After Apple filed 10 lawsuits in a variety of countries against Google, claiming patent infringement, it seems Facebook’s launch of a mobile web platform this week, which is a direct challenge to Apple’s (and others’) control of their ecosystem, may ring in another round of what some fellow bloggers call the company's "lawsuit rampage".
Of course you can argue that Apple just puts upon everyone else what has and is being put on them by others. A simple online search reveals the multitude of suits and countersuits, class actions, trademark infringements and even libel disputes the company has had to fend off over the years by anyone from the Beatles and patent trolls to consumers, resellers and, of course, competitors large and small.
Technology as an industry is heavily dependent on innovation and in an increasingly saturated world even the smallest new feature can potentially mean a big difference on the balance sheet. It is understandable therefore that technology companies are concerned with protecting their assets. But I wonder if rather than spending time and money sparring – often in vain – with their peers, companies should concentrate more on delivering the products and services that attracted consumers to them in the first place.
One of the reasons tech companies increasingly choose a legal option may lie in the confusion between patents, which can include proprietary rights, and copyrights, which can’t, leaving a lot of room for interpretation. In addition, with business interests now firmly being played out on a global scale, different countries, court systems and their respective interpretations of law further muddy the waters.
Tech companies are of course not the only ones finding themselves facing a court room over copyright issues. The slipperiness of its definition was recently demonstrated when Australian band Men at Work lost a law suit that alleged their 1981 world smash hit “Down Under” ripped the signature flute riff off a popular ditty written in the 1930s. While as far as I am concerned the flute riff is as close to “Kookaburra” as Doris Day is to Rihanna, the courts had a different opinion and the band now has to hand over 5% of profits from the 1981 song to the publishers of the 1930s song.
Back in the tech world, one of the more interesting copyright decisions the courts have handed down over the years is actually Apple vs Microsoft concerning certain GUI elements. Apple lost on the grounds that the GUI elements were either unoriginal to Apple, or were the ”only possible way of expressing a particular idea”.
This bears certainly similarities to Apple’s current court clash with Samsung over the latter’s Galaxy tablet, which Apple says looks identical to its iPad. But Apple is not the
inventor of the tablet computer and a touch tablet has to have a rather large screen as much as a car has to have a motor. And here’s the crux: It’s the difference in horse power under the hood, quality of materials used and varying ranges of gadgets available that not only make a car, but every technical device unique and recognisable. Apple so far has been exceptionally successful in transforming itself from an equipment manufacturer to a true entertainment company that owns almost its entire ecosystem. This, not sleek design or form factor, is first and foremost the reason why the company is such a trail blazer and the envy of every telco and equipment manufacturer that keeps struggling to move up the value chain. Technology may be a vastly complex field when it comes to copyright and intellectual property issues. However as the users of the technology that’s being fought over just now, we have to ask ourselves what is in our best interest. As the saying goes, consumers win with competition and lose when competition is stifled, which is what these lawsuits essentially are aimed at.
Looking at how many suits got retracted or thrown out over the years on the grounds of being baseless, litigious companies’ actions increasingly look like vengeful tantrum throwing rather than serious attempts at minimizing purported commercial damage that is based on provable offences. As the creator of the Java technology Oracle and Google fought over last year put it so succinctly, these types of lawsuits are all about ego, money and power.
He’s got a point. With success rates for these types of lawsuits checkered, it is questionable whether the vast legal fees generated by them warrant the outcome. So when excessive lawsuits bog down the courts and new products are being kept away from consumers during lengthy appeals processes, the only winners – no surprises here - seem to be the lawyers.
What has all this to do with hospitality? Well, plenty. In a world where there is a chance that a particular technology, feature or piece of hardware may no longer be available and thus no longer supported poses a risk to providers and consumers alike. It underscores the importance of a flexible approach when deploying technology. Think about the anxiety Google’s purchase of Motorola Mobility continues to cause handset manufacturers that use Android as their O/S. Despite Google pledging its commitment to its handset manufacturing partners, I am sure some of them are looking at a plan B should Google claim the monopoly on Android for itself.
So designing your system as open as possible will go a long way to safeguard your technology platform against not only litigious companies and their well paid lawyers, but also against unexpected shifts in technology trends.
