An IP lawyer on patents, trolls, and entrepreneurship(inc.com)
inc.com
An IP lawyer on patents, trolls, and entrepreneurship
http://www.inc.com/christina-desmarais/patents-an-ip-lawyer-dishes.html
3 comments
Great info. Thanks!
Sad, that no one is talking about Apple when referencing to abuse of patents, especially.
I am conflicted about Apple. In one way, they are using their patents exactly as intended under the system: They innovated, disclosed their innovations in a patent (and I have looked at a few, the disclosures are pretty good, as patents go), and they are now using their patents to fend off "copycats" in the marketplace. I am much more sympathetic to Apple because they are actually bringing products embodying their innovations to market.
There are a couple of problems, though. First, note the quotes around copycats. I don't think that there was wholesale copying as Apple alleges. I am sure there was some ... "creative inspiration" that Samsung et al. picked up from Apple. In return, though, iOS has picked up a number of improvements directly from Android and/or competing phone manufacturers.
Second, Apple innovated - but their innovations, IMO, were mostly in the area of packaging. Packaging something better than anyone else is innovation. I am not sure that better packaging is invention, however, and I am not sure that it is (or should be) covered by the patent system.
There are a couple of problems, though. First, note the quotes around copycats. I don't think that there was wholesale copying as Apple alleges. I am sure there was some ... "creative inspiration" that Samsung et al. picked up from Apple. In return, though, iOS has picked up a number of improvements directly from Android and/or competing phone manufacturers.
Second, Apple innovated - but their innovations, IMO, were mostly in the area of packaging. Packaging something better than anyone else is innovation. I am not sure that better packaging is invention, however, and I am not sure that it is (or should be) covered by the patent system.
Exactly. But certain patents like you say shouldn't have been allotted in the first place - Rounded corners, Slide to unlock, and so on..
I'm reminded of this funny image that was trending on G+ recently: http://phandroid.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10...
I'm reminded of this funny image that was trending on G+ recently: http://phandroid.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10...
Hah! That image is great. Oddly enough though, my initial reaction is to support Apple's claim for slide to unlock but scoff at them for "rounded corners."
I'm not sure why, I guess because rounded corners seem so obvious while slide to unlock is pretty ingenious, if derivative.
I'm not sure why, I guess because rounded corners seem so obvious while slide to unlock is pretty ingenious, if derivative.
Rounded corners are obvious. Steve Jobs himself famously demonstrated prior art:
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&s...
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&s...
Yeah I can understand your point. Actually, design conclusions should never be patent-able in my opinion. The rounded corners, more than just design is an obvious conclusion, no matter what you do, because sharp edges tend to chip off when dropped off from great heights, so you need a smooth radius in the corners to prevent that from happening.
Another patent war I can foresee (maybe in the future), that involves an obvious design conclusion is the Wheel hub motor (which is the future for most electric cars). Google for 'Protean Electric', these guys have patented an obvious design conclusion for a wheel hub motor. Something like Apple did.
Another patent war I can foresee (maybe in the future), that involves an obvious design conclusion is the Wheel hub motor (which is the future for most electric cars). Google for 'Protean Electric', these guys have patented an obvious design conclusion for a wheel hub motor. Something like Apple did.
They are trolling, full stop.
Trolling? No, given how angry Steve Jobs was when he felt Google just copied iOS there's probably just that latent feeling left.
There's plenty of quotes out there of him, they got mentioned in the trial, but excluded. Personally I think it sounds like the motivation for all this in the first place.
Indignation, anger, but not trolling. Trolling is a different sentiment, this is something else entirely.
There's plenty of quotes out there of him, they got mentioned in the trial, but excluded. Personally I think it sounds like the motivation for all this in the first place.
Indignation, anger, but not trolling. Trolling is a different sentiment, this is something else entirely.
Well, it would make sense for Steve jobs to be angry if he was someone who never copied anything ever at all. None of his products were original, they were just improvised or 'inspired' (his alternative label for 'copying') versions of existing gadgets, be it the iPhone, or the iPad, or anything else for that matter. Its trolling at its best, like he says.
Nah, patent trolling at its best never makes anything in the first place. When Apple threatens to sue, there are threats of counter-suit. A proper patent troll isn't vulnerable to this. This isn't to say I support Apple's behavior, but "trolling" is an exaggeration - they are actually trying to make money on products, not patent suits.
With design patents, there's no disclosure. As soon as Apple shows off their latest device, everyone knows exactly how to duplicate it, patent or no patent.
I'm not disagreeing, but be careful: there are utility patents and design patents, and (IANAL but) they seem to be very different beasts. The latter are almost more like trademarks than they are like utility patents. They're explicitly for non-functional aspects of an item.
For example, there's a design patent on the shape of the PT Cruiser. You could say that the designers at Chrysler who made a 1930's-style car body didn't invent anything and that this is "mostly packaging", and you'd be right, but that's what design patents are for. AFAICT, they used design patents exactly as intended.
Apple doesn't claim to have invented round corners, any more than Chrysler claims to have invented tall skinny engine grills. It's just a part of the whole, and it's not an "invention", and that's exactly what the system intended.
(I don't make any claims about whether the system is being administered properly, or whether such a system should exist at all.)
For example, there's a design patent on the shape of the PT Cruiser. You could say that the designers at Chrysler who made a 1930's-style car body didn't invent anything and that this is "mostly packaging", and you'd be right, but that's what design patents are for. AFAICT, they used design patents exactly as intended.
Apple doesn't claim to have invented round corners, any more than Chrysler claims to have invented tall skinny engine grills. It's just a part of the whole, and it's not an "invention", and that's exactly what the system intended.
(I don't make any claims about whether the system is being administered properly, or whether such a system should exist at all.)
Without the use of shell corporations the patent trolling game becomes much more difficult. In programmer lingo, it makes it "non-trivial". Using a system of shell corporations and hiding behind them makes patent trolling much more feasible as a pure play and makes it possible to do at scale, as Intellectual Ventures does.
If we pick up the shell and reveal the cretins hiding underneath, it would have a real effect on patent trolling. I can say this with 100% certainty.
Maybe even a more profound effect than making prior art easier to locate.