Earlier this month, Apple suffered an important legal defeat in its battle over patents with Samsung.

It’s good because Apple’s claims were frivolous; its patents were questionable; and its use of litigation to hold back a competitor set another wrong precedent for the industry.

…

My colleague, Stanford Law School professor Mark Lemley says that when used correctly, patents can be valuable because they generate real technology transfer.

…

“In this case, they’ve spent years, countless court resources, and literally over one billion dollars in attorney and expert fees to produce a net fee award of $158,400—and ironically, this went to Samsung,” Lemley says.

He notes that in an earlier case, Apple won a significant amount of money that it may or may not get to keep depending on what the Supreme Court rules. “Other than that, not much has changed as a result of the lawsuit”, he concludes.

In a new paper, “Patent Licensing, Technology Transfer, & Innovation”, that Lemley co-authored with Robin Feldman of University of California Hastings, the key finding was that patents are only useful when they deliver innovation to consumers that they would not otherwise get.