This is a really interesting chart. Would love it if Senior TCD Legal Correspondent Ben Piper would weigh in here to help me figure out what the heck is going on.
Um...easy Nokia, that's a whole lot of arrows pointing away from you.
I would imagine a lot of this is patent litigation, which is not my thing (you almost don't even consider Intellectual Property classes in law school unless you have an engineering background).
Disclaimer: I am NOT a patent attorney, nor did I ever take a patent law class. The below opinion is derived from conversations with friends in patent law and analogies to other areas of law. DO NOT take this as legal advice. TCD is a great source of information and entertainment, but if you are using it for legal advice, your legal problems are probably overshadowed by issues of a more personal and fundamental nature.
With my limited knowledge of patent law, I would surmise that this represents what happens when a saturated market depends on incremental innovation. Innovation begets not only patents but also further innovation from competitors that borrows from or overlaps with the patented innovation. For example, Google can patent something one day only to have HTC come out with something very similar the next day with a slight twist. Is that a patent violation? Patent law standards look to things like usefulness, newness and nonobviousness. These words are pretty vague when we're talking about brand new technologies whose potential is yet to be realized. Obviously those standards are fleshed out by case law (stare decisis anyone?) that is more on point for the unique circumstances of the litigation, but when we're dealing with new technologies, there is always going to be an argument distinguishing this case from the one that came before it. Therefore, new technologies - especially those in a fairly saturated market - are always going to produce patent litigation. At the risk of stating the obvious, I can tell you that licensing is allowing another to use your intellectual property (usually for a fee and subject to certain terms and conditions).
There is also always lot of transactional activity going an among many of these companies. And whether that's a licensing deal, a joint-venture, or some kind of merger/acquisition, those transactions often lead to litigation that ranges from minor contract disputes to massive anti-trust litigation. Someone who's up on their WSJ reading could tell you a lot more about what's going on there than I can. There could also be some non-compete/trade-secret suits or any number of other disputes. I would be interested in seeing this same chart with colors representing the various causes of action.
All I really know is that I salivate when I look at that chart.
I would imagine a lot of this is patent litigation, which is not my thing (you almost don't even consider Intellectual Property classes in law school unless you have an engineering background).
ReplyDeleteDisclaimer: I am NOT a patent attorney, nor did I ever take a patent law class. The below opinion is derived from conversations with friends in patent law and analogies to other areas of law. DO NOT take this as legal advice. TCD is a great source of information and entertainment, but if you are using it for legal advice, your legal problems are probably overshadowed by issues of a more personal and fundamental nature.
With my limited knowledge of patent law, I would surmise that this represents what happens when a saturated market depends on incremental innovation. Innovation begets not only patents but also further innovation from competitors that borrows from or overlaps with the patented innovation. For example, Google can patent something one day only to have HTC come out with something very similar the next day with a slight twist. Is that a patent violation? Patent law standards look to things like usefulness, newness and nonobviousness. These words are pretty vague when we're talking about brand new technologies whose potential is yet to be realized. Obviously those standards are fleshed out by case law (stare decisis anyone?) that is more on point for the unique circumstances of the litigation, but when we're dealing with new technologies, there is always going to be an argument distinguishing this case from the one that came before it. Therefore, new technologies - especially those in a fairly saturated market - are always going to produce patent litigation. At the risk of stating the obvious, I can tell you that licensing is allowing another to use your intellectual property (usually for a fee and subject to certain terms and conditions).
There is also always lot of transactional activity going an among many of these companies. And whether that's a licensing deal, a joint-venture, or some kind of merger/acquisition, those transactions often lead to litigation that ranges from minor contract disputes to massive anti-trust litigation. Someone who's up on their WSJ reading could tell you a lot more about what's going on there than I can. There could also be some non-compete/trade-secret suits or any number of other disputes. I would be interested in seeing this same chart with colors representing the various causes of action.
All I really know is that I salivate when I look at that chart.
Can't thank you enough Ben, this is excellent.
ReplyDelete