As usual, several of the recent big stories have centred on patents. Ericsson and ZTE kicked off the latest high-profile spat, with the established player challenging the young(er) upstart following a failure to secure a commercial deal. HTC has spent US$75 million bolstering its patent portfolio. And Google was named as the “stalking horse” in the battle for Nortel’s wide-ranging patent portfolio, although this by no means indicates that Google will be the eventual victor.

Google’s justification for its decision was candid: it said that “one of a company’s best defences against this kind of litigation is (ironically) to have a formidable patent portfolio.” This is reminiscent of the nuclear weapons argument: if we have them, we are less likely to get attacked. But while (thankfully) nuclear weapons have not become a widely used tool, having a wide-ranging patent portfolio does not actually make you immune from action – it just makes it easier to fight back.

While it is often difficult to have much sympathy for Google, the company does highlight one important point: lawsuits are too often “filed by people or companies that have never actually created anything; others are motivated by a desire to block competing products or profit from the success of a rival’s new technology.” Indeed, in many cases it looks as if the more established companies are using their patent armoury to make up for a lack of innovation and an inability to compete with new and more nimble rivals.

But as always, the only real winners in these long-running battles are the lawyers. Defending a large action can cost millions of dollars, even before taking into account the damages which may need to be paid as a result, or the impact a ruling can have on the product line. And none of this spending leads to improved products for customers.

Obviously it is important that companies should be able to benefit from the technologies created by their R&D departments, both to cover cost and generate returns from shareholders. It is just a shame that so much focus is placed on defending technologies that have already been created, rather than on the development of new and innovative products that can boost a company by improving its competitive position.

Perhaps it is worth noting that the patents being sold are from Nortel, which can hardly be held-up as a model example of a modern and well-run enterprise. The lesson should be that patents alone are not enough: sooner or later, someone will have to go back to delivering innovative products to customers.

The editorial views expressed in this article are solely those of the author(s) and will not necessarily reflect the views of the GSMA, its Members or Associate Members.