Wired Takes On The Smartphone Patent Thicket And How It Stifles Innovation
from the dumbpatents-and-smartphones dept
Back in February, we noted the rapid explosion of patent lawsuits in the smartphone realm, with pretty much everyone suing everyone, and began to wonder if it was even possible to build a smartphone without getting sued. As it continued to play out, it became clear that the smartphone market was a living example of the problems of a patent thicket -- where a new technology is so locked down by patents, as to slow down the pace of innovation in that market -- directly the opposite of the intended purpose of patents. Patent thickets have been demonstrated in many areas, with smartphones just being the most recent.Wired Magazine has now taken on the issue, with a good article detailing the patent thicket mess in the smartphone space, and why it's a problem. There isn't much new in the story if you're a regular Techdirt reader, but it's an excellent summary of the situation and why it's a mess:
Underlying much of this litigation is a broken patent system that increasingly churns out weak patents, concomitantly strengthening the rights of those who hold them. Patents described in vague, abstract terms are the source of most infringement lawsuits as they provide more leeway for subjective interpretation. Patent examiners grant weak patents because administrative structures are overloaded and understaffed. And in an age of rapid product development, a market niche can be identified and a product manufactured, retailed and retired before a patent is even granted.The article also discusses the fact that patent litigation storms like this one had been avoided in the past when big companies came up against each other through "gentlemen's agreements" not to sue each other. But that's been flipped around a lot through a combination of non-practicing entities getting big awards, and companies arguing over who's in the stronger position for such an agreement not to sue.
The end result, though? Money that could go towards productive investment, instead is being wasted on litigation. It's exactly the opposite of what the patent system is supposed to do.
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: patent thicket, patents, smartphones
Companies: apple, google, htc, nokia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean, patent trolling does not exactly promote innovation as its goal is not even to be competitive but just plainly bothersome to get money.
In the current case, you have patents, you sue your opponent instead of attempting at being better. All this leads to nothing more than destruction, and solely destruction, not even creation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For the most part, I think that any entity that holds a patent and does not produce a product relating to the patent they are holding should quickly have the patent nullified enabling anyone to produce the product without ever worrying about infringement. The nullification should be non revocable, meaning you can't later claim that you want the patent back because you now want to produce the product. The constitution granted congress the ability to grant patents to promote the progress, not to simply hold those patents in hopes that you can sue someone if anyone infringes and succeeds with a product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Donald J Smiley
555-1234
1432 Shillington Lane, Lobbyist DC
President - Imaginary Organization
Vice-President - Irrelevant Organization
Senior Fellow - Some Shills
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This Could Be Worse ...
And of course, US patents don’t apply in those markets.
Coincidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This Could Be Worse ...
We still remember watching a new episode of Buffy and wondering why on earth these teens didn't have mobile phones. Then we realised that it was because they were in a phone-primitive country...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This Could Be Worse ...
Let's remember too that North America is suffering from some of the worst, most expensive broadband on the planet due to, among other things, the same idiotic pricing we see in the mobile market. I'm not sure about patent thickets on end user broadband devices but in a system that seems to grant a patent for the location and colour of a flashing LED I wouldn't be at all surprised.
Between predatory pricing and patent thickets North America is being, rapidly, left behind in both markets.
ttfn
John
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
quick solution while you sort the mess out
you drop all that in half in next ten years and then to ten years across the board you will see innovation and do same with patents bring it back slowly so the lazy people have time to find tim hortons jobs ( there profits were up so expect them to expand and hire more peeps )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sheesh!!!!!!
Figure it out already! If not for patents, no one would bother to develop expensive, risky, and time consuming technologies. Small firms wouldn't because even if they were successful, large firms would just copy and beat them out of the market they created. Large firms wouldn't because they wouldn't want to displace their existing product line and there would be no small firms pushing them. Sheesh!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sheesh!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sheesh!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sheesh!!!!!!
that is what is "Correct and well stated"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
" and began to wonder if it was even possible to build a smartphone without getting sued."
Melody can be copyrighted , but it makes for great legal fun sometimes ,, as in My Sweet Lord vs. "he's so Fine"
Chords cannot be copyrighted.
With smartphone patents, are there any parallel?
Things , that can be always patented. Things that can never be patented. Things that can sometimes be patented, but are always fotter for legal dispute.
Please answer in as laymans terms as possible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gurl
[ link to this | view in chronology ]