Intellectual Property of Apples

Apple’s innovation is embodied in its Intellectual Property, including Patents, Trademarks, and
Copyrights. Whether companies use patent portfolios to encourage innovation or to stifle
competition, protecting intellectual property (IP) is an important part of corporate strategy.
Apple. Apple has fully embraced using the technology patent system to their advantage, dating
back to Steve Jobs’ determination in 2006 to protect the iPhone before its first release. Apple’s
extensive patent portfolio reveals certain trends in research and development, but also indicates
the company’s intent to use its IP as a tool to prevent competitors from either copying existing
technologies or bringing Apple’s “original” ideas to fruition first.
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp.
In the 1983 decision Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer CorpOffsite Link an appellate
level court in the United States held for the first time that a computer's operating system could be
protected by copyright.
"Franklin Computer Corporation” introduced the Franklin Ace 100, a clone of Apple Computer's
Apple IIOffsite Link, in 1982. Apple quickly determined that substantial portions of the Franklin
ROM and operating system had been copied directly from Apple's versions, and on May 12,
1982, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. It
cited the presence of some of the same embedded strings, such as the name "James Huston" (an
Apple programmer), and "Applesoft," on both the Apple and Franklin system disks. Franklin
admitted that it had copied Apple's software but argued that it would have been impractical to
independently write its own versions of the software and maintain compatibility, although it said
it had written its own version of Apple's copy utility and was working on its own versions of
other software. Franklin argued that because Apple's software existed only in machine-readable
form, and not in printed form, and because some of the software did not contain copyright
notices, it could be freely copied. The Apple II firmware was likened to a machine part whose
form was dictated entirely by the requirements of compatibility (that is, an exact copy of Apple's
ROM was the only part that would "fit" in an Apple-compatible computer and enable its intended
function), and was therefore not copyrightable.
The Court remanded the case to the District Court for a determination regarding whether Apple's
operating system was one of a very limited number of ways to achieve its function. If it was, then
Franklin would not be liable for copyright infringement. The parties settled.
Apple was able to force Franklin to withdraw its clones by 1988. The company later brought
non-infringing clones to market, but as these models were only partially compatible with the
Apple II, and as the Apple II architecture was by this time outdated in any case, they enjoyed
little success in the marketplace. The Franklin Computer Corporation agreed yesterday to pay
Apple Computer $2.5 million in damages for copying crucial elements of Apple's most popular
personal computer. The settlement marks a victory for computer manufacturers battling
inexpensive copies of their own designs. The agreement also sets up an arbitration system to
resolve further copyright disputes between the two companies.
Lawsuit against microsoft windows 2.0
Apple Inc. had agreed to license certain parts of its GUI to Microsoft for use in Windows 1.0, but
when Microsoft made changes in Windows 2.0 adding overlapping windows and other features
found in the Macintosh GUI, Apple filed suit. Apple added additional claims to the suit when
Microsoft released Windows 3.0.
Apple claimed the "look and feel" of the Macintosh operating system, taken as a whole, was
protected by copyright, and that each element of the interface (such as the existence of windows
on the screen, the rectangular appearance of windows, windows could be resized, overlap, and
have title bars) was not as important as all these elements taken together.
The court outlined five ideas that it identified as basic to a GUI desktop: windows, icon images
of office items, manipulations of icons, menus, and the opening and closing of objects.[1] The
court established that Apple could not make copyright claims based on these ideas and could
only make claims on the precise expression of them. The court also pointed out that many of
Apple's claims fail on an originality basis. Apple admittedly licensed many of its representations
from Xerox, and copyright protection only extends to the original expression. Apple returned to
its "complete look and feel" argument, stating that while the individual components were not
original, the complete GUI was. The court rejected these arguments because the parts were not
original.
Much of the court's ruling was based on the original licensing agreement between Apple and
Microsoft for Windows 1.0, and this fact made the case more of a contractual matter than of
copyright law, to the chagrin of Apple. This also meant that the court avoided a more far-
reaching "look and feel copyright" precedent ruling. However, the case did establish that the
analytic dissection (rather than the general "look and feel") of a user interface is vital to any
copyright decision on such matters.
In 1998 all lingering infringement questions against Microsoft were settled in direct negotiations
Apple agreed to make Internet Explorer its default browser. Microsoft agreed to continue
developing Microsoft Office and other software for the Mac over the next five years. Microsoft
also purchased $150 million of nonvoting Apple stock. Both parties entered into a patent cross-
licensing agreement.
Samsung lawsuit
Apple Inc. vs Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. was the first of a series of ongoing lawsuits between
Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers.
The patent battle started in 2011 and initially resulted in a $1 billion ruling in Apple’s favor. But
it didn’t end there. A series of appeals pushed the dispute to the Supreme Court and back, as the
companies continually rehashed which patents were infringed and, more recently, exactly how
much Samsung owes Apple because of the infringement. The case revolved around a number of
design and utility patents for basic functions of a smartphone, like tap to zoom and the home
screen app grid. But while the fight was hashed out using specific patents, the battle was
ultimately about whether Samsung copied Apple in the early days of smartphones to gain an
edge. The jury decided that, in many ways, it had. In May 2018: US jury finally ordered
Samsung to pay Apple $539 million in lieu of the damages for “copying features of the original
iPhone”.Samsung paid that amount after both companies agreed in to drop litigation outside of
the US.
Threats to other companies
Apple Threatens to Leave UK Market Due to $7 Billion Patent Dispute
On 12/7/2021 lawyers representing Apple have suggested that the company could exit the UK
market if the terms of an ongoing patent dispute are "commercially unacceptable" UK patent
holder Optis Cellular Technology is suing Apple for patent infringement after it refused to pay
license fees worth around $7 billion for using "standardized" smartphone technology in its
devices. In spite of this, the response from Apple's legal representation firmly laid out that
leaving the UK market may become an unavoidable option for the company if the terms set by
the court are "commercially unacceptable."
The unprecedented threat highlights the possibility of Apple ending its sales in the UK, perhaps
shuttering retail stores and curtailing services to existing customers. Nevertheless, it is highly
unlikely that Apple would follow through with the threat, not least because the UK is one of the
company's biggest and most important markets. The App Store alone supports more than
330,000 jobs in the UK.
Hiring/ approaching Apples employees
Former Apple CEO Steve Jobs threatened to hit Palm with patent litigation if the company did
not stop poaching valuable employees. In August 2007, Colligan received a call from Jobs, who
was concerned about employees that had moved between the two companies in the months
before, Colligan wrote. "On the call, Mr. Jobs expressed concern about employees being hired
away from Apple by Palm. As a solution, Mr. Jobs proposed an arrangement between Palm and
Apple by which neither company would hire the other's employees, including high tech
employees," he wrote.
"Mr. Jobs also suggested that if Palm did not agree to such an arrangement, Palm could face
lawsuits alleging infringement of Apple's many patents," he said, adding that he did not agree to
Jobs' proposal and Palm continued to hire employees from Apple.
Similar allegations of Apple threatening Palm with a patent suit over the same no-poaching
proposal were also raised in 2009.
"Your proposal that we agree that neither company will hire the other's employees, regardless of
the individual's desires, is not only wrong, it is likely illegal," Colligan wrote in an email sent to
Jobs declining to accept his offer. The email was also published by the court. Although Colligan
said though he understood that it is difficult when a respected employee leaves a company for a
new challenge, businesses can not dictate where someone works.
Supply chain management issues
Apple Inc., which has come under fire for the behavior of its suppliers, reported progress among
its manufacturing partners during the tumultuous year of the coronavirus pandemic as it released
a supply-chain responsibility report. The 113-page report covers a range of issues, from the
treatment of workers to energy usage and infectious disease policies in the wake of Covid-19. It
did cite several examples of suppliers failing to fulfill their duties and non-compliance with
Apple’s working-hours policy. The company also stopped providing specific addresses for
supplier facilities in the latest list of contractors it works with, information it had provided in the
past for transparency.
Over the course of the pandemic-challenged year, Apple conducted 1,121 assessments across 53
countries, covering suppliers and assemblers as well as smelters and refiners. The company
interviewed 57,618 workers to confirm their experience matched what management reported and
followed up with a majority of them to ensure there was no retaliation. It also did more than 100
assessments without giving prior notice to the supplier.
Having discovered one case of underage labor in 2019, the company reported no such cases in
2020. It did, however, find an instance where a “supplier had misclassified the student workers in
their program and falsified paperwork to disguise violations,” including allowing students to
work nights and overtime. Apple placed the supplier on probation and halted “new business from
Apple until they completed all required corrective actions.”
In 2020, Apple rejected 8% of prospective suppliers -- covering both new suppliers and new
facilities from established partners -- due to potential compliance issues. The company reported
it has 93% compliance with its working-hours code, which stipulates working weeks should not
exceed 60 hours and overtime should in all cases be voluntary.
The most serious violations of Apple’s code of conduct fell to nine instances in 2020, down from
2019’s 17 and a significant improvement on the 48 in 2017. Seven of the most recent cases
related to working hours or labor data falsification, one was a wastewater violation and another
was an air emission infraction.
One Apple supplier, Ofilm Group Co., came under criticism for allegations it’s involved in a
Chinese government program that transfers ethnic minorities from Xinjiang to other parts of the
country for work. Bloomberg News reported in March that Apple had severed ties with Ofilm.
In one case, Apple claimed it pressed a supplier into reimbursing workers for recruitment fees
they had paid to labor agencies, a practice prohibited by Apple standards. The contractor agreed
to repay nearly $3.4 million to 10,570 workers and implement systems for stopping such
behavior in the future.
Reference:
https://www.nytimes.com/1984/01/05/business/franklin-and-apple-settle-suit.html
https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=3393
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Franklin_Computer_Corp
https://www.ktmine.com/exploring-intellectual-property-at-apple-a-study-of-strategy-and-
patterns/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corp.#Court_case
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electronics_Co.
https://indianlegalsolution.com/apple-v-samsung-case-summary/
https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/27/17510908/apple-samsung-settle-patent-battle-over-
copying-iphone
https://www.macrumors.com/2021/07/12/apple-threatens-to-leave-uk-market/
https://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/23/tech/innovation/steve-jobs-palm-lawsuit/index.html
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2494518/steve-jobs-threatened-palm-with-patent-suit-if-
it-objected-to-no-poaching-pact.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-31/apple-claims-progress-in-supply-chain-
no-child-labor-cases

Question 1: Explain how Apple's philosophy and organizational culture have impacted how
it handles ethical decisions ?
Apple credits their highly successful company to practicing integrity in all aspects of their
business while they are creating their high innovative and in demand products. Apple strives to
embody the attributes of being an honest, respectful, compliance, and confidential company.
Steve Jobs made Apple a company in which employees are welcomed to share their personal
ideas and voice to improve the company and their products produced.
Apple handles their ethical decisions based on practicing their philosophies of honesty, respect,
compliance, and confidential based on their integrity. Apple has been involved in multiple
lawsuits regarding property rights, violations of privacy, and labor violations. They handled the
lawsuits by sticking by their principle values of confidentiality and respecting their employees
and wanting to make the labor violations comply to labor laws to fix their ethical dilemmas.

Stakeholder mà apple đã đúng tới

Apple có những vi phạm gì với đạo đức kinh doanh
1. tại sao apple lại có thể double được giá trị của công ty lên sau khi đã
2. MFI – Apple thu lợi nhuận theo – vơi tư cách là người tiêu dùng – đó có phải là 1 chiêu trò để
bán vs bên thứ 3 hay ko
3. 2016 có conflict – Iphone 5c phải được yêu cầu của chính phủ unlock nhưng apple từ chối