(How I envision the battle lineup)
As of late, the Apple v. Samsung dispute has been leading to ""compulsory-licensing system wherein patent holders are forced to license patented technology to competing firms, which could in turn harm incentives to innovate," which concerns Nokia. In general, this type of system will stifle innovation if rivals all have access to the technology, which would result in a battle of marketing cash spend. This is potentially a great concern to smaller companies with inadequate cash flow spending. This would be very anti-competitive.
The strange thing to me about this whole patent war is that Samsung is found to have infringed against dozens of IP (mostly patents) in the court of law, and yet the firm is not called out as guilty for it. It really speaks the flaws of the existing patent system if there is so much subjectivity involved that different judges would potentially have different rulings. Instead, the case rulings should be more grounded in specifics like first filing date, and the intent of the original inventors.
Speaking of inventors, I'm curious how the inventors have a stake in the entire Apple vs. Samsung battle. Given that the infringement of any patent would require understanding of the intent of the original claim, I'm curious how a company understands an intent once it owns the patent, if it wasn't the first one to own it. And, even if it is the first one to own it, it is not the inventor speaking for the patent in the court of law.
So now we're at the stage where Nokia has filed its amicus brief in the good name of innovation and fair competition. I'm not sure how much longer Samsung can deflect these criticisms in the public eye, so we'll have to wait and see. My feeling is that it won't be terribly deterred, but it may face more restrictions going forward to be less blatant about benchmarking specs in competitors' products.
No comments:
Post a Comment