DOKTRIN PATEN DALAM SENGKETA APPLE MELAWAN SAMSUNG

Riko Fajar Romadhon, M Fathan Nautika

Abstract


ABSTRAK
Sangketa paten yang menyita perhatian publik di akhir tahun 2011 sampai 2012 adalah perkara antara Samsung melawan Apple. Sangketa dua perusahaan raksasa tersebut telah memasuki ranah persidangan di berbagai negara seperti di Inggris, Belanda, Korea Selatan, dan Amerika Serikat. Putusan pengadilan terhadap sengketa itu berbeda satu dengan yang lain, di beberapa negara memutuskan memenangkan Samsung, dan di beberapa negara lain memenangkan Apple. Salah satu putusan pengadilan yang menjadi kajian dalam tulisan ini ialah putusan Pengadilan Den Haag 396957/KG ZA 11-730 terkait klaim paten yang memenangkan Apple. Putusan ini menjadi kajian yang menarik lantaran berdasarkan doktrin-doktrin yang ada ketiga klaim paten Apple tidak memenuhi
unsur kebaruan, langkah inventif, dan utilitas. Sebagaimana putusan hakim, Samsung dianggap telah melanggar EP 868 milik Apple sehingga ponsel pintar keluaran Samsung dilarang beredar di pasaran Belanda.

Kata kunci: doktrin paten, kebaruan, langkah inventif, utilitas.

ABSTRACT
The patent case between Apple versus Samsung has attracted a lot of attention in late 2011 to 2012. This huge case between the two most well-known companies occurred in some countries such as in the United Kingdom, South Korea, United States of America, the Netherlands, and many others. The verdicts also varied in respective countries, some of them were won by Apple and others by Samsung. The focus of this article is about the patent claim as revealed in the verdict of The Hague’s Court Number 396957/KG ZA 11-730 that was won by Apple. The issue is interesting since three claims of Apple were incompatible for patent protection, i.e. novelty, inventive steps, and utility. Samsung was considered faulty because it has infringed Apple’s EP 868 so Samsung’s smartphones are prohibited in the Netherland’s market.

Keywords: patent doctrine, novelty, inventive steps, utility.


Keywords


patent doctrine; novelty; inventive steps; utility

Full Text:

PDF

References


Borking, John j. 1985. Third Party Protection of Software and Firmware. Elsevier Science Publisher: Netherlands.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/245493/apple to samsung dont make thin diakses pada 6 Maret 2012.

http://www.phonedog.com/videos/phonedog330-live-recap-4-22-11-apple-vs-samsung-/ diakses pada 5 Maret 2012.

Makarim, Edmon. 2005. Pengantar Hukum telematika: Suatu Kompilasi Kajian. Jakarta:Badan Penerbit FHUI.

Merges, Robert P. 2003. Intellectual Property in The New Technological Age. Ed. 3. Aspen Publisher: New York.

Putusan Pengadilan Den Haag 396957/KG ZA 11-730 Antara Apple v. Samsung.

Rosenberg, Peter. 1977. Patent Law Fundamentals. Ed. 3. c.l.: Clark Boardman Company.

Smith, Graham J H. Internet Law and Regulation. Ed. 3. c.l.: Sweet&Maxwell, c.t.

Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2002 tentang Hak Cipta,




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.29123/jy.v5i3.127

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2017 Jurnal Yudisial

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.