Once again, we see a battle between two tech business behemoths turn to the courts on a narrow issue. In this article about a quiet little patent infringement suit over a bid-for-ads system in state court in San Jose, we see yet another example of a market battle being paralleled by a court fight.

Like the far-flung proxy wars and border skirmishes between two superpowers, no individual legal battle will mean victory or defeat in the war, but the cumulative effect just might. At this point, everyone knows that legal battles are a fundamental part of doing business; executives in any sort of technology or IP-intensive industry are especially aware of this fact. But the best legal strategy for a high tech company in the 21st century is still unclear.

There's always the proven Microsoft strategy of taking over the market, in part through illegal means, while holding off the inevitable legal defeat until the other side's victory becomes pyrrhic. But it's sad if such a strategy is the only means to victory, and reflects rather poorly on both the companies and the lawyers involved.

As for the patent suit at issue here, I have no idea if Yahoo bought itself a lawsuit against Google and that was their specific business purpose (as some have alleged), and I have no idea if Google is infringing the patent at issue. All I know is that for the best interests of the industry and society as a whole, market victory should go to the company with the best, most useful, most effective search technology, not the one with the best lawyers. Yes, I say "should" because as a lawyer I know well the difference between how things should be, and how they will be. Accordingly, all prudent technology companies will understand and digest this one unpleasant rule: The legal battle is as important as the market battle.