An Inside Look at Apple's Role in the Patent Industry

[Forkjulle]

Personally I don't believe it's fair that you create a product, spend your hard earned money on marketing only for someone else to simply take your idea and sell the same product for profit. You came up with the idea, .

I'd counter that by saying that I don't believe it's fair to monopolise the market as a defensive measure for "just in case". And in the event that someone comes up with the same idea (perhaps they're a smaller company than you), you get the government to criminalise them for having the same idea as you.

In effect, you believe it is fair to interfere with other people's private (intellectual) property for your own gains.

 

[chrmjenkins]

This is one of Apple's lawyers on the subject. Read it and tell me that is not patent troll like behavior.

This was addressed right on the first page. The explicit use of "defensive" and lack of any patent troll behavior on Apple's part invalidate this idea.

 

[samcraig]

This was addressed right on the first page. The explicit use of "defensive" and lack of any patent troll behavior on Apple's part invalidate this idea.

But they aren't using their patents defensively - they are using them offensively.

 

[tbrinkma]

I didn't say anything about secrecy. In fact, I expanded what I meant with the commonly-argued phrase "use it or lose it", meaning, patent whatever you want but if it's not actively moving toward going to market it does become public domain after a brief time. That single rule change would- IMO- do 3 things:

1. Create a surge in the economy as good innovations suppressed by defensive patents are brought to market rather than letting them become public domain (those with real market value would be brought to market)
2. Accelerate our progress as people (because a lock on the "status quo" through defensive patents could no longer slow down the natural pace of real change).
3. Demotivate/decapitate the defensive patent strategy (it would no longer hold much value to file patents with no intention of bringing the patented to market soon).

IMO, both of these are big wins for individuals but at a potential costs to all companies that lock up defensive patents to protect the "as is" rather than evolve with the next big things.

By "defensive", I didn't mean "secret", I meant patenting something with no intention of bringing it to market is an innovation killer. A really big company(s) with deep pockets could eventually patent all kinds of concepts that they don't intend to bring to market. However, if someone else tries to bring them to market, they then have to deal with licensing from a patent holder that was otherwise not doing anything with the patent. That slows down- even discourages innovations- and adds to the cost of bringing new "gee whiz" things to market. For what? So that the big companies can make even more money because they are rich enough to patent ideas with which they don't really want to do anything?

Someone suggested a change to the legal system where the loser pays all of the court costs. This is similar. Reward the patent holders that are bringing new innovations to market; discourage the patent "buyers" who are really just playing defense. I've read that big oil owns some terrific patents on rechargeable batteries but they like us buying oil, not reducing our demand for oil. Whether that's true or false, it's easier to believe it as true than not.

I think we largely agree in principle. We disagree on what methods will be effective at reaching the proper end result.

Same with big pharma. Again, last 20-30 years, we've had MASSIVE advances in tools, technology, medical knowledge, etc. Where are the cures? Where is one big cure? We seem to have one-a-day treatments for everything- even stuff no one considered an ailment or syndrome 10+ years ago. But we can't cure anything. Are cures that hard to come by or is there just too much money in backing cures down to treatments?

Sadly, yes, effective cures *are* hard to come by. It certainly doesn't help that a cure is a one-time purchase, while a treatment is a recurring source of revenue. Most of the recurring treatments available came into being because someone was searching for a cure. They found something promising, but it turned out to be only effective in the short term, or it just dealt with the symptoms rather than the disease itself.

 

[chrmjenkins]

But they aren't using their patents defensively - they are using them offensively.

Yes, and all those patents are ones they actually use. Unlike patents they may not use but still choose to file so they can use them to defend themselves. Still doesn't fit the definition of patent troll.

 

[tbrinkma]

3 won't help. You can still purchase zombie companies and keep them around as subsidiaries that pursue their own patent lawsuits. Or you can pay the owners of the patents in return for them filing lawsuits against your target list. It makes the paperwork more complicated, but that's it.

4 is a good idea. Sometimes even the people listed in the application cannot tell what is being claimed by the patent.

No, 3 doesn't allow the purchase of zombie companies suing over patents, because 1 doesn't allow *companies* to own patents. The most the 'zombie company' could have would be a license allowing them to practice the patent.

What would be the benefit for your company paying the actual inventor to sue someone? Such an arrangement is sketchy at best from a legal perspective, and it puts all the risk on the inventor, while the only way a company would go for it is if it got all the reward. That's a tough sell.

It would be *much* easier, safer, and less expensive for the company to simply negotiate an exclusive license to the patent in the first place.

 

[samcraig]

Yes, and all those patents are ones they actually use. Unlike patents they may not use but still choose to file so they can use them to defend themselves. Still doesn't fit the definition of patent troll.

But they weren't using them necc when they were all filed, were they.

They have many patents now which may or may not get used. Do you believe that they will just sit on them until they are - or will they use them offensively against the competition?

 

[chrmjenkins]

But they weren't using them necc when they were all filed, were they.

They have many patents now which may or may not get used. Do you believe that they will just sit on them until they are - or will they use them offensively against the competition?

Yes, I do. They have said they want to defend their existing products and I believe that, having no reason to believe the contrary. The others have done the same (in the case of smartphone vendors).

 

[kdarling]

At some point in time, Apple will have hardware in hand to provide resolution independence, if that is what is required, along with iOS II or whatever the next generation will be called. In the meantime, it seems to me like Apple have very neatly sidestepped into a completely different aspect ratio screen with very little pain for the developer.

Yep, that's what I said

Previous smartphone OSes also stepped slowly to avoid developer pain. That's why they were behind when someone (Apple) without any legacy screen types or control configurations jumped into the market.

If this is the case how are all the other companies able to create similar looking products?

Most courts around the world (Germany being the prime exception in the case of the original Samsung Tab 10.1) have so far either ruled that Apple's tablet design patent is more functional than ornamental, or that other companies' tablets weren't close enough.

Doesn't this go back to, they may have had similar ideas but did not patent them. Apple was first and patented them so it wouldn't really matter if they had similar ideas?

Similar ideas = prior art = can invalidate patents... if they're allowed to be brought up. In other countries, the use of such evidence has led to Samsung winning over Apple.

What was the technicality? Was it because Samsung never patented those ideas?

The evidence wasn't allowed because, even though Samsung had shown it to the court and Apple many months beforehand in pre-trial discovery as part of an overall design history, they had failed to specifically label such evidence for the purpose of trying to invalidate Apple's design claims.

Apple's lawyers saw a chance to claim a technicality and filed a motion to exclude all the evidence. Samsung was unable to convince the presiding magistrate in time to allow most of it. If you recall, the head lawyer for Samsung even pleaded with Judge Koh just before trial began, saying that leaving out all the historical evidence made the trial a mockery and left him without a defense. Koh still said no.

That omission and the trial time limits were legal, but certainly denied critical evidence to the jury. As noted above, in other courts where such evidence of prior art was shown, it made all the difference for the outcome.

 

[craftytony]

I'd counter that by saying that I don't believe it's fair to monopolise the market as a defensive measure for "just in case". And in the event that someone comes up with the same idea (perhaps they're a smaller company than you), you get the government to criminalise them for having the same idea as you.

In effect, you believe it is fair to interfere with other people's private (intellectual) property for your own gains.

Agreed, I like what others have said in that you should have to bring something to market within a reasonable time or risk losing the patent.

 

[sransari]

As others (like KDarling) has said - Many manufacturers were all headed in the same direction. Many had legacy phones and OSes to support. Apple had none of these and also the benefit of decades of an established marketplace and R&D. Not discounting what Apple brought to the game or their own R&D. But the notion that some have (not saying you) that we wouldn't have phone similar to the iPhone now if Apple didn't make one is just factually incorrect. And it's impossible to determine if they would have been better, worse or just different. We will never know and any argument to the contrary is conjecture or wishful thinking.

So I said: Apple should go after other companies since they use a similar GUI.

You said: Apple didn't invent the touch screen phones. They were being built in 2002-2003 and industry was headed in the direction of touch screens.

I said: Doesn't matter, Apple's patent used against Samsung claimed something different than was was being built in 2002-2003...they should use it against other companies too.

You: Random irrelevant new topic out of nowhere.

 

[LordVic]

Apple is trapped just like other systems before it. They cannot make too radical a change without ostracizing developers and customers.

This is a huge issue and it's good you brought it up in regards to what people have in the pipeline.

A great example of a company who's attempting a radical shift in their production, design and platform is RIM.

Look how well they've managed with such a shift. (it was necessary), but what exactly you said has happened. They've ostrocized customers, developers and even many of their own people, and are running lean and on fumes till it's done.

And thats with no guarantee of success

Back o topic:

what this indicates to me, is we're living in an age where too much is being spent on Law, Application of law and ensuring that money is controlled byt too few.

Too many lawyers with their hands in the pies. too many corporations getting too many rights and too much money in way too few hands.

Just think of what that 20 billion could have gone towards, besides lawyers and legal departments? build all new factories to increase production, which would in turn put more people to work, increase ability to produce higher volume, thus reducing costs to everyone. Could be put towards things like hey, Space research, or health care, or ensuring that no child under 18 misses out on education.

Instead, 20 billion is in the hands of lawyers and executives. If this doesn't make everyone sad, we're in a very sore state of the world

 

[Renzatic]

You: Random irrelevant new topic out of nowhere.

Dunno how you think that's an irrelevant new topic when it's pretty spot on.

The simple sad fact of the matter is is that Apple and the rest of the industry are basically trying to patent every single tiny idea they can possibly think of in an attempt to lock themselves into a dominant position in the market place for 30+ years. Most of the ideas being patented these days are barely worth the paper they're filed on, let alone worth the billions that are being tossed about over them.

Like Pinch-to-zoom. It's a neat idea, sure. Handy as hell. Apple didn't invent it, yet they patented it, and it's one of the things Samsung lost their case over. Same with bounce back. It's another neat idea. But it sure as hell isn't worth patenting. It's an animation and a visual cue. Probably cost all of about $300 and 4 pizzas to think up and implement. It's not worth a patent. It's not that novel, nor is it all that industry changing in and of itself.

I haven't read through this whole thread, but I'm willing to be at least a couple of you have thrown out the old "well if Apple can't protect their innovations, then they wouldn't have any drive to innovate at all". That's BS. Plan and simple. Lets look at Apple as they stand right now. They're the darling of the industry. Practically worshipped and oogled over. They're one of the richest companies in the world, and have practically owned the smartphone industry for the last 5 years. They certainly shaped it, anyway. Now that other companies are finally catching up to them in quality and standards, what's Apple gonna do? Whine about taking their ball and going home, giving up on future potential profits just because some other guys came out with a phone sporting a grid of icons? Seriously? Why? CUZ IT JUST AIN'T FAAIIIRRR? Yeah, I'm sure multibillion dollar corporations act like toddlers who got their truck stolen by some other kid at the playground, right?

...actually, they kinda do. IT'S MY PINCH TO ZOOM AND BOUNCY SCREEN! GIMME A BILLION TRILLION MEGABUCKS!

Or what about the next best chestnut: copying kills innovation. No it doesn't. Using someone elses ideas and improving upon it is the very definition of innovation. If certain companies hold the exclusive rights to certain concepts, nothing improves. One company becomes dominant, and does nothing with their initial innovation. Without "stealing" other people's ideas and expanding upon them, we wouldn't have OTA updates or a much nicer notification center on the iPhone. No one should have sole ownership of a concept. A specific implementation, yeah. But the general idea? No. If that were to happen, it'd be the death knell of innovation. Because innovation doesn't happen in a vacuum, it's an improvement upon previous designs.

If all you exclusive IP ownership cheerleaders got your way, the world would be a much less entertaining place than it is now.

----------

This was addressed right on the first page. The explicit use of "defensive" and lack of any patent troll behavior on Apple's part invalidate this idea.

Actually, Apple has been called out on patent troll behavior before. Or at least directly leveraging patent troll companies to get their way by proxy.

Apple is not an innocent babe in a forest full of wolves. They're just as mean and underhanded as everyone else.

 

[samcraig]

This is a huge issue and it's good you brought it up in regards to what people have in the pipeline.

A great example of a company who's attempting a radical shift in their production, design and platform is RIM.

Look how well they've managed with such a shift. (it was necessary), but what exactly you said has happened. They've ostrocized customers, developers and even many of their own people, and are running lean and on fumes till it's done.

And thats with no guarantee of success

Back o topic:

what this indicates to me, is we're living in an age where too much is being spent on Law, Application of law and ensuring that money is controlled byt too few.

Too many lawyers with their hands in the pies. too many corporations getting too many rights and too much money in way too few hands.

Just think of what that 20 billion could have gone towards, besides lawyers and legal departments? build all new factories to increase production, which would in turn put more people to work, increase ability to produce higher volume, thus reducing costs to everyone. Could be put towards things like hey, Space research, or health care, or ensuring that no child under 18 misses out on education.

Instead, 20 billion is in the hands of lawyers and executives. If this doesn't make everyone sad, we're in a very sore state of the world

Interesting point. Which kind of deflates the argument that companies (like Apple for example) could, indeed, bring many jobs back here vs outsourcing and instead of spending money on lawyers - spend the money on jobs and factories.

Or you know - they could spend a lot LESS than that to just license patents.

How much did Apple spend to "win" 1.3 billion dollars. How much did the trial cost them? Does anyone know (I ask sincerely).

Because even though they might have "won" - if it cost them a few billion - was it really worth it. I know some will chime in and say it's not about the money - it's about protecting their ideas. But at the end of the day - I would argue back - business is business.

If I go into the casino and throw $500 into chips and only walk out with $100 in chips - I haven't won anything. And yes- my analogy is intentionally glib.

 

[Renzatic]

If I go into the casino and throw $500 into chips and only walk out with $100 in chips - I haven't won anything. And yes- my analogy is intentionally glib.

A win in court give them plenty of leverage for future legal action. If they sued and won against one company, they now have a fairly potent weapon to weld against any other company coming out with products using similar ideas.

Regardless of how much money they spent, won, or lost in the case against Samsung, the contested ideas are now Apples to do with as they please. Any company wanting to use pinch to zoom or bouncy screens, regardless of implementation, has to kowtow to Apple's will, or risk landing themselves in a multibillion dollar lawsuit themselves.

 

[samcraig]

A win in court give them plenty of leverage for future legal action. If they sued and won against one company, they now have a fairly potent weapon to weld against any other company coming out with products using similar ideas.

Regardless of how much money they spent, won, or lost in the case against Samsung, the contested ideas are now Apples to do with as they please. Any company wanting to use pinch to zoom or bouncy screens, regardless of implementation, has to kowtow to Apple's will, or risk landing themselves in a multibillion dollar lawsuit themselves.

I know - I was being pretty glib. That being said - there are still things to consider. 1) Apple hasn't seen a dime because the case isn't settled yet and won't be for quite some time. 2) How much money spent is relevant because if they will never recoup that - even with licensing, etc - how much was the win really worth it.

Technology moves pretty fast - and the things argued in the Samsung case will be relevant for how long. I ask honestly. What's the lifespan of the patents before potential new tech makes those patents obsolete or not all that important? New patents will no doubt take their place. But it will be interesting to see the mileage on these.

 

[Renzatic]

I know - I was being pretty glib. That being said - there are still things to consider. 1) Apple hasn't seen a dime because the case isn't settled yet and won't be for quite some time. 2) How much money spent is relevant because if they will never recoup that - even with licensing, etc - how much was the win really worth it. Technology moves pretty fast - and the things argued in the Samsung case will be relevant for how long. I ask honestly. What's the lifespan of the patents before potential new tech makes those patents obsolete or not all that important? New patents will no doubt take their place. But it will be interesting to see the mileage on these.

It might not be about recouping the money so much as having exclusive rights to convenient features. Like pinch to zoom is such a basic, natural gesture that there's no real way to work around it without losing some of the elegance. Same with the OS recognizing a phone number and parsing it into a link. I'm sure a workaround would be fairly easy to implement, but will it be as simple as clicking a link with your finger to dial a number?

If you ask me, Apple isn't trying to control the technology behind smartphones. They're well aware that'd be a losing battle. Instead, they're trying to control the convenience features that making using a smartphone enjoyable.

Anyone can make a smartphone. Can they make one as easy to use as an iPhone? Probably not, because Apple has a patent on easy and obvious. They call it look and feel, and it was invented in Cupertino.

...and who wants to buy a difficult to use smartphone?

 

[kdarling]

A great example of a company who's attempting a radical shift in their production, design and platform is RIM.

Look how well they've managed with such a shift. (it was necessary), but what exactly you said has happened. They've ostrocized customers, developers and even many of their own people, and are running lean and on fumes till it's done.

THANK YOU.

I've been so busy at work the past couple of days, I was hoping someone else would have the chance to bring up RIM as prime example of how phone/OS makers can get stuck with legacy support for old customers.

Windows Mobile was another great example of something that started with support for keypads and 176x220 screens, and got stuck with tons of backward compatability issues.

Why? Enterprise apps, that's why. When people go "Oh look, the iPhone is being adopted by Fortune 500 companies", they should shudder, not applaud.

Back around 2001, Microsoft came and gave us (huge corporation) a secret demo of what they had cooking for the future of handhelds. Man, it was something. Air gestures, voice in/out, slick work interactions, all sorts of stuff, some of it still beyond what we have today.

After our eyes got back in our heads, we had to advise them to not go so fast. And obviously we weren't the only ones. You see, corporations like things that work for a long time. The last thing they want is too much change, too fast.

Sad, but true.

 

[samcraig]

In some scenarios it could work against them though. IE - if Apple is the minority in marketshare (throwing out completely random numbers). Say iOS devices account for 35 percent of "smart" devices. That means 65% are going to be using other OSes with a different solution for some simple tasks (unless Apple does license their usage). That might be a selling point for Apple but also makes their devices not as consumer friendly because those that are using another OS have or will need a greater learning curve and potentially could be more apt to stay with their OS rather than switching because it's what they are accustomed to.

I'm not suggesting any numbers or that this WOULD happen. But it's feasible.

Doesn't matter if you're "better" if everyone's standard is one way and you're doing it differently. Perhaps a poor example - but look at thunderbolt vs USB2/3. Doesn't matter if thunderbolt is better or faster technology, does it?

It might not be about recouping the money so much as having exclusive rights to convenient features. Like pinch to zoom is such a basic, natural gesture that there's no real way to work around it without losing some of the elegance. Same with the OS recognizing a phone number and parsing it into a link. I'm sure a workaround would be fairly easy to implement, but will it be as simple as clicking a link with your finger to dial a number?

If you ask me, Apple isn't trying to control the technology behind smartphones. They're well aware that'd be a losing battle. Instead, they're trying to control the convenience features that making using a smartphone enjoyable.

Anyone can make a smartphone. Can they make one as easy to use as an iPhone? Probably not, because Apple has a patent on easy and obvious. They call it look and feel, and it was invented in Cupertino.

...and who wants to buy a difficult to use smartphone?

 

[Renzatic]

In some scenarios it could work against them though. IE - if Apple is the minority in marketshare (throwing out completely random numbers). Say iOS devices account for 35 percent of "smart" devices. That means 65% are going to be using other OSes with a different solution for some simple tasks (unless Apple does license their usage). That might be a selling point for Apple but also makes their devices not as consumer friendly because those that are using another OS have or will need a greater learning curve and potentially could be more apt to stay with their OS rather than switching because it's what they are accustomed to.

I'm not suggesting any numbers or that this WOULD happen. But it's feasible.

When it comes to something like this, the general public will always flock to whichever device does more for them with less clicks. I'll use an overblown example with the phone number parsing patent. You can look up a store on a website, see the number, and click it. Only Apple can do this. HTC and other Android manufacturers will require you to copy/paste the phone number into the dialer itself to call the number. That's a lot of extra work to do the exact same thing. If Apple gets more wins with more convenience patents, they'll eventually have the "rights" to an easier to use smartphone, which everyone except for the techheads would prefer to use.

That'd be a huge bonus for Apple, and well worth the billions and billions they're spending to make happen.

Though in actuality, the most likely scenario is Apple sets a precedence for patenting every small feature they can think of, which leads other companies to do the same to stay competitive (we're kinda already seeing this now). The end result of this would be that you specific brands of phones that have certain features that excel at one thing, but absolutely suck at another. Of course there are always workarounds, but with patent language becoming increasingly vague, and the workarounds potentially not being as good as the original implementation, you'll start seeing more and more nice features locked into specific platforms.

This is the absolute worst case scenario admittedly, but there's still the possibility of pretty similar to it coming to pass. Apple winning a billion dollars for what ultimately amounts to piddly BS kinda shows us that. But hey. Innovation, right? Gotta protect that IP for the good of the world.

Doesn't matter if you're "better" if everyone's standard is one way and you're doing it differently.

If everyone was using one thing enough to make it the standard, yeah. Right now, the mobile market is fairly volatile. Smartphones are relatively cheap throwaway devices you keep for a couple of years then toss away for the next big thing. One guy's on iPhone one year, an Android phone the next. If Apple were to start locking down the better, easier to use features though, that might change. Why stick with this platform, when that one one has a tons of nicer bells and whistles? I saw my friend using one, and it made my phone look like a piece of junk...AND THEY HAVE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO ALL THAT NEAT STUFF! WHOA!

Perhaps a poor example - but look at thunderbolt vs USB2/3. Doesn't matter if thunderbolt is better or faster technology, does it?

Eh, sorta. I'd say the difference between Thunderbolt and USB is like comparing a Porsche to a Bugatti. The Bugatti is faster and sleeker, but they're both cars. They both pretty much control the same way, and do the same basic things. If you're just going to the store, one doesn't have a huge advantage over the other.

Patenting convenient UI features is more like one company owning the rights to the steering wheel, and everyone else has to use flight sticks and rudders because of it. A steering wheel in that situation would be a helluva lot easier to use for driving a car around.

 

[samcraig]

I'll use an overblown example with the phone number parsing patent. You can look up a store on a website, see the number, and click it. Only Apple can do this. HTC and other Android manufacturers will require you to copy/paste the phone number into the dialer itself to call the number. That's a lot of extra work to do the exact same thing.

I liked your response. Except the above isn't true. I have a Skyrocket - and just checked. I went to a few websites and was able to click on a phone number (it didn't APPEAR as a link) but I tapped the # and it brought me to my dialer.

Maybe something new in ICS? I'm not sure if I ever tested it with Gingerbread.

 

[Renzatic]

I liked your response. Except the above isn't true. I have a Skyrocket - and just checked. I went to a few websites and was able to click on a phone number (it didn't APPEAR as a link) but I tapped the # and it brought me to my dialer.

Maybe something new in ICS? I'm not sure if I ever tested it with Gingerbread.

Yeah, I probably assumed too much on something I'm not clued in with all the facts about.

I know Apple sued HTC over parsing phone numbers a few months back, and heard they removed it or provided a workaround to keep their phones from getting banned from the marketplace. What they actually did I have no idea, so I went with the copy/paste method for the shock value.

Not the most fair thing I could've done, but...eh. I'll write it off as an editorial.

 

[sransari]

Dunno how you think that's an irrelevant new topic when it's pretty spot on.

The simple sad fact of the matter is is that Apple and the rest of the industry are basically trying to patent every single tiny idea they can possibly think of in an attempt to lock themselves into a dominant position in the market place for 30+ years. Most of the ideas being patented these days are barely worth the paper they're filed on, let alone worth the billions that are being tossed about over them.

Like Pinch-to-zoom. It's a neat idea, sure. Handy as hell. Apple didn't invent it, yet they patented it, and it's one of the things Samsung lost their case over. Same with bounce back. It's another neat idea. But it sure as hell isn't worth patenting. It's an animation and a visual cue. Probably cost all of about $300 and 4 pizzas to think up and implement. It's not worth a patent. It's not that novel, nor is it all that industry changing in and of itself.

If apple didn't invent pinch to zoom as claimed in their patent used against samsung, then you should find the proof that it was invented prior to the filing date of Jan 2007 and provide the proof to samsung. they would be most gracious since they were unable to find evidence to invalidate apple's patent. If you provided them with with the evidence, it would save them a cool billion bux.

This is the problem...people always say "apple didn't invent it, it came out years ago." Really? Somehow the patent office didn't find it, and the competitor who has a $1b interest in invalidating the incriminating patent claim didn't find it, but here you are proclaiming that apple's patent is invalid with no evidence.

The other aspect of your argument is that apple is trying to patent "every tiny detail" and some things are not worth a patent. Can you elaborate on this? Do you mean it's not worth Apple's time/money to patent it since the "tiny detail" doesn't really protect anything? Or is it that the tiny detail is not novel and the patent office should not be allowing claims directed towards silly animations? The latter may be somewhat valid, but it's really not a major player in the overall discussion since patenting "tiny details" doesn't protect much and certainly doesn't stifle competition (e.g., the "tinier" the detail, the less likley it is for someone to infringe).

You also make a contradictory statement that patenting "tiny details to lock themselves into a dominant position in the market place." Patenting "tiny details" doesn't lock you into a dominant anything. It's patenting broad details that gives you a dominant position. Hence, broader patents are more difficult to get, since prior art is more likely to read on broad patent claims.

 

[sransari]

I'd counter that by saying that I don't believe it's fair to monopolise the market as a defensive measure for "just in case". And in the event that someone comes up with the same idea (perhaps they're a smaller company than you), you get the government to criminalise them for having the same idea as you.

In effect, you believe it is fair to interfere with other people's private (intellectual) property for your own gains.

It's not criminal to have the same idea as someone else and it's not even "criminal" to produce someone else's patented invention (nobody from samsung is going to jail, for example). So you're overexgerating here a bit I think.

I do understand your point about seeking patent protection for defensive purposes. On one hand, it might seem mischievous and juvenile.

On the other hand, it still encourages people to disclose their invention to the public so that it can be improved on. There is a risk to the applicant when seeking protection for defensive purposes...the risk is that your competitor will improve on your idea without infringing on your patent (and they may not have known about your idea to begin with had you not disclosed it in a patent application).

But in the end, the market wins because even if one never produces their invention, the market now knows about the invention and can improve on it...hence, innovation moves forward.

Remember, THAT is the point of patents...disclose an invention to everyone, so that everyone can figure out ways to improve upon it. Restricting the disclosure of ideas is what will slow down innovation. The market wins by getting a new idea out in the open improve on, and the inventor wins by having rights to their specific invention.

 

[sransari]

Or what about the next best chestnut: copying kills innovation. No it doesn't. Using someone elses ideas and improving upon it is the very definition of innovation. If certain companies hold the exclusive rights to certain concepts, nothing improves. One company becomes dominant, and does nothing with their initial innovation. Without "stealing" other people's ideas and expanding upon them, we wouldn't have OTA updates or a much nicer notification center on the iPhone. No one should have sole ownership of a concept. A specific implementation, yeah. But the general idea? No. If that were to happen, it'd be the death knell of innovation. Because innovation doesn't happen in a vacuum, it's an improvement upon previous designs.

If all you exclusive IP ownership cheerleaders got your way, the world would be a much less entertaining place than it is now.

You are right when you say "Using someone elses ideas and improving upon it is the very definition of innovation." That is the point of patents...to get ideas disclosed when they may have otherwise been secret.

Now to tweak your thinking just a tad bit more...you say "If certain companies hold the exclusive rights to certain concepts, nothing improves." Totally understand your thinking here, but it's just a little off base. The fact that a party holds the right to a concept only forces other parties to improve on the concept in a SUBSTANTIAL manner. So that's what the patent is intended to do is to protect ones specific idea, while allowing the industry to improve on it, but forcing the industry to make a REAL improvement, and not a mere obvious modification.

One other thing to understand is that a competitor can make a product as long as it doesn't read on the claims of the invention, meaning that they might be able to make a patented product with a modification to it without infringing (and this happens a lot...ie. "design arounds"), but they wouldn't necessarily be able to patent the modified product if the modification was already obvious.

So now, a competitor has benefited from their competitions patent by learning about their patented product and creating a design around. Hence, more products out there, more choices, more innovation, more commerce...as a result of these "evil patents."