a few of Samsung’s products, including their smartphones and tablets. I doubt that this would come as a surprise to anyone familiar with Apple’s growing monopoly on mobile devices. But coming from a true Apple junkie, I cannot say that I stand by their grand scheme to overtake the technology market based on their keen ability to appeal to aesthetics.

The International Trade Commission had determined that Samsung violated two of Apple’s patents: one pertaining to the functionality of touch screen capability and another relating to headphone recognition.  The Korean company requested the ban be overturned on public policy grounds, which I agree is a suitable argument to make judging by the tit-for-tat activity that has been arisen between the two companies. But the kicker is, the Obama administration has decided that they will uphold this ban, resulting in a huge win for Apple.

Now, at first look, you may think ‘OK, what’s the problem?’ It is abnormal for the President to overturn the ITC’s decisions. And it’s worth noting that the ban will largely affect Samsung’s older products, and thus, will not result in a significant impact on the availability of Samsung’s current products.  So then why is Samsung arching its back over this decision if its newer products aren’t to be dramatically affected?

Well…

In August, the Obama Administration vetoed the ITC’s decision to ban certain Apple products, reasoning that the ban was incorrectly restricting the importation of products that were the result of standard essential patents — patents that cover inventions that must be utilized to meet technical standards. This is rarely done. It’s bad enough for Apple to be continuously rewarded for their litigious behavior, but to reverse a decision in favor of them? It almost screams political nepotism. Following this decision, the South Korean government voiced that it was “disappointed” by this ruling.  Needless to say, this determination furthers Apple’s powerful stance in the ongoing patent battles across the tech industry.

Amongst the accusations against Samsung that were not decided in Apple’s favor was an alleged violation of a design patent regarding the overall look of the iPhone. US Trade Representative Michael Froman has explained that the decision to uphold the ban is based on “policy considerations, including the impact on consumers and competition, advice from agencies, and information from interested parties.” Oh, that doesn’t leave a generic impression on me at all. -__- If anything, policy and competition considerations should instruct fairness in the industry so that one company isn’t granted extraordinary favors on account of their economic girth and geographic residence.

The juxtaposition of the two rulings may have given rise to trade implications, such as the favoring of a company’s national origin. These assertions were even raised by Samsung in their request to overturn the ban. However, Froman has stood firm in his position that the two scenarios were factually different and that nationality was not considered in the determination. Ehhh.

Again, even as the owner of an iPhone, iPad, iTouch, and Macbook (don’t judge me, you shouldn’t judge people with addictions), I can’t support the government’s efforts to thwart competition in any industry. While Apple showcases the “cool” status symbol our subcultures so anxiously desire, no one can negate the innovative choices that Samsung has brought to the table for consumers.

Hasn’t anyone had a discussion with a techie eager to explain why Droid is better than iOS? At this rate, we may be on our way to having more limited debates if manufacturers that license Droid are having the rug yanked from beneath them.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [renatomitra via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Samsung Ban Upheld: Why Apple Can’t Stop Won’t Stop appeared first on Law Street.