High-profile disputes emphasise the importance of IT companies developing novel solutions
Patent disputes between major technology companies now seem to be an everyday occurrence. Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia, HTC, Apple, Google, Research In Motion (BlackBerry), Samsung and others are all involved in one or more patent lawsuits.
These companies are also purchasing large numbers of patents to add to their patent ’war chests’, but are these escalating patent wars bad for innovation?
A patent is infringed if you use the invention it protects. If you don’t do that, the patent should not be infringed.
This suggests that a large number of patents should encourage rather than stifle innovation. It is only by coming up with products and features that avoid existing patents - rather than copying ideas that may be protected by patents - that disputes can be avoided.
Of course, there are some patents that cannot be avoided, such as so-called ’essential’ patents that are needed, for example, to conform to relevant mobile phone standards. However, standards-setting bodies allow for this by making it a requirement that any essential patents will be licensed on fair and reasonable terms.
The current patent wars could not be taking place if there had been no innovation resulting in patents, and would not be taking place if the major technology companies did not value the innovations that patents protect.
So if large technology companies value innovations and the patents that protect them, should that not encourage rather than discourage innovation?
Something else that should not be overlooked is that it can be highly beneficial for technology start-ups, for example, to hold patents of their own. Such patents can be used for defensive purposes in the event of a patent dispute, as well as to prevent others from using the innovation that the patent protects.
However, patents are only available for new inventions, so the only way to obtain patents yourself (other than by purchasing them) is to innovate. Therefore a further incentive to innovate is the prospect that innovation will lead to patents of one’s own.
So, are the current patent wars bad for innovation? No. Not innovating and simply doing what has been done before is more, not less, likely to lead to patent issues. Innovating and developing new products is the way to avoid these issues.
If you innovate you can obtain your own patents and these can then be used for both defensive and offensive purposes.
Moreover, the current high-technology patent wars suggest that innovation and the patents that go with it are critical in today’s high-technology business arena.
Large technology companies - and consequently investors in technology companies - see that, more than ever, the value of companies and their position relative to their competitors is determined by their ability to innovate, and by the patents they can generate and hold. This should encourage technology companies to innovate and acquire their own patents.
Readers' comments (1)
Chris Clarkson | 23-May-2012 4:44 pm
With regards to software, many patent disputes arise due to legacy players suing under dated patents. Firms like Yahoo and Netscape hold patents on technology that may have been non-obvious at one point in history but will be basic in today’s technological surrounding. Often such patents become the basis upon which a myriad of different products and services may be based upon. However, any start-up wishing to use this now basic technology has to do so either by tip-toeing through a patent minefield or by paying up-front licensing costs. This can often hinder the innovation before it has even got off the ground and preclude said start-ups from the market. Failure to obtain these rights can lead to these companies, often with a residual modern day market presence, using their (in relative terms) ancient patents in an effort to “extort” these companies.
Additionally, you comment that the patent “arms race” is a clear indication that patents are crucial for innovation. The current bulk buying and hoarding of patents is not due to a want to innovate but through a protectionist fear of dispute. This is merely a sign of today’s litigious intellectual property landscape. If we take for example the constant disputes between mobile phone manufacturers like Apple, Motorola and HTC I fail to see how stopping your competitors from selling their products in a certain locality on the strength of one or two patents on an underlying aspect of said product can be good for the growth of the industry. True innovation would be incentivised through competitiveness in an open market place. Basic economics states that if you create a superior product; you market your product better; you tap into a niche; you create a strong fanbase (etc) and you succeed in business in comparison to your competitors. A government granted monopoly merely serves to retract from these needs. I would be interested to see where the current state of the art would lie had all the money spent on litigation over the last decade or so been spent on research and development.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment