Patent Reform Is Only Bad For Startups Who Rely On Patent Law
from the patents-are-not-a-business-model dept
There are some news reports coming out about "small inventors" and "startups" coming out against patent reform, but when you read between the lines, that's not what's happening at all. What's happening is that a few entrepreneurs who have relied heavily on patents as part of their business model are coming out against patent reform. That's not surprising. After all, this form of government protectionism did help them. However, that does not mean that it's good for society or promoting innovation overall (which is the purpose of the patent system). There is no single view from startups. If a startup's business model is going to rely on patents, then obviously they'll want stronger patent protection. However, plenty of startups these days don't rely on patent protections, and focus on other types of business models instead. For them, patents are a real worry -- because even as they innovate, they always need to be wary of some no-name, no-product company suddenly suing them for actually building a product people want. So, while the press and some lobbyists will spin the press conference as "startups" against patent reform or even (as they're trying to say) "startups" vs "big tech companies," it's really "startups who rely on patents" vs companies who recognize they don't need patents to innovate.
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
Filed Under: dean kamen, inventors, patent reform, patents, steve perlman
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Don't you mean coming out for patents?
As for my comment about the Wall Street Journal the other day, I agreed with you on that topic. Does that surprise you? Its not like you are wrong all the time :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Purpose of the Patent System
If you want to continue your crusade against the patent system, that's fine. The system has flaws and it would be nice to see those flaws remedied. But please, don't state that the patent system is missing the target when you don't know what that target is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Purpose of the Patent System
That is incorrect. First of all the purpose of the patent system is clearly laid out in the Constitution.
Second, the idea that disclosure is important is a myth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disclosure?
Patents are simply monopolies.
Patents do not make inventions public, they make people think up all the possible things that manufacturers might one day consider using in products in order that they can then prevent manufacture unless a certain amount of money is paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another use for patents
On another note,it looks like Mike M is the only writer left at TechDirt, which means that TechDirt is now basically worthless. Time to take it off my Google homepage. So long, Mike. I'd like to say its been fun, but I don't want to lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another use for patents
For someone who keeps claiming to have a degree in economics, it's amazing that you seem confused about basic economics.
I could say the same thing about giving a monopoly to Pizza Hut for pizza restaurants. Obviously, they would like protection for the "invested time, effort and, usually, money to create." However, no one suggests that, because they know that competition is important in driving innovation.
You probably learned in economics why protectionist policies are bad. Why are you suddenly in favor of them in this case?
Your second hugely incorrect assumption is that without patent protection "cannot reap the fruits of their R&D." I've pointed out a ton of research, examples and studies that prove this is simply not true.
Your economics are wrong and your assumptions are wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
True
Large companies that are looking to prevent competition are against said refore just as much. They seem to have developed the notion that once they have risen up in their market they are entitled to keep that position no matter how questionable (or outright illegal) the means. In short they don't think they should have to continue to work for their profit market, it should just handed to them by a court ruling.
However instead of, "Patent Reform Is Only Bad For Startups Who Rely On Patent Law" I would have called it, "Patent Reform Is Only Bad For Businesses Who Rely On Patent Law". By using startups I get the impression that you are only calling out startup businesses when we all know that large corporstions are just as guilty about abusing patent law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents and small companies
Within software and within the US that's a different matter! It'd be really short sighted to look at the undoubted problems with rubbishy US software and business method patents and project from that that "patents are evil"! I'd be really happy to introduce you to a dozen or so CEO's of really small and innovative tech companies who, universally, would like to see the US patent system reformed, but not removed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, stop smoking weed !!!
"What's happening is that a few entrepreneurs who have relied heavily on patents as part of their business model are coming out against patents."
Hey, Mikey
What kind of weed did you smoke yesterday ?
I am getting really annoyed by (some) of your articles where you deliberately twist the facts.
The fact is this:
Startups which invent new technology want strong patent protection for their technology.
Startups which just copy and matket other people's creations do not want patent protection at all.
Plain and simple, dude
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike, stop smoking weed !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike, stop smoking weed !!!
Businesses which bring to market products that employ other people's petty and ridiculous patents do not want patent protection for petty and ridiculous patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike: I think your second sentence is missing a word, it doesn't seem to match the rest of the text. Did you not mean to write: "What's happening is that a few entrepreneurs who have relied heavily on patents as part of their business model are coming out against patent reform."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monopolies are great for those who get them
Who wouldn't have an extreme commercial advantage if given the privilege of prohibiting competitors?
The issue is not whether monopoly holders benefit from monopolies, but whether the public or the market benefits from them.
For every fortunate monopoly holder there are a billion unfortunate manufacturers held back, inconvenienced, or extorted.
Monopoly is a double-edged sword, that on balance, costs far more in hindering progress than it does in rewarding the fortunate individual for filing first - irrespective of how much original work they did (whether they used someone else's work or replicated similar efforts).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're obviously wrong on this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're obviously wrong on this
Having raised a fair bit of money myself, I would argue that this is less and less true -- especially for the best VCs. Many have started coming out publicly against the patent system, noting that it harms innovation, and talking about how meaningless patents are to startups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're obviously wrong on this
When it gets to the point that there are no more tech startups the innovation will really be hurt. Imagine not being able to laungh a tech startup not because you don't have a innovative idea but because your startup idea crosses paths with 4 patents held by 4 other companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You must consider which one outweighs the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's like saying quite a few restaurants won't open up on a street unless they're guaranteed that no other restaurants will open up on that street.
Others will come along and find the business models that work. Assuming they need patents is a false assumption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents = Business Strategy
The only patent reform needed is one which encourages licensing rather than litigation.
The current process is like elementary kids on the playground playing soccer-- when the kid who brought the ball becomes unhappy for one reason or another and decides to steal the ball and run home before the end of the game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Progress over innovation, open licensing over pate
It may be cliche, but certainly we can agree that "two heads are better than one". Patents limit new products and ideas to one head. While this definitely helps the company with the patent, it does not help the consumers. With multiple companies working to improve the new product or idea, progress can be made much more quickly and much more broadly.
Logically, then, it would follow that multiple companies working to progress the evolution and development of the base product could end up with two entirely different final products, two entirely different applications, and two entirely different markets. Yet this diversity is lost (or at least slowed) with patents.
Open licensing, on the other hand, encourages people to not only work on the same product concurrently, but also to collaborate on the product (or products, if different groups are working on different paths).
So, then, where does protecting the inventor come in? To be honest, I don't know, but it seems pretty obvious to me that patents are not the answer. (Perhaps they were at one point, but that does not seem to be the case any more.)
Perhaps patent laws have been patented so long that they're now immune to progress...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ever see a McDonalds open up next to another McDonalds?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
competition, innovation, and patents
Most things we do as individuals and as groups are not covered by patents, but depend on our access to resources such as stored wealth, skills, talents, and relationship to larger groups and organizations. Without patents, we are essentially in market competition with other people and groups of people all the time, regulated by various conventions, rules, and laws on property rights, contracts, fair competition, and interaction manners.
Individuals first go through an unproductive, learning phase called education, which is usually paid for by parents and taxpayers. We learn to copy what others do or make now, and what they did in the past, not so exactly as to violate impersonation laws, copyrights, trademarks, and professional license rules, but in general terms, and we find ways to improve on that. This becomes our work, and it is typically production, including provision of services, with some innovation thrown in, to stay competitive.
Innovation, like education, is an unproductive phase that has to be paid for by someone. Individuals and groups of people, like governments and corporations, typically invest some of their resources, whether in the form of stored wealth, time, or energy, for innovation, because everything is eventually copied by others who can do it cheaper. How this works out in practice varies greatly by profession, industry, and available resources.
Can there be innovation without patents? Clearly yes, innovation is not optional but absolutely necessary for staying competitive and improving one’s position. The question is only about how much of total stored resources gets invested in innovation, who can innovate and under what conditions, and what are the implications for our quality of life along such parameters as technological progress, respect for rights and agreements, distribution of wealth, prospects for economic upward mobility, and social conflict.
Without patents, investment in innovation in excess of what can be immediately employed in competing, can go to waste unless it is kept secret, because anything new that looks good will be copied by others. Rewards may go to others who have some competitive advantage in using the innovation.
Patents are a way to open up more investment for innovation. The idea is to prevent copying by others for 20 years, without requiring any further investment by the innovator beyond the innovation itself.
With patents, innovations can be produced for many years ahead of time, and they can be discussed and compared with everyone else’s. The best ones can be selected, which others can pay to license. This improves the efficiency of innovation.
Second, patents allow investment in innovation only, without requiring subsequent investment in factories and organizations to use the innovation, in effect allowing innovation itself to become a profitable business. This increases the amount of total available resources invested in innovation. Stored wealth that earlier was invested in trading in assets such as real estate, commodities, and in businesses, can now be directly invested in innovation. Universities, independent research laboratories, start-up companies, and venture capital companies make up the innovation industry. Its products are patents and combinations of small organizations and patents. The products are sold to large companies as patent portfolios and as acquisitions, to improve their existing competitive position and to branch into related emerging fields. The products are also sold to entrepreneurs with general investment backing, to build new companies that can grow and compete against existing large players while protected from copying, by the patent system. Now many more people will be employed to innovate, i.e., study and develop new and improved ways of doing things and making materials, devices, and sytems-- than were employed with limited innovation only by large companies and governments.
Greater efficiency and more investment in innovation steps up the pace of technological progress, and increases high-value employment. Both help to improve the quality of life.
Beyond that, small companies that can successfully compete with established industry are an unprecedented vehicle for economic upward mobility to a significant number of people (who can be only smart or clever and not wealthy, talented, or well connected). This would not exist without patents. By increasing high-value employment and growing a crop of start-up millionaires, our patent system helps to diffuse the distribution of wealth and privilege, and thereby helps to reduce social conflict. In the history of conventional competition, large fortunes by newcomers are made either through exceptional talent, which is rare, or by deceit and violence against others, which can be more readily available. Some call it luck. Our patent system, however, enables a model for making it big without cutting corners, and keeps alive our image as a land of hope and opportunity.
The key to this magic is the aspect of preventing copying without further investment. A reform that weakens that aspect of the patent system will dispel the whole magic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]