Apple Fined US$300 million Because of iPhone and iPad

Apple again stumbled on the issue of patent disputes. The company from Cupertino, California, United States of America lost the trial regarding allegations of patent infringement. Telecommunications company Optis Wireless Technology Apple accused of violating patents owned by Optis regarding 4G/LTE technology used in iPhone, iPad and Apple Watch devices. A federal court jury in Texas, USA, found Apple guilty of violating patents belonging to Optis and ordered the Cupertino-based technology company to pay royalty damages of US$300 million. In a statement, Apple said that Optis did not have any lawsuits and was looking to make money by suing other companies with a collection of patents that are intentionally collected. "We (Apple) will continue to work so that they can not receive unreasonable money from the patents they obtain," said an Apple spokesman. The five Optis technology patents that the court said Apple had infringed were owned by Samsung, LG, and Panasonic, before being bought by Optis. Apple also plans to appeal the court's decision in the future. On the other hand, Optis accused Apple of not being willing to pay fair royalties for patented technological designs. The lawsuit filed by Optis against Apple regarding allegations of patent infringement has actually been going on for some time. Initially, in the previous court ruling in 2020, the amount of compensation that Apple had to pay was even greater, reaching US$506 million. However, as compiled by The Verge, Tuesday (17/6/2021), Apple persuaded the US District Judge, Rodney Gilstrap to conduct a retrial. Gilstrap said that the jury at the initial court had not considered whether the amount of compensation complied with the FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) provisions for standard essential patent cases or not.

Questions:

a. The lawsuit against Apple above is an example of the importance of intellectual property rights (IPR) at this time. Explain 3 reasons why IPR is important in today's business competition!

b. In his book, Kit Sadgrove explains the term "Patent troll". Can the case above be categorized as a patent troll?