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.
Thread beginning with comment 554494
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: It isn't about Samsung
by zztaz on Thu 7th Mar 2013 16:06 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: It isn't about Samsung"
zztaz
Member since:
2006-09-16

The public good served by patents isn't isn't about rewarding innovation, it's supposed to be about rewarding *publication* of innovation. In other words, making the details of innovations available to the public is the goal, a temporary government-imposed monopoly is the incentive.

Markets reward innovation, government has no need nor justification for doing so. There are powerful interests behind the misrepresentation of the purpose of patents ("rewarding innovation"), so it's worth pushing back and remembering the true purpose when comparing the benefit to the public against the cost to the public.

Some economists think that the cost of patents is higher than the benefits. Cost and benefit to the public, that is. Many companies see great benefit in suppressing competition.

Back to the topic, I see that the usual players are busy misrepresenting this case. The judge has not ruled out injunctions, she's ruled that it's not time for them *yet*. The jury didn't follow instructions, so that needs to be sorted out before injunctions or penalties can be assigned.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: It isn't about Samsung
by Nelson on Thu 7th Mar 2013 20:20 in reply to "RE[6]: It isn't about Samsung"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Back to the topic, I see that the usual players are busy misrepresenting this case. The judge has not ruled out injunctions, she's ruled that it's not time for them *yet*. The jury didn't follow instructions, so that needs to be sorted out before injunctions or penalties can be assigned.


That's not what she said at all. Did you just make this up? She didn't mention any of what you just said. You're being intentionally misleading.

The Judge's ruling is unusual and controversial. I think it has more to do with having an appearance of impartiality than an actual correct application of the law.

There's almost no doubt that Apple will appeal and win this one.

Reply Parent Score: 3