If Patents Are Supposed To Support The Independent Inventor, Why Isn't There An Independent Invention Defense?
from the copycats dept
Joe Mullin has written up an interesting post, talking about how almost no patent infringement lawsuits involve accusations that one firm specifically "copied" the other. Traditionally, of course, if you think about intellectual property or the way most people view intellectual property -- and you hear that someone's been accused of patent infringement, their first thought is that the invention was "copied" or (as some incorrectly claim) "stolen." Yet, the evidence suggests that this is rarely, if ever, the case. Outside of the pharmaceutical industry, you almost never see accusations of outright copying -- even though there is some incentive for the accuser to bring that up in court (both to influence the jury and to make something of a case for willful infringement). Now, as the post and the comments show, there's not a direct correlation between "copying" and "willful infringement," so not every case needs to show direct copying -- but you would think that such evidence would make the overall case stronger (especially in front of a jury). Yet, it almost never happens.And that, of course, highlights one of our biggest concerns about the patent system. It's the total lack of an independent invention defense. In fact, I still contend that if you can show multiple people invented the same thing, independently, around the same time, you've established a pretty clear case that the concept is obvious to a person skilled in the art -- and thus, unpatentable. Unfortunately, this argument is rarely used in court (though, sometimes...).
I always find it amusing, however, when the strong patent system defenders rush into the comments and automatically accuse any accused infringer of "theft" and "destroying the small independent inventor." That's because they never have an answer for the "theft" and the "destruction" of the independent inventor (or, more likely, inventors) who came up with the invention entirely independently, but are totally barred from using the invention without purchasing a license. That seems like a much bigger "theft" both to those other independent inventors and to the rest of the world, who is left with a single monopolist provider.
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: independent inventor, patents
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Theft of an idea, proved beyond a reasonable doubt? nay.
If I was an IP lawyer, I'd ask why make it more difficult than it is? In an IP case, burden of Proof is on the invention, who files, and not on the acquisition process. There is no need to establish reasonable doubt, (reasonable doubt for what?) when you describe in patent filing how it works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looking from the other direction...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looking from the other direction...
How do you figure? As the study notes, there's almost no evidence that the inventions are copied. So, how can you say that independent invention almost never occurs? It seems to suggest that in most cases it *is* an independent invention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Looking from the other direction...
hah hah...Funny.
My question is, how often does someone independently invent something that was previously invented? If your answer is that independent invention occurs in the vast majority of infringement cases, then I can estimate the total number of "independent inventions," which, based on the total number of patents in force, is a teensy percentage. However, I was wondering whether someone had different evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Looking from the other direction...
I'm reading this sentence over and over again and it makes no sense to me whatsoever. Independent invention occurs *all* the time. Whether or not someone sues for infringement over it is a different story altogether.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Looking from the other direction...
Of course, my personal experience is not a substitute for actual data, and neither is yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
my patent attorney experience
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: my patent attorney experience
I find your anecdotal evidence interesting, and contrary to my own experience. Based on my experience, copying happens about 50% of the times. In half the cases I recall, the company saw a product produced by another company, frequently marked with patent numbers, and then copied the product so precisely that the product was an identical match for the patent product. In one particularly humorous case, the copying company used an image from a patent listed on a product they copied as part of one of their advertisements.
If you are going to copy someone else's patented product, at least do so in a way that you can claim indignation that you never saw a patent buried in the USPTO - even if the patents are prominently placed on the actual product. Making a copy so exact that the engineer who originally designed the product cannot tell the difference between the original and the copied product and using a patent image are hardly ways to claim you "independently" invented something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Looking from the other direction...
Independent invention can occur on something that has already been invented easily. If the "second" inventor in this case had never heard of the invention prior to creating an identical invention, then that is independent invention for an invention that exists already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Looking from the other direction...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looking from the other direction...
Take Apple's patents on a multi-touch display, for example. Do you really believe that no one else ever thought of it? Watch Minority Report. Steven Spielberg thought of it, at least. I have no problem with Apple patenting their particular design, but they should not be allowed to patent the idea. Same with the big Blackberry patent battle. The idea of transferring mail to mobile devices through a central server should not be patentable, but rather only a specific implementation.
As long as we have a twisted patent system that allows ideas can be patented, independent invention will happen all over the place. Most ideas are inspired by a need for certain functionality, and if it is a need with a market, it is also a need that more than one person encounters. To assume that only one person is capable of inventing a solution is quite silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Looking from the other direction...
How fortunate that our patent system does not permit ideas to be patented, only inventions.
However, you did not answer the question. How often does someone "independently" invent something that was already invented?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Looking from the other direction...
If only that were true in practice.
I hear this copout from patent supporters all the time. It's as if they don't actually live in the actual world and see what is happening all the time with the patent system, which DOES allow patents on ideas. That's because the patents are written so broadly and in such vague terms that it blocks out any such efforts in certain areas.
However, you did not answer the question. How often does someone "independently" invent something that was already invented?
Almost always. For almost any great "invention" you'll find stories of someone else working at about the same time inventing the same exact thing:
We discussed this last year. Research has shown that almost every major scientific breakthrough has involved multiple parties coming up with the idea independently. It's hard to find exceptions.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080507/0114581051.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Looking from the other direction...
An algorithm is an idea.
And yet we get software patents. Had the same rules appled to a car, we will be diving some cars with a steering wheel others with a level and yet some with your two feet. With no standardization whatsoever.
And yet someone on the patent office felt that algorithms where patentable with no one to challenge the inspectors.
I wonder what would have happened in patents where invented before the wheel.
The problem is that the people that gains the most from the extortion scam are the same people that make the laws and become judges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looking from the other direction...
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/The_rise_of_calculus.html
Persona lly many times I have come up with a exceptional idea to see that it was already done. Although often times there are not optimally done or left some minor improvements out. Check out patent 7206142, I came up with the idea independently then found that a similar idea was done but not as well. (Check out www.sol-solution.net for details)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ogburn and Thomas
Well, of course there is William F. Ogburn and Dorothy Thomas's classic "Are Inventions Inevitable," published back in 1922, with a list of 150 simultaneous inventions. One of the classic examples is Calculus in the 1670's. Issac Newton started in from the Differential Calculus end, and Gottfried Leibnitz went in from the Integral Calculus end, and they passed each other in the middle. Of course it is generally held that Archimedes was pretty close to Calculus back in the third century, BC. There are cases of simultaneous inventions happening close enough together in time that it would have been impossible to communicate from one inventor to the other, given the primitive means of transportation before 1800. For example, it took a ship something like two months to cross the Atlantic, and the passes over the Alps, at 6000 ft or so, more or less closed down for the winter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ogburn and Thomas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Independent invention
I have proof of an inventor who did not patent; but went to a company who he knew could use his invention. All was well at first, they agreed it was brilliant, admitted they hadn't thought of it, and agreed that they needed it.
Then they found out that he had not patented.
They started using the invention, and when he found out and objected, claimed "independent invention" (which is a defense in trade secret, his method for "protecting" his invention).
When sued, they advanced an "independent inventor" (who, unfortunately, they had neglected to educate on what he had "invented") and generally made the inventor's life miserable.
I am not sure how it came out, but had he patented .....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Independent invention
The inventor, on the other hand, will hang himself, become bitter and hostile, or make damn sure that if he ever has another invention that he will patent it first rather than just giving it away for free for the betterment of an innovator or corporate America.
Incidentally, according to "innovators," inventors are a dime a dozen and innovators are in short supply...apparently there are too many inventors and not enough telemarketers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem with any discussion about "independent invention" is that almost invariably a close scrutiny of the "independent invention" reveals that it is not a fair "apples-to-apples" comparison. The competing inventions may have similarities, but only rarely can it truly be said that two or more inventors working independently came up with the "same invention".
One source of information that I believe reflects a true "apples-to-apples" comparison is contained in the USPTO records pertaining to interferences declared between co-pending applications. If "independent invention" is as commonplace as many here seem to believe, then I would expect a relatively sizeable number of interferences to be declared each year. After all, the purpose of an interference proceeding is to determine priority between two or more applicants each claiming the "same invention".
In my experience the declaration of an interference between parties claiming the "same invention" is exceedingly rare. In fact, only a very few practioners before the USPTO ever participate in an interference during the entirety of their professional careers. The number of interferences does vary from year to year, but I have not as yet seen any total number initiated in any year that exceeds two digits, and those totals as I recollect are typically in the low two digits.
Thus, to say that "independent invention" is commonplace is simply not borne out by USPTO data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The meaning of "independent invention"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The meaning of "independent invention"
It would also seem that there would be a time element involved. If someone invented invention A in January, and filed a patent application in February, and a second person filed an application in December, before the first application published, then independent invention may have occurred.
On the other hand, if invention B was patented and went into production, and a second person "invented" the same thing three years after invention B went into production, I would struggle to accept an independent invention argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent troll
A lot of tripe, as usual, including this gem: "I have no numbers other than anecdotal evidence."
Indeed; as usual, all you have, Lonnie, is anecdotes, and mostly, those anecdotes appear to have been pulled directly out of your butt.
It's a shame that debunking your sorry, disheveled, and oft-repeated arguments in favor of the sorry, disheveled, broken notion of "patents" has become a full-time job in itself. But many hands make light work, so perhaps a bunch of us can pick different blogs and/or days of the week to find and respond to Lonnie's ill-informed and dangerously mislading comments, so that they don't unilaterally sway members of an unsuspecting public.
Any takers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent troll
You are a sad, frustrated person who has once again not "debunked" anything. If you are the best the anti-IP forces can muster, we have nothing to worry about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent troll
By the way, nice double whammy here.
First, you advocate stalking (...perhaps a bunch of us can pick different blogs and/or days of the week to find...Lonnie). Then, you insult everyone who reads this web site (referring to my comments, "...so that they don't unilaterally sway members of an unsuspecting public"). I believe the people who read these posts are quite intelligent capable of making up their own mind without your paranoid delusions and advocacy of stalking. And before you claim those are lies, I suggest you re-read what you wrote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2 new invention
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
aquiring Ip without owner consent or transfer of rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
aquiring Ip without owner consent or transfer of rights
NOT TO INGEST THINGS THAT DO NOT BELONG TO THEM , I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THIS " I WEAR A WIG CRAP" DOESNT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHEN A TRAIN IS ROLLING AINT NO 1 MAN CAN STOP IT IF HE ISNT IN CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE, AND IN THIS CASE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE POINTS DIRECTLY TO THE FRAUDULENT CLAIMS OF THE APPLICANT AND THEN ALSO THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING HIM.
tHE uk MARKET IS MINIMAL COMPARED TO OTHER MARKETS AND WITH NO PATENT WHICH CAN BE PROVEN AS TRUE THEN I CAN AND WILL LICENSE MY DEVICE TO A MARKET WHERE IT'S USE IS FAR LARGER THAN THE uk. OH I AM NO COWARD ... IS THERE NO ONE ELSE !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LIKE I SAID - IS THERE NO ONE ELSE ! ! ! KOFF.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SO AS I SAY, GET YOUR DEVICE FINISH IT, MARKET IT, LICENSE IT, = INCOME = MEDIA = VICTORY SIGN AND NO WASTED FINANCES .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SO AS I SAY, GET YOUR DEVICE FINISH IT, MARKET IT, LICENSE IT, = INCOME = MEDIA = VICTORY SIGN AND NO WASTED FINANCES .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AND WHOM DINE ON LARD AND OTHER CHUBBIFYING FOODS ,
FAR TOO SLOW TO CATCH A FAST MOVING WEE BEASTIE , SO THERE WE HAVE IT GAME SET AND MATCH TO THE ORIGINAL OWNERS AND INVENTORS PJB AND GL AN ADJUSTABLE SUPPORT DEVICE IN A BROAD ASPECT NARROWED BY DIET AND CORRECTLY DRAFTED BY DEFAULT OF OWNERSHIP TP THE GENUINE OWNERS PJB AND GL RESPECTIVELY. SECTION 21 OBSERVATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BUT ARE INSUFFICIENT AT PRESENT TO ASSIST THE DEMISE OF THE TROLLS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FAKING OWNERSHIP IS NOT SO DIFFICULT TO PROVE, BUT THAT ASSUMES LITIGATION, THE WEE BEASTIES HAVE THE LEAD AND ARE NOT
IN THE SAME RACE AS THE TROLLS ARE , THUS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE TROLLS ASSORTMENT OF CUTLERY ,GB1106683.4 A COPY OF A SUPPORT DEVICE........................... OH FAFFERY DORIS HAS A FINE OLD TIE , NECK DOWN TO THE GROUND , STAKED IN WORDS LEARNED IN FLOWER ARRANGING SCHOOL, NEVER TRUSTED AND COMPLETELY UNSOUND .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]