More On Teleflex: Supreme Court Recognizing Marketplace Incentives More Important Than Patents
from the this-is-big dept
Following yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on patent obviousness there are a bunch of folks analyzing the decision in various publications. One of the most interesting I've seen was done by an attorney over at the SCOTUSblog, highlighting how the decision showed the Supreme Court recognizing that the marketplace is often a more important motivator than the patent system -- and that when the patent system gets in the way of the free market, it's likely hindering innovation. This is a key point that many of us have been trying to make. The purpose of the patent system is pretty straightforward: it's designed to encourage innovation that wouldn't otherwise occur in the marketplace (i.e., it's to correct a case of market failure). What too many patent supporters assume is that this means that without patents there simply would be no innovation. That's false no matter how you look at it (there's plenty of historical evidence to suggest the contrary). So when you hear patent attorneys complain that this ruling will somehow hinder innovation, just ask them to read the decision again, specifically focusing on where it points out the clear rationale for the decision being that these innovations would have occurred no matter what due to market demands. If the marketplace serves to provide the necessary incentives, then clearly no patent is needed. It's great that the Supreme Court seems to be recognizing this -- and hopefully the Patent Office will start recognizing it as well.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
As for the subject of the post I agree, it's great to see that the Supreme Court actually understands how patents should work (or at least seems to with this ruling). I wonder though: will this ruling have any impact on the Verison v. Vonage fight?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
you're taking your drugs again!!
"...Supreme Court recognizing that the marketplace is often a more important motivator than the patent system...." umm... in the article you linked to..
i don't think it states anyting close to this at all.
the supreme court ruling was strictly dealing with the obvious nature of a potential patent as it would be applied to someone who's familiar with the area of the patent.
one might imply that if a person was going to get in the market occupied by a business with a patent, then the competing company might recognize that the patent of the original company is "obvious" and might therefore be able to be overturned.. but that really has nothing to do with market forces...
the ruling really gets to how the "obvious" nature of a patent is determined, and the tests which were employed to arrive at such a decision.
peace..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
From the article:
"When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp."
The ruling does indeed deal primarily with the test of a patent's obviousness, but the reasoning behind that is the fact that some innovation would happen without government protection. Manufacturers are not going to suddenly stop adding features because the other guy can too. Competition to stay ahead will drive innovation.
Hopefully this trend of rulings continue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Indeed. But if you read the decision, in explaining their rationale for changing the standard for obviousness, the justices repeatedly refer to the importance of the marketplace as an incentive -- and how that should override the patent system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BTW, I thought the old theme looked better: it was a cleaner and more tidy user interface, and looked more modern than the new, plain rectangles, theme, which looks like some old coloured cell table design from ten years ago. When I first saw the nw desing, i thought thatt he page ad not rendered corectly, it looked so untidy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]