Google and Apple are the firms most valuable in the world and the winners of the rise of the smartphone. In its wake is the operation of phones of Nokia that was sold to Microsoft, and then was settled. But when it comes to defend itself against the arsenal of patents that Nokia was able to build on their years at the top, the heavy weights of the technology of us want the world to consider them victims of an unjust behavior and anti-competitive.
The delicious irony emerged this week, when Apple introduced an anti-trust lawsuit against two companies that acted as authorities to apply the patent portfolio of Nokia. Apple claimed that Nokia is taking advantage of the legal system and that is conducive to abuse it by splitting their holdings of patents and pass them to specialized firms. In the heated rhetoric of the industry of intellectual property, Nokia became the animal most detest: a troll patent.
four years Ago, Google set its sights on the same agreement for a complaint to the european regulators. He accused the Finnish company and Microsoft of colluding to raise the prices of the smartphone and avoid the granting of patents, which are essential to operate without problems technology markets. Today it is tempting to see that all of this is a struggle in the participating companies with a lot of money and they are more than capable of taking care of themselves.
But it focused attention on an important issue for the technology industry in general. At issue is what is known as "entities assertion of patents" (PAE, for its acronym in English), companies that are created to purchase and implement the rights of intellectual property.
According to critics, these mercenaries do not feel any remorse in abusing an unstable legal system to demand excessive royalty, which upset the delicate balance in the world of technology between the inventors and the companies who profit with their inventions.
Some factors that apply to patents are more annoying than others. In a recent study, the Federal Trade Commission of the US approved in general of what he called as "PAE portfolio", companies that buy large packages, as they offer an economic function useful, and more than half of them share profits with the inventors.
it Is true, perhaps they are more willing to perform a legal action that the technology companies that have industrial relations that they have to protect, and have the experience and risk capital to go to war. But this in itself does not makes them bad.
A second question would be, is if the PAE is involved in an asymmetrical war. As legal vehicles ready for use without business operating for their own account, they can claim without fear of a counterclaim. They can also act as company’s ghost to the owners of original patents, which makes it more difficult for the accused to press for a legal discovery companies who first gained the patent rights. These side effects are less pleasant seem acceptable if the outweigh the benefits of outsource legal rights. But there are other results of the most pernicious that can be more difficult to assimilate. One is the opacity around some of the PAE. When the last beneficiary of an action is hidden, it is impossible for the defendants to respond with their own legal action.
The PAE may also resort to tactics questionable, as well as diversify the portfolio of patents through a series of legal entities different than forcing a company like Apple to buy several licenses about the same technology. This practice is known in the industry as the accumulation of royalties.
Another valid concern is whether some companies use the PAE to circumvent their obligations to maintain open industry standards.
When are the owners of patents for technology that have a role in the standards of the industry, the company as Nokia accept limits on how aggressively to assert their rights, but once the patents have an independent company, it is possible to not apply the same restrictions.
The Apple claims might have more weight if the company itself is not the accuse of rejecting the usual methods of the industry to deal with the standards of the technology. But one of the demands of Nokia accuses the manufacturer of the iPhone refuse to license a series of patents that were used in the compression standard of video H. 264, even when many other technology companies agreed to the same terms.
there are Also doubts about whether european regulators with competition they are going to rush to defend companies in the u.s. technology that are under scrutiny in Brussels.
With the amount that is in play on the rise now and those in charge of applying the patent as a party is deeply rooted in the legal landscape, it seems that they should have given a look more closely at its tactics for a long time.
No comments:
Post a Comment