By Russell Lamberti
Last week a US court ruled that Samsung Electronics had to pay $1 billion to Apple Inc. for patent infringement. Samsung made a cool $6 billion profit in the 2nd quarter of 2012 on revenue of nearly $50 billion, so $1 billion, in the final analysis, is pretty manageable. But that’s not the point. The Apple-Samsung patent war, which – sadly – is probably far from over, raises once again the broader question over the basic efficacy and legitimacy of intellectual property law. Is patent and copyright protection socially beneficial? Is it even legitimate property right? Although this is a divisive issue, most people regard intellectual property rights, specifically patent and copyright, as legitimate property rights. Most people are wrong, and below I’ll show why.
Mais
Last week a US court ruled that Samsung Electronics had to pay $1 billion to Apple Inc. for patent infringement. Samsung made a cool $6 billion profit in the 2nd quarter of 2012 on revenue of nearly $50 billion, so $1 billion, in the final analysis, is pretty manageable. But that’s not the point. The Apple-Samsung patent war, which – sadly – is probably far from over, raises once again the broader question over the basic efficacy and legitimacy of intellectual property law. Is patent and copyright protection socially beneficial? Is it even legitimate property right? Although this is a divisive issue, most people regard intellectual property rights, specifically patent and copyright, as legitimate property rights. Most people are wrong, and below I’ll show why.Mais
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário