Patent Attorney Inadvertently Explains Why Design Patents Are Often Unnecessary
from the careful-what-you-say dept
Andy Blair writes "In an Op-Ed promoting 'shoring up' design patent protections, Chris Renk inadvertently shows us why in many cases design patents are unnecessary. He spends a couple of paragraphs talking about how the patent prosecution process is long and in many cases designs are obsolete by the time protection is granted. Renk then spends another paragraph or two talking about eroding enforceability. This demonstrates that innovation is happening despite questions about whether protection will be available or effective. If patent protection is an unnecessary component in the innovation equation, that pretty much negates the need to grant a temporary monopoly to incent that innovation. So the real reform necessary is not reinforcing protections, but evaluating whether they should be there at all, and if so in what form."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: design patents, patents
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, he did read the article. As he says, the point is inadvertently made. It's clear that Renk is trying to defend design patents, but in doing so basically shows why they're not necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Having read Mr. Blair's statement, it is clear he has a lack of understanding of the critical differences between utility and design patents. His use of the word "innovation" makes this only too clear. Knock-offs can hardly be said to represent "innovation".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, he *inadvertently* does show that they are unnecessary, but the simple fact that we're seeing the market work find *despite* the process being too slow. That is the point.
Having read Mr. Blair's statement, it is clear he has a lack of understanding of the critical differences between utility and design patents. His use of the word "innovation" makes this only too clear. Knock-offs can hardly be said to represent "innovation".
Sure they can... read Matt Mason to understand why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
True
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: True
Counterfeit goods is a problem. If I buy a Mac, I want to know that it's a Mac and not an imitation. After all, Apple won't honor a warranty on something they didn't make (or license someone else to make). But what I haven't seen much of is details on how big a problem this is, specifically in the US. Companies should be able to protect their brands, but I hope there's a way that can happen that also fosters innovation and doesn't artificially drive up prices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]