An IP lawyer on patents, trolls, and entrepreneurship

http://www.inc.com/christina-desmarais/patents-an-ip-lawyer-dishes.html

by VanL • 14 years ago

23 14 14 years ago

Sad, that no one is talking about Apple when referencing to abuse of patents, especially.

VanL• 14 years ago

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.

neya3• 14 years ago

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...

jeremyjh• 14 years ago

They are trolling, full stop.

dllthomas2• 14 years ago

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.

ken• 14 years ago

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.)

finkin1• 14 years ago

Great info. Thanks!

stonefroot• 14 years ago

What's really needed, in my opinion, is a search engine to track shell companies. The lawyer interviewed is shooting from the hip when he says it is "a shell game".

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.

An IP lawyer on patents, trolls, and entrepreneurship

Related Stories