No, Counting The Number Of Patent Infringement Lawsuits Is Not A Good Way To Quantify A Company's IP Ethics
from the look-at-this-high-number-which-is-actually-much-lower-than-several-others! dept
Much has been made about Donald Trump walking back sanctions placed on ZTE, a partly state-owned Chinese cellphone manufacturer, for selling products to Iran and North Korea. (Fun fact: our law enforcement agencies still do business with tech companies that sell to blacklisted countries.) The company has already paid millions of dollars in fines to the US for these violations, even if the working theory is the company paid zero dollars and the Chinese government picked up the tab.
The actual badness of ZTE is somewhere between the extremes resulting in sanctions and the trade war victim it tries to present itself as. Trump is a fan of trade wars, even if Pyrhhic stalemates are still considered righteous wins in the Trade War Game. Trump has decided to lift the US government boot from ZTE's mostly-unbruised neck as a gesture of goodwill or something after slapping the world's largest exporter of consumer goods with a bunch of tariffs that seem to be doing more harm than good on the home front.
And, because it's Trump lifting the sanctions, lots of people are claiming it's unilaterally a bad thing for him to do. This has resulted in some really bad arguments for maintaining sanctions and there's one being made at TechCrunch. It begins with a horrendous attempt to quantify the "terribleness" of ZTE by using an incredibly meaningless stat.
After meeting with Chinese Vice Premiere Liu He this week, President Trump is still considering easing penalties on Chinese telecommunications giant ZTE over its violation of sanctions against Iran and North Korea. But what Mr. Trump may not realize is that ZTE is also one of the world’s most notorious intellectual property thieves — perhaps even the most notorious of all.
The Most Notorious Of All!
How does one gain this desirable title? Here's how the Most Notorious sausage in made in the TechCrunch post:
To get a sense of just how egregious ZTE’s behavior truly is, we need only to consult PACER, the national index of federal court cases. A search of PACER reveals that in the U.S. alone, ZTE has been sued for patent infringement an astonishing 126 times just in the last five years. This number is even more shocking when you consider that only a subset of companies who believe their IP rights have been violated by ZTE has the means or the will to spend the millions of dollars needed to wage a multi-year lawsuit in federal courts.
SHOCKING! 126 times in the past five years. The mind boggles… oh wait.
Apple has been sued for patent infringement 296 times over the same period. It must be at least twice the egregious IP violator ZTE is, and no one (outside of the IPWatchdog staff) believes the US government should sanction it.
LG Electronics has been sued 193 times in the same time period -- an 1.5 times more astonishing rate of egregious behavior.
That's just two examples. There are countless more. There may be valid reasons to keep sanctions against ZTE in place, but IP infringement isn't one of them. If it is, there's got to be a better metric than "patent infringement lawsuits filed against." This doesn't indicate anything but how profitable patent trolling can be. Every NPE (non-practicing entity) with a pocket full of vague software patents has filed multiple lawsuits against multiple device manufacturers. The mere existence of dozens of patent lawsuits indicates nothing more than federal filing fees offer decent ROI for patent trolls.
The editorial is on more solid ground (in terms of IP enforcement) when it calls ZTE out for joining a patent pool to collect licensing fees but heading for the exit door as soon as it became apparent it would also have to pay fees to other pool members for making use of their patents.
Claiming lawsuits = valid claims based on solid, distinct patents is a bogus argument. It ignores the expected outcome of a patent troll-friendly litigation system in an attempt to score points against Trump's new favorite Chinese manufacturer. It's not so much disingenuous as it is ignorant. But ignorance gets ignored when confirmation bias comes into play, and those who hate Trump are just as susceptible to being duped by their own minds are his supporters are. If there's a legitimate case to be made against continuing sanctions against ZTE, it's for the company's willingness to sell electronics to blacklisted companies. This argument only legitimizes patent trolling, portraying it as something other than what it really is: speculative invoicing on a mass scale.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: donald trump, patent lawsuits, patent trolls, patents, trade wars
Companies: apple, zte
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I await those staunch defenders who will claim there is some difference in the cases against ZTE and Apple...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Apple is an american company, while ZTE is a chinese company! Thus attacking Apple is treason, while attacking ZTE is a strike against an enemy.
National interests are to be protected at all costs!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad math
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad math
"a 1.5 times as astonishing rate of egregious behavior"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bad math
The only grammatical error in that sentence was using "an" instead of "a".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where is this alleged "pay-off" and how much was it?
BIG CITATION NEEDED.
Wow! This IS news! Again, source? -- Well, it MAY be bigger than the alleged "Trump-Russia collusion", as that has ZERO fact in it.
Hey, minion: why aren't YOU writing up this "pay-off" and "corruption" rather than nit-picking at whatever site that was?
There. Now that I've given my opinions without any actual attempt to provoke response, that's just incidental, you COULD just skip over, side effect is that fanboys have target for ad hom, and can mis-use the "Report" button twice. You're welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where is this alleged "pay-off" and how much was it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, you're trying to gin up a flame war with Techcrunch?
Write more clearerly and with more focusization. You seem to have jumped into usual anti-Trump rant, then when noticed it turning a tiny bit pro-Trump, went back and got angry at your source for that, so wrote against it instead. Result is not much instigating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, you're trying to gin up a flame war with Techcrunch?
Really? Your browser didn't warn you there is a problem with this word?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your browser didn't warn you there is a problem with this wo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Your browser didn't warn you there is a problem with this wo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Donny’s still not gonna let you touch it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, you're trying to gin up a flame war with Techcrunch?
You first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Write more clearerly and with more focusization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, you're trying to gin up a flame war with Techcrunch?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How would that work? The more times a company's been sued the greater the odds that they are run by space lizards, with brave defenders of the earth trying to bring them down, or the more times they've been sued the better odds that they are run by said defenders and the space lizards are trying to bring them down?
It's an important question to be sure, can't be too careful with the space lizard threat, I mean even WIPO takes them seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While how any IP suits a company has been hit by isn't a good measure of its ethicality, how many IP lawsuits it has filed perhaps could be - in an inverse-proportional kind of way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
True enough, but that would require the ones making the judgement to admit that it's possible for IP lawsuits to be made it bad faith, which I suspect would be a bit too much for some of them as it would undermine the system by making it clear that it can be abused and easily at that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But if you ever produce something useful be prepared to get sued no matter what. Because everything you do is covered by some patent. This makes you the bad guy for infringing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]