Recognizing How Much Of The World Is A Patent Free Zone
from the but-is-it-enough-to-matter? dept
Vivek Wadhwa has an interesting post at TechCrunch, pointing out that much of the world beyond the US, Europe and BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) are effectively a patent free zone. Even if many of these places do have patent laws, very few companies find it worth the trouble to file for patents in those places -- and, technically, that means that anyone producing products in those areas can legally copy from the patents filed elsewhere.Take the iPhone as an example: it has over 1000 patents; yet Apple does not apply for patent protection in countries like Peru, Ghana, or Ecuador, or, for that matter, in most of the developing world. So entrepreneurs could use these patent filings to gain information to make an iPhone-like device that solves the unique problems of these countries. Apple has so far received 3287 U.S.-issued patents and has 1767 applications pending: a total of 5054 (for all of its products). Yet it has filed for only about 300 patents in China and has been issued 19. In India, it has filed only 38 patent applications and has received four patents. In Mexico it has filed for 109 and received 59 patents. So even India, China, and Mexico are wide-open fields.Of course, if you were to make an iPhone in Peru or Ghana, you wouldn't be able to export it to the US, as then it would again be considered infringing. So, the market size for a "legal" knockoff iPhone might be pretty limited. On top of that, there's a pretty good reason why companies like Apple don't bother filing for patents in these places: the economy and the local infrastructure really aren't advanced enough to make a difference. So, even if these are "patent free zones," the lack of other institutions to make innovation and economic growth important mean that this really doesn't matter very much.
Still, it does raise some questions about if there are "opportunities" within those patent free zones. Certainly, it would not be a historical anomaly to see part of the patent free zone step up and use that fact to help it industrialize. As we've seen in the past, countries like Switzerland and the Netherlands used the fact that they were patent free zones for parts of the 19th century to speed up their industrialization process. But, of course, as we saw with both of those, once their industries got big enough, foreign competitors started to freak out and put tremendous pressure on those countries to put in place patent laws.
However, there are some areas where the ability to ignore patents could be quite helpful, especially for areas that could massively help those developing nations:
Take desalination, in which GE is one of the largest players. GE has spent more than $4.1 billion to acquire its part of the desalination business. Yet a decade after commencing, they're still nowhere close to making desalination affordable and sustainable. GE's progress depends on the patents it owns. As of 2009, GE invented 47 of the 832 U.S. patents in this field--just 5.6%, or a little more than one-twentieth. Consider the progress that GE could make if it could also use any of the patents that it doesn't own--of which there are many.
How much better would the world be if we didn't have to spend another ten years waiting for innovation in the desalination space? There are many areas of collaboration in the Patent-Free Zone that could produce innovative solutions for our world. Solar power, electric cars, mobile technologies for the poor, disease eradication, medical devices, food processing--to name a few. Wouldn't it be ironic if poor countries ended up solving the problems of the rich?
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: developing nations, opportunities, patent free zone, patents
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
How much further as a species would we be if patents were limited to less than a decade? As it is, it takes forever for any competition in any field to catch up to company A, and, by that point, company A is making so much off of the original product that they fight tooth and nail any advancement that might, no matter how short term, lower their profits.
Then again, it may be the culture of business in the developed world: you must always make profits, even at the expense of your customers, the rest of the economy, human advancement and even human lives.
Isn't capitalism great?(not that anything else is any better -_-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Think about it, you wouldn't go to work and then pay your employer so why the hell would you expect your employer to loose money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So you are against IP laws then?
Attaboy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, it's just not societies responsibility to provide corporations with welfare by granting them unowed monopolies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
aww lil' Michee confuses progress with theft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I kid, but seriously, it's not about any corporation becoming 'welfare'. That's a pretty outrageous jump to make to begin with, but under close examination, it's an outright lie.
For starters, to claim that a company would be LOSING money just because people could get their product from somewhere else is disingenuous. There is NO promise that they would be getting that money in the first place. Second, we aren't talking about corporations supporting anything, we're talking about not letting corporate greed trample over humanitarian and societal progress, just for the quarterly profit. To think that corporations' best interests are the same as a consumers' best interests is to be willingly ignorant or unfortunately naive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a) the reason nobody copies things like the iPhone (except in Chine, where it is copied a loooooooot) is IMHO that it's not worth it. The cellphone companies where you could sell with a subsidy will never touch it, as they are mostly based in Europe or the US, and the public will probably see it as a cheap copy. Which is why I don't think the patent system is needed to start with.
b) IMHO the US (and Europe) is entering a position where every innovation must pay the patent tax. This doesn't happen in most of the world. I think countries like Japan an India will sooner or later use that advantage, and US and Europe will be worst for it. They will then try to inflict their patent damage there, but hopefully it will be too late. And that is why I think the patent system is harmful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents have become irrelevant for complex gadgets.
Now, what does "Consider the progress that GE could make if it could also use any of the patents that it doesn't own" mean? Since GE can presumably license any of those?
The quoted author unintentionally emphasizes my point that patents should only be for fundamentals: "How much better would the world be if we didn't have to spend another ten years waiting for innovation in the desalination space?" -- Sounds like he was born just yesterday (especially with the woozy idealism), and seems to have no idea that the fundamentals of desalination have been obvious for at least a century (boil sea water, condense steam), all current patents are merely around the fringes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patents have become irrelevant for complex gadgets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't history show this is more of a fact than an ironic situation?
Poor immigrants work to build a rich nation.
Poor areas account for a large "discovery" percentage of medicines or causes of disease.
Conflicts in poor nations are often used to bring together rich nations to combat atrocities.
No, this isn't ironic. It's pathetic because it is ironic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disruptive Technology Insurance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, I do agree with limiting the length of time on patents. Just because somebody thinks of an idea doesn't mean that the idea would never have been thought of by somebody else in the future. If a person has an idea on how to improve a product, they're limited because of the original patent. If patents are allowed to be extended for long durations, then advancement on that product from outside sources are severely limited.
Take internet browsing for example. Internet Explorer was great when it first came out. IE and Netscape (AOL too I hate to admit..hah) made the internet alot easier for common people to use. However, they were being advanced a certain way where other people could see room for improvement. Along came the others..Opera/Safari/Firefox/Chrome and added functionality into it that other people wanted and ultimately makes the browsing experience better. Compare IE6 to Chrome for example. Microsoft had to start adapting the product to what people wanted out of browsing (tabbed browsing for example) once alternatives started coming out. Now, I know that Web browsers aren't patented, but that is an example of how something that's not patented allowed progress to be made.
Businesses should be able to make money, but not put a long term stranglehold on an idea.
An example of what I'd consider a frivolous patent is Apples' swipe gesture to unlock the Iphone. Taken to an extreme, can you imagine if there was a patent to "redirect a customer to a different URL by clicking on a link"? All these little obvious patents need to go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A PS3 console, for example: In US, you can take it for $299.99. The same PS3 in Brazil, with the taxes, costs $739.99 (more than twice the price!)
An original game in US, for the same PS3 (Metal Gear Solid 4) costs $17.99. In Brazil, it costs $52... 3 times the price! It's a complete unfair comparison..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Only if you stuck with a bad business model of selling what shouldn't be sold. But if you adopted smarter business models, then you could do quite well.
You seem to assume that the only way you could possibly make money is to sell digital games directly. This is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not so sure...
So you may get a lot of coverage with minimal filing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spelling Error
[ link to this | view in chronology ]