The Samsung vs. Apple court case highlights the importance of software patents to the IT industry, and the balance between intellectual property protection and technological advancement is a key issue. However, software patents have been criticized for stifling technological advancement, reinforcing a conglomerate-centric structure, and increasing disputes.
The court battle between Samsung and Apple, which began in 2011 and continues to this day, has captured the world’s attention. The case continues to attract attention not only because it is a battle between two tech giants, Samsung and Apple, but also because the outcome of the trial will determine the scope of legal protection of intellectual property rights in the IT and software sectors. The decision will have a significant impact on the IT industry in the future.
The issue of intellectual property protection in the software sector is very important in today’s IT-centered society. Software patents have emerged as a major solution to this problem. The patent system is designed to protect technological inventions to promote technological progress and contribute to industrial development. The patent system is designed to protect technological inventions to promote technology and contribute to industry.
Originally, it was argued that software was not patentable because it is not an invention using natural laws, but a set of computational methods using a computer, but recently, patent systems in Korea and abroad have been gradually changing to recognize software patents. In fact, in the United States, the Supreme Court ruled in the 1970s that software was not patentable. However, as industry demand for software patents grew, the U.S. relaxed its patent guidelines and changed its policy to recognize software patents. South Korea has a similar patent policy to the United States, and Japan has maintained a policy of recognizing software patents.
In general, proponents of software patents argue that without patents, technological progress would not occur because there would be insufficient rewards for software technology development. They also argue that patents allow invented technologies to be shared socially, reducing duplicative investment in software technology development and increasing the overall rate and affordability of technological progress. However, the reality of countries that maintain software patents shows that these arguments are not necessarily correct. Software patenting has led to a number of problems that are contrary to its original intent. These problems can be summarized in three main ways.
First, software patents can stifle the development of software technology. Unlike traditional physical technology inventions, software technology often evolves cumulatively. This means that new programs are created by combining and rearranging existing elements (algorithms, source code, etc.) rather than inventing from nothing. Because of this, when software patents are granted, software developers or companies must be careful not to infringe on existing patents when developing new programs, and if they do, they must avoid or pay royalties. This process is time-consuming and costly, and the burden increases exponentially as software becomes more complex. As a result, more software patents will increase the time and cost of software development, potentially stifling technological progress. This is contrary to the original purpose of the patent system.
Second, software patents do not effectively protect their owners. Due to the complexity and ambiguity of software, patenting is a difficult and expensive process. Individuals and small businesses can struggle to register and maintain software patents. Even if you do manage to get a patent, it’s not easy to win a dispute with a large company. This is because large companies have specialized legal teams, which gives them an advantage in long-term litigation, while individuals and SMEs lack the resources to hire patent attorneys or lawyers specializing in patent litigation. As a result, the software patent system serves to strengthen the rights of large corporations, which has a negative impact on the software industry, where individuals and SMEs play an important role in technological innovation.
Third, the vagueness of software patents increases social costs. Software patent examiners examine prior art to determine whether a patent is patentable, which is difficult in the case of software because patents have been limited in the past and many developers have kept their software implementations secret. As a result, software patents often have vague functional claims and are more likely to grant broad rights than other technology patents. According to a White House study, software patents result in about five times more disputes than other fields. There is also a growing number of “patent monsters” that exploit this ambiguity to profit from litigation. This results in rewards being monopolized by groups unrelated to the innovation instead of the individual or company that made the breakthrough.
As such, the software patent system stifles technological progress, creates a structure that favors large companies, and increases social conflict and costs. These problems are the result of applying a patent system designed to protect traditional technologies without taking into account the specifics of software. To properly protect software technologies and move the industry forward, it is necessary to discuss new alternatives to the current software patent system.
