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 the US)?
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 multiple territories?
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?
