Crazy thought: Apple sells the right to use the patent to small chinese companies, they make them change a few things but overall, the same technology... the Chinese, in turn, give them a share of the profits. Apple wins!
They have an issue when a company that can compete with them is the one making the infrigement (Apple vs Samsung).
I've been digging into the patents issue and disputes that have engulfed the wireless handsets market and cannot imagine anyone winning other than lawyers. I am not blaming them, just noting that at the end all these companies will have to reach an "amicable" cross-licensing agreement but not before they've paid millions to lawyers.
Marketing a product that is branded with another company's name without that company's permission goes beyond patent infringement. Fraud and other criminal statutes cover practices such as this. Then again, the kind of marketplace deception that is either condoned or illegal is very dependent on culture and longstanding practice.
US patents are largely used to keep researchers who work for established businesses from taking their technology to other companies. Unclear that the countries who participate in counterfeiting can benefit from such a system at present.
To really protect start-ups and to avoid the dishonest use of the system, the patent system simply has to be smarter. In this age where arbitration is used instead of litigation, it's surprising that technology-savvy third parties aren't used to register or certify IP.
Whoa, I can't picture that, not even in a Disney movie. Promoting innovation is very important to maintain relevance in today's World but patents have not been the solution. I think they need to make patents more specific, require more details.
the crux of the problem is to identify the patent theft. Another problem is the law enforcement, as others also identified. Stricter law enforcement will not only help putting a stop on patent infringment but also benefit other copying/stealing of softwares, entertainment, healthcare products etc.
@Mr. Roques - You are right, enforcement is the issue. And the burden of discovering infringement and enforcing the patent rests with the patent owner. Philosophically that makes sense - after all, who can recognize infringement better than the patent holder? But at the same time, the effort and cost one must use to discover and protect takes away from further investment in new technology.
@prabhakar - IBM doesn't adopt the strategy you propose across the board. In fact, for several years running, IBM generated the largest number of patents year over year in the same timeframe that the PC proliferation was occurring. They continue to place a high focus on patents.
Apple couldn't license their technology if they didn't own the IP.
Unfortunately, any assignment of property sometimes brings with it legal contention of ownership. But the purpose, as stated in the constitution, is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for a limited time to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
While no one really can accurately predict the future, we can take guidance from another Drucker saying which is the best way to predict the future is to create it.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.