An article in Tuesday’s ‘The Times’ regarding the Apple v Samsung design litigation in the High Court concluded with the statement:
“Commentators have suggested Apple’s decision to pursue
its rivals in court could be a sign of weakness.”
Is the article simply confusing the act of enforcement with
the strength of the IP being enforced (the article indicates that Apple were
unsuccessful both in the High Court and in patent litigation against Samsung in
Or is the suggestion that Apple must be losing significant
market share if the company is willing to go to the expense of litigation in
Could this simply be a public relations issue for Apple, to be contrasted with the triumphant pictures of James Dyson outside
the High Court following his victory over Hoover in 2000?
Or is there some other logic according to which an
enforceable IP right is seen as a weakness rather than a strength?
Post a Comment