Will US jury protect Apple out of patriotism?
By Kim Yoo-chul
Can nine U.S. jurors overcome their sense of patriotism in their verdict on the Apple-Samsung patent dispute?
At stake is $2.75 billion the iPhone maker is seeking in compensation from the Korean technology giant for the latter’s alleged design copycatting.
Considering protectionism is a misplaced outburst of patriotism, the jury can turn “protectionist,’’ Ahn Deuk-geun, a professor at Seoul National University (SNU) and expert in international trade policies, said Thursday.
This comes against a bigger picture of protectionism at a national level.
The U.S. is Apple’s home-turf and many Americans regard the late Apple founder Steve Jobs as an ``iconic figure’’ who led innovation and significantly helped create a new eco-system, stoking speculation that the jurors’ will side with Apple.
Market-access restrictions have taken many forms, including government mandates supporting domestic companies, regulatory hurdles, tariffs and the manipulation of technology standards, according to experts.
Korean technology firms are increasingly becoming primary targets in the United States. Recently, the U.S. commerce ministry imposed huge tariffs on Korean washers.
The decision raised controversies that the United States is getting tougher on free and fair trade with other companies as the International Trade Commission cleared allegations over price manipulation of products in April this year.
``The United States seems to be returning to protectionism due to the slow economic recovery. Jurors may not be free from the national trend,’’ said a local patent expert who’s been tracking the Samsung-Apple legal dispute.
A court in Germany issued a mixed-ruling on a case heard there. The court allowed Samsung to sell its modified Galaxy Tabs though it admitted Samsung infringed on Apple’s design-related patents. In the United Kingdom, Apple was told by a U.K. judge that it must publicly admit Samsung didn’t copy the iPad.
A court in the United States previously said Apple’s design patents D087 and D889 were no longer valid. But an appeals court made the exact opposite decision. ``I think this means protectionism is affecting the dispute, at least in the United States,’’ said a Samsung official by telephone.
In the final arguments, Samsung attorney Charles Verhoeven urged jurors that considering a verdict in favor of Apple could stifle competition and reduce choices for consumers.
``That’s why Samsung stressed consumer choice because the United States’ rules for a free market economy and capitalism are highly respected,’’ said the Samsung official.
Since last year, Samsung has been the global top smartphone maker after passing Apple and the market gap has been widening globally. But in the United States, Apple is still dominating demand for smartphones and tablets, according to market research firms.