By  Adrian Hoppel From Mac Life

An electrical engineer filed a lawsuit against Apple in California, claiming that he invented the smartphone and Apple was infringing on his idea. The jury sided with Apple, but it wasn’t as clear-cut as you might think. Was this another case of a patent troll trying to score big against Apple, or was it a case of a deep-pocketed corporate behemoth crushing the little guy? Read on.

NetAirus vs. Apple

Bloomberg reports that a federal jury decided Apple did not infringe on a patent holder who claims to have invented the smartphone. NetAirus Technologies LLC, a company owned by Richard L. Ditzik, was seeking damages from Apple over sales of the iPhone 4 since last October, when NetAirus’ patent was recertified with new language. It was that change in language that perhaps swung the court in Cupertino’s favor.

During the trial, Apple argued that the original patent application from NetAirus was for “a handset that used a laptop computer to make phone calls.” Apple claimed that it was only after reading about additional features already on the market, like the handset serving as a PDA and being able to send and receive email, that NetAirus revised its patent and went after the iPhone in court.

Seemingly, this appears to be another case of someone with a dubious patent trying to strike it rich against Apple in court; this is not the first case like that, nor will it be the last. So why was the jury deadlocked for days over this particular case, and why do some jury members lament having to side with Apple?

The jury was deadlocked for three days, claiming that they were unable to reach a unanimous decision over the issue of if Apple had infringed on the patents, and if so, what the damages should be. Finally, attorneys for both sides agreed to accept a majority decision from the jury, and Apple prevailed. So what was the holdup?

According to juror George Escarrega, several of the jurors felt that “we were failing in doing everything we could for the system and for the inventor,” and that there “was an aspect to the case that Apple was this giant crushing the little guy.”

After the verdict, Escarrega wished “to find some way” to compensate Ditzik, opining that “the giant has more resources than the little guy and the little guy needs somebody to fight for him.” Ultimately, Escarrega continued, that desire to fight for the underdog “needs to be justified” and in this case, the law clearly favored Cupertino.

Ditzik and his lawyer stated that they were disappointed with the verdict and are considering options to appeal, while Apple did not comment after the ruling at all.

We’ve discussed how the U.S. patent system is nothing short of broken, and its dual purpose — to encourage innovation while protecting the work of the inventor — is a challenge to balance fairly. However, a desire to help the little guy against the giant corporation is not justification in and of itself. No matter the best intentions of the jury, and no matter how much some of the members wanted to rule for Ditzik, it appears in this case they (eventually) got it right.

PHOTO: What if Goliath was right? Does that make it OK? (Image source: Tuomas Korpi/Piñata)

For more on this story go to:

http://www.maclife.com/article/columns/law_apple_man_claims_he_invented_smartphone_court_disagrees