The (mis)reporting of patent lawsuits
26 03 2009One patent lawsuit that got a little buzz recently was Glasgow-based Picsel Technologies’ lawsuit against the Apple iPhone.
CNN Money carried a short piece on the Picsel v. Apple lawsuit that used terminology that’s pretty typical in reporting on patent lawsuits. According to CNN, Picsel claimed “that Apple’s hot-selling iPhone and iPod Touch devices
incorporate Picsel-patented technology that facilitates rapid redrawing of
content displayed on devices’ screens.”
Now, that sentence is literally true and accurately reported. But there’s a kind of breezy vocabulary around reporting on patent litigation that is quite problematic. It allows the patent-holder to strongly imply they’ve been copied, even though most of the time there’s no copying even being alleged. Picsel is not claiming that Apple copied its patents or products, even though it’s got a big incentive to put whatever evidence it has on the record.
The content in this post was found at http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2009/02/the-misreporting-of-patent-lawsuits.html and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
