This trend really bugs me all the big companies are spending billions of dollars on papers instead of putting it into Innovation / new products etc.
If this trend goes on and more patent trolls enter the field everyone of us needs to have a patent lawyer next to our desk. Lodsys allready proved its worth to go after the lowest hanging fruit.
I dont want to imagine what happens if one of the big tech companies turn evil.
Not really. Most are the direct result of IBM's system of internal rewards for patenting. This results in thousands of questionalble patents. Being that it is easier to get than eliminate a patent, IBM is a company deeply engaged in destroying the world.
A lot of the time businesses don't know how to optimize certain things, and frequently prefer to choose big, round numbers. The only difference between them and Google is that regular businesses choose numbers that are simple to express in the decimal system and Google chooses numbers that are low-complexity in other ways, like the the square root of two or 1024.
Honestly, good on them. This mobile patent crap is so ludicrous and out of hand. I'm glad that even though Google has to play by the same stupid rules as everyone else, at least they get the chance to remind everyone "you know this is a big joke right?" on occasion.
Christ, imagine how many jobs all of these patent cold war billions represent. Imagine how much time and energy is going into feeding a machine whose main outcome is stifling creativity and competition.
Mutually Assured Destruction is a defensive play... it's a recognized form of deterrence:
Mutually Assured Destruction is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment, and implicit menace of use, of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use by said-enemy of the same weapons against oneself. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium in which neither side, once armed, has any incentive to disarm thereafter.
If you mean licence them from IBM: I doubt it. Google want the patents to protect its partners, and trying to arrange a licence like that would be hard. Also, protecting its partners means some are likely to be tested in court and fail, which will kill their value to IBM.
If you mean from Apple: Very doubtful. Apple wants to stop their competitors, not make money from them.
If you mean from Microsoft: Possibly for each manufacture, but in aggregate almost certainly not.
I understand that patents are negotiable instruments like stock certificates, nevertheless it seems like cheating when you can simply buy creative ideas to engage in what seems like "Magic: The Gathering"-style legal warfare.
"Ha ha! My 'System and Apparatus for Propagation of Radio Signals' confers a +2 legal mumbo-jumbo bonus on my 'Transmitter switch-on in a dual-mode mobile phone'. Your move, sport."
I don't know how much this kind of patent warfare happens outside software. It's only in software that you can count on competitors "infringing" your "inventions" if you simply buy enough patents.
I would have thought there are many other industries where it is just as possible for patents to work in this way, though I have no idea which, if any, do.
For example I could imagine car manufacturers all having a bunch of patents... just imagine. Nissan have a patent on controlling your car radio from buttons on the steering wheel. Ford have a patent for having the horn button on a stick that's connected to the wheel, while VW have a similar one for the horn button right on the wheel itself.. Could go on and on, and they could have great fun taking each other to court.
Some industries maybe aren't so open to pointless patents (maybe pharmaceuticals?), but in most I think you could do a hell of a lot. Maybe they already do the same, but we just don't hear about it. Maybe they could, but are wise enough not to bother. Maybe the patents system has just been in use for a longer time in those industries, so companies aren't allowed to get away with so much crap?
FYI, this actually happened in the nascent aviation industry--the government had to step in to force the players to cross-license their patents (in order to have planes for World War I):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war
Some interesting bits from that Wikipedia page, which demonstrate that patents don't necessarily promote innovation and that being too litigious with them can damage one's reputation:
From the "Patent War" section:
"The Wrights' preoccupation with the legal issue hindered their development of new aircraft designs, and by 1911 Wright aircraft were inferior to those made by other firms in Europe.[9] Indeed, aviation development in the US was suppressed to such an extent that when the U.S. entered World War I no acceptable American-designed aircraft were available, and the U.S. forces were compelled to use French machines."
From the "Aftermath" section:
"The lawsuits damaged the public image of the Wright brothers, who were generally regarded before this as heroes. Critics said the brothers actions may have retarded the development of aviation,[9][14] and compared their actions unfavorably to European inventors, who worked more openly."
BTW, while the government had to intervene in the aircraft case, there have been cases of various companies coming together to form their own private patent pool too, the most famous of which would be related to the sewing machine:
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/10/28/why-is-a-smartphone-l...
"The Sewing Machine War was the first instance of what is today called a 'patent thicket.' The disputes prevented Singer from selling his invention, and tensions ran high in and out of court: When Howe personally called on Singer, Singer threatened to throw him down a flight of stairs.
But there’s a happy ending to the story, as your machine-stitched clothes evince. The Sewing Machine War ended with a just and lasting peace in 1856, when Orlando B. Potter--a lawyer representing one of the plaintiffs--suggested a solution that Mossoff calls 'groundbreaking but also breathtakingly simple': The patent-holders would combine their patents in a 'patent pool' and share the profits from selling the machines. The patent pool participants lived happily and wealthily ever after--or at least until 1877, when the last patent expired."
"Contrary to theoretical predictions, the sewing machine pool appears to have discouraged patenting and innovation, in particular for the members of the pool. Data on stitches per minute, as an objectively quantifiable measure of performance, confirm these findings. Innovation for both members and outside firms slowed as soon as the pool had been established and resumed only after it had dissolved. "
I think everyone involved understands the end game is a patent oligopoly dominating all aspects of mobile. The current lawsuits are just negotiations over the spoils.
Major cross-licensing is sometimes viewed with caution now as I understand it because of regulatory antitrust issues, but this seems like it would not have been the case around World War I.
The same problem occurred during the invention of the sewing machine, and the patent holders actually got together and formed a large patent pool, enabling them all to profit and innovate while still protecting their work.
The software business is fairly unique in that there are companies that are both young and wealthy. If Tesla ever starting making serious profits, I think the incumbents would sue for a pound of flesh.
The auto industry does enforce their intellectual property. Toyota and Denso are very serious about enforcing the IP on their hybrid drivetrain. Ford and Nissan license the tech, and no one else has developed a CVT + continuously variable assist hybrid setup like Denso/Toyota.
I don't think the auto industry would ever take each other to court over trivial patents, for the same reason Microsoft /Apple/IBM don't go to war. If Tesla does make billions in profits, I think the we will see "horn on stick" and "button on steering wheel" patents being enforced.
it seems like cheating when you can simply buy creative ideas to engage in
This just underlines the futility of the patent system. Anyone who's patenting real things because they're creative and innovative is playing the old game. The new game is patent anything you can think of, do it a lot, and bet on the shotgun approach when the shit hits the fan.
When it comes to patents, when there's much hassle then most companies drop their charges/defenses and just settle. When there's too much hassle then many won't even sue.
The final outcome of this degeneration of patents is that companies just buy enough patents, any patents, in numbers to establish a premeditated interlock on mutual interests. It's primarily controlled by the amount of money available to be spent on defences.
In this sort of scheme patents would just become mere papers. The actual validity would remain at least far-fetched as today. If markets work as usual there might be actual patent manufacturing companies too, because it's obviously cheaper to buy mass-produced patents than invest both in patenting and actual R&D.
So you buy patents much like everybody buys insurance these days.
Eventually all decent companies will be too scared to point to each others' patent pools that it becomes a cold-war situation, with maybe some little legal battles between smaller companies.
I just don't get how those amounts of patent help anything. Don't you just need the good ones? Every company seems to hoard them by number instead of picking them by validity.
"Ok fine, you can take my hyperlink-in-any-application patent but you've got to buy my 1000 other crappy patents about artificial-life-in-smarphone". Who's got to select the 1023 patents?
If I recall correctly, each patent lawsuit takes $1 mil to resolve.
The goal is to inflict massive costs until the other one wants to negotiate a settlement.
My first assumption is that they did this to go after Apple, and then it dawned on me: Microsoft is actually going after hardware vendors for money -- so I wonder of this has something to do with that? http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/070511-microsoft-paten...
41 comments
[ 0.19 ms ] story [ 92.3 ms ] threadThis trend really bugs me all the big companies are spending billions of dollars on papers instead of putting it into Innovation / new products etc.
If this trend goes on and more patent trolls enter the field everyone of us needs to have a patent lawyer next to our desk. Lodsys allready proved its worth to go after the lowest hanging fruit.
I dont want to imagine what happens if one of the big tech companies turn evil.
IBM would be crazy not to invest the profit back into R&D to develop another patent library...
Christ, imagine how many jobs all of these patent cold war billions represent. Imagine how much time and energy is going into feeding a machine whose main outcome is stifling creativity and competition.
Mutually Assured Destruction is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment, and implicit menace of use, of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use by said-enemy of the same weapons against oneself. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium in which neither side, once armed, has any incentive to disarm thereafter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
If you mean from Apple: Very doubtful. Apple wants to stop their competitors, not make money from them.
If you mean from Microsoft: Possibly for each manufacture, but in aggregate almost certainly not.
"Ha ha! My 'System and Apparatus for Propagation of Radio Signals' confers a +2 legal mumbo-jumbo bonus on my 'Transmitter switch-on in a dual-mode mobile phone'. Your move, sport."
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sec...
For example I could imagine car manufacturers all having a bunch of patents... just imagine. Nissan have a patent on controlling your car radio from buttons on the steering wheel. Ford have a patent for having the horn button on a stick that's connected to the wheel, while VW have a similar one for the horn button right on the wheel itself.. Could go on and on, and they could have great fun taking each other to court.
Some industries maybe aren't so open to pointless patents (maybe pharmaceuticals?), but in most I think you could do a hell of a lot. Maybe they already do the same, but we just don't hear about it. Maybe they could, but are wise enough not to bother. Maybe the patents system has just been in use for a longer time in those industries, so companies aren't allowed to get away with so much crap?
Some interesting bits from that Wikipedia page, which demonstrate that patents don't necessarily promote innovation and that being too litigious with them can damage one's reputation:
From the "Patent War" section:
"The Wrights' preoccupation with the legal issue hindered their development of new aircraft designs, and by 1911 Wright aircraft were inferior to those made by other firms in Europe.[9] Indeed, aviation development in the US was suppressed to such an extent that when the U.S. entered World War I no acceptable American-designed aircraft were available, and the U.S. forces were compelled to use French machines."
From the "Aftermath" section:
"The lawsuits damaged the public image of the Wright brothers, who were generally regarded before this as heroes. Critics said the brothers actions may have retarded the development of aviation,[9][14] and compared their actions unfavorably to European inventors, who worked more openly."
"The Sewing Machine War was the first instance of what is today called a 'patent thicket.' The disputes prevented Singer from selling his invention, and tensions ran high in and out of court: When Howe personally called on Singer, Singer threatened to throw him down a flight of stairs.
But there’s a happy ending to the story, as your machine-stitched clothes evince. The Sewing Machine War ended with a just and lasting peace in 1856, when Orlando B. Potter--a lawyer representing one of the plaintiffs--suggested a solution that Mossoff calls 'groundbreaking but also breathtakingly simple': The patent-holders would combine their patents in a 'patent pool' and share the profits from selling the machines. The patent pool participants lived happily and wealthily ever after--or at least until 1877, when the last patent expired."
"Contrary to theoretical predictions, the sewing machine pool appears to have discouraged patenting and innovation, in particular for the members of the pool. Data on stitches per minute, as an objectively quantifiable measure of performance, confirm these findings. Innovation for both members and outside firms slowed as soon as the pool had been established and resumed only after it had dissolved. "
The same problem occurred during the invention of the sewing machine, and the patent holders actually got together and formed a large patent pool, enabling them all to profit and innovate while still protecting their work.
The auto industry does enforce their intellectual property. Toyota and Denso are very serious about enforcing the IP on their hybrid drivetrain. Ford and Nissan license the tech, and no one else has developed a CVT + continuously variable assist hybrid setup like Denso/Toyota.
I don't think the auto industry would ever take each other to court over trivial patents, for the same reason Microsoft /Apple/IBM don't go to war. If Tesla does make billions in profits, I think the we will see "horn on stick" and "button on steering wheel" patents being enforced.
With software, you can design, build and sell a product overnight for virtually no cost and do the same.
This just underlines the futility of the patent system. Anyone who's patenting real things because they're creative and innovative is playing the old game. The new game is patent anything you can think of, do it a lot, and bet on the shotgun approach when the shit hits the fan.
When it comes to patents, when there's much hassle then most companies drop their charges/defenses and just settle. When there's too much hassle then many won't even sue.
The final outcome of this degeneration of patents is that companies just buy enough patents, any patents, in numbers to establish a premeditated interlock on mutual interests. It's primarily controlled by the amount of money available to be spent on defences.
In this sort of scheme patents would just become mere papers. The actual validity would remain at least far-fetched as today. If markets work as usual there might be actual patent manufacturing companies too, because it's obviously cheaper to buy mass-produced patents than invest both in patenting and actual R&D.
So you buy patents much like everybody buys insurance these days.
Eventually all decent companies will be too scared to point to each others' patent pools that it becomes a cold-war situation, with maybe some little legal battles between smaller companies.
"Ok fine, you can take my hyperlink-in-any-application patent but you've got to buy my 1000 other crappy patents about artificial-life-in-smarphone". Who's got to select the 1023 patents?
Ofcourse, there can be doubt about their seriousness this time.