re: the iPhone and iPad trademark disputes; they arose because Apple launched their product without bothering to secure the trademarks first. In the Cisco case

re: the iPhone and iPad trademark disputes; they arose because Apple launched their product without bothering to secure the trademarks first. In the Cisco case, they were a legitimate competitor (producing and marketing telephones in the United States) and Apple really didn't have any right to the name. The other one is a dispute over how Apple can market the iPad in China; no change in US law is going to affect that. Making people pay taxes on the value of their reputation, which is what this sort of trademark tax would be, doesn't sit right with me. Economically, it probably works fine. For patent litigation, one problem is that legal costs can drive most small companies out of business before they ever get a judgement. Even if they would have won the case, they don't have the resources to make it to the finish. This is a problem for all kinds of civil cases, but I haven't thought about it enough to have a viable stance. The problem with submarine patents is that even with a good-faith patent search, you're likely to miss some relevant ones. They are deliberately written to be as broad and hard-to-understand as possible; the only way to be reasonably sure that you're not infringing is to be an expert on all the patents that are currently in force.