wait what? How do you "protect innovation" if in doing so, its labeled as "stifling competition"? I think some of you sure are drinking that google koolaid. What the hell is the point of a patent then?
I don't understand - who said Nokia are even interested in licensing the tech? Hence an injunction seems entirely appropriate here. Or am I missing something?
The issue is whether HTC acted in good faith in its decision to include the microphone in the HTC One. If that's the case and STE is to blame then it is a disproportionate response to prevent HTC from shipping the phone, as that would create a significant delay and the cost to replace the microphones used would be considerable. The more appropriate remedy would be for Nokia to sue STE for the breach of contract and the economic damage it caused (or to simply licence the technology to HTC). This would only apply to the phones already manufactured, as any future phones would use a non-offending part.
As I said, patents are designed to protect innovation. If STE is at fault then it
should be the company held to account. HTC shouldn't have to incur a substantial cost and significant delay for something it wasn't responsible for, as that would vastly exceed the harm to Nokia. It's about proportionality. Nokia has every right to protect its intellectual property but it shouldn't be able to abuse the system to disproportionately disadvantage one of its major competitors. However, if HTC knowingly designed a phone that infringed on Nokia's patents then the injunction is completely justified.