Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th Mar 2013 10:35 UTC
Legal "Apple vs. Samsung initially ended with a billion-dollar verdict in favor of Apple, but there have been plenty of wrinkles since. This week brought about another, as Nokia filed an amicus brief on behalf of Apple, Inc. in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the brief filed Monday, Nokia asked the court to permit permanent injunctions on the sale of Samsung phones that were found to infringe Apple's patents." In the meantime, the latest comScore figures for the US show that Windows Phone's market share actually declined during the launch of Windows Phone 8. It's pretty clear that, combined with the disappointing quarterly results for Nokia, the company is setting itself up for the future. In this future, Nokia's patent portfolio is worth more than their actual phone business, and as such, Nokia can't do anything but support Apple in this case, else the value of their portfolio goes down.
Permalink for comment 554517
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: It isn't about Samsung
by Nelson on Thu 7th Mar 2013 18:51 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: It isn't about Samsung"
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29


No need for philosophical arguments at all. Innovation tends to happen at a quicker rate without protections. Sure, we could protect companies, but it tends to be at the expense of society.

It's a myth that patent protection fosters innovation, much like the myth that ever increasing tax cuts for the rich creates jobs. They sound all right in theory, but they never pan out in reality.


Do you think that the rate of innovation is low in the mobile space? Watch other industries. There's the initial boom, rapid innovation, a small period of litigation, then relative peace. No industry has really blown itself up over patents historically.

I'm just wondering what would lead you to conclude that patents are stymieing innovation. Sure, its easy to call patents innovation killers (just like its easy to say that tax cuts for the rich are good) but its harder to prove.

And I'm a bleeding heart liberal so I think we agree on the rest of your post ;) .

Reply Parent Score: 3