More VCs Recognizing The Problems Of Our Patent System
from the a-good-sign dept
Back in December, it was great to see a VC, Greg Blonder, point out why he felt
patents hurt innovation, while also taking his fellow VCs to task for their excessive interest in patents. Beyond the fact that Blonder had previously been a big patent supporter, this was big news for another reason: VCs, traditionally, love patents -- but for all the wrong reasons. When VCs are investing in companies they're always hoping for some sort of "sustainable competitive advantage" and too often they incorrectly believe (or, perhaps, they just want to believe) patents represent evidence of a sustainable competitive advantage. The fact of the matter, though, is that in a competitive market there
is no such thing as a sustainable competitive advantage. It's a myth -- and a somewhat dangerous one for those who believe in it. Instead, the way to succeed isn't through sustainable competitive advantage, but through
continuous innovation -- that is, through
a series of fleeting competitive advantages. You don't need patents for that -- just a smart, motivated team and a market to serve. Unfortunately, too many VCs focused on patents as the main "competitive advantage" -- and to this day VCs are heard all the time bragging about the patents their portfolio firms have, rather than the
product or
the paying customers. This focus on patents means that a ton of effort and money gets
wasted on patents, lawyers and litigation efforts. That's why it was so great to see a well known VC stand up and say that it was wrong. The good news is that this viewpoint may finally be permeating through more of the VC ranks. Both
Brad Feld and
Fred Wilson wrote this week about just how problematic software patents are -- and how they both believe they're problematic for innovation. Wilson goes much further to suggest that the entire concept of intellectual property is problematic (though, he also points out that, due to the way the patent system currently is, he tells his startups to file for as many patents as possible). Of course, it's not that surprising that these two particular VCs took this stance -- as both are seen as more "progressive" among VCs. However, it's good to see them state it so publicly and get a discussion going. A better recognition that patents are not the key element of a competitive strategy is important for getting the focus back on
actual innovation in getting products to market, rather than wasteful and harmful battles over intellectual property.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
First comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they do provide such an advantage, then they might be stifling innovation. Then the existence of patents represents our choice that we favor some advantage to the innovator, at the expense of some innovation in the technical area of the innovation, but only for a set time period (the life of the patent). That may be the correct choice, or it may not, but that is the debate.
To deny that patents provide an advantage is to also assert that they are harmless to competitors. I don't think anyone is saying that and meaning it. The focus of the debate should be on whether the advantage provided by patents is offset by their inherently anti-competitive effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are assuming that patents cover innovation. 80% of the time in the tanigible market(motors, screws, chairs, etc) a patent actually serves a purpose and is based on an innovation. However, in the untangible market(business processes, software, IP, etc) these patents severely hinder the innovation of other companies.
For instance, Amazon's one click patent. This wasn't a patent on code or anything really rigid. It basically just stated the idea of a one click purchase and payment. So something so simple and far reaching can't be used by other companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents prevent continuous innovation
It's a sort of a "Peter Principle" for IP.
Patents need to be overhauled so the companies who think like this won't be hogtied by their need for self-preservation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
VCs / Patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if they funded the company that holds the patent, patents are great. if they funded the company competing with the patentholder, they are bad.
VCs are really that simple minded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Non-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Non-Patent Barriers
http://andrewbfife.blogspot.com/2006/04/barriers-to-entry-patents-non-patent.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]