Meet The Patent Thicket: Who's Suing Who For Smartphone Patents
from the now,-with-more-troll dept
A few folks this week sent over a story in the Guardian by Josh Halliday and Charles Arthur with a graphic purporting to show who was suing who in the smartphone space, following the news that Microsoft had sued Motorola. You can see that graphic here:
The problem is that both of these graphics are wrong. The Guardian one admits that it was built off of the NY Times post from back in March that that showed a similar graphic, which we wrote about at the time. Here's that graphic:
Either way, with Motorola suing Apple for patent infringement, the already wrong graphic was now also out of date. So, I figured why not create my own, correcting the original errors and adding in the new information.
I ended up spending many hours on it, because once I started, I realized that to really show the state of the patent thicket, I couldn't just include the big name companies that were suing each other, because that's only a part of the story. What about all of the non-practicing entities (so-called "patent trolls"), who were suing lots of these companies for infringement as well? Doesn't that matter in understanding the thicket? Of course, there are lots of them, so I focused on the higher profile NPE lawsuits -- the ones involving multiple defendants -- and added them to the chart too (in green). And then, I added in a few other companies who actually make stuff but have been suing as well. Once you start, it's difficult to know where to stop. There are so many companies involved in so many lawsuits, some you just have to leave out. However, I believe the image below gives you at least some sort of picture of the lawsuit situation concerning smartphones. Some of these lawsuits have settled, but many are still ongoing.
Anyway, I'd say this does a damn good job demonstrating the concept of a patent thicket. It also explains how such thickets are hindering innovation. Anyone who wants to get into the smartphone business knows that they're facing lawsuits from a large number of the companies listed on the graphic.
Update: Someone just pointed out that Ars Technica apparently made their own graphic, which is really pretty.... but also relies on the same bad data that the NY Times used and corrected months ago.
Update 2: Apparently everyone had the same idea. The folks at Information is Beautiful made another version of the same chart... again including the incorrect information from the NY Times (though, at least they admit those lawsuits are about LCD price fixing, not patents).
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: htc, kodak, microsoft, motorola, nokia, ntp, rim
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
the lawyers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the lawyers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"If after ten years we find it's really as good as it promises, we will put a hundred patent lawyers on it to write a hundred patents a day, and you will spend the rest of your life, and the gross domestic product of your little island, suing us."
http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/10/08/1536242/Why-Geim-Never-Patented-Graphene
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.clipartguide.com/_pages/0808-0711-0812-3651.html
It's all just money passing around in a big circle getting no one anywhere faster.
I was at first convinced that abuse and perversion of IP law would be a dominant reason that the US would steadily fall in terms of progress and even basic civil rights, but seems IP law and procedure will be the real culprits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is why patents need to go...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would like to see a little spreadsheet of data instead of this mess.
Id also like to know if the chart was done freehand or with a program designed to draw graphs. because there is free software out there for this sort of thing... my first thought is http://www.graphviz.org/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Graphviz works tough. Once you get the option down right that is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How much are you willing to bet? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I used Gliffy, which is an online web-based chart making thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suckers.
Of course, AT&T must be hurting given their recent unlimited plan drop.
No wonder these companies want to charge by the byte.
Cellphone-free and have been very happy because of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Firms with only incoming arrows
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is there anything wrong in the graphic?
making fun of what's happening
It doesn't need me to make fun of it to be ridiculous. That's kind of the point.
What's the point of having the arrow between google and oracle cross other arrows, when they're not involved with the other companies at all?
You try fitting all this info on a graph. I spent hours on this damn thing trying to make it as clear as possible. I was literally moving around all the boxes to try to limit the cross overs and stuff, and at some point I just realized it was impossible.
That's how populism works.
Uh no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The fact that the diagram is a mess only accentuates the fact that this patent warfare is a also a huge mess and that the patent system is definitely broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rock, paper, Scissors?
"3-2-1 . . . Google!"
"Oracle! Oracle sues Google, I win!"
"Best 2 of 3? 3-2-1 . . . Qualcomm!"
"Nokia! Shoot, we both lose . . ."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
modern patents
Not so. Without patents there would be no small companies developing technologies pushing large entrenched firms. Wonder why science has progressed so much more in the last 200 years than in the previous 5000? Patents. It wasn't until the introduction of modern patents that science really found its stride.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: modern patents
First of all, you're either a shyster or an ignoramus. You make many erroneous statements staff and this is just the latest display of ignorance or flat out lies, about patents.
1. Patents have been around since (at least) 500BC. The formal 20+ year patents are 560+ years old (not 200) and idea patents (the culprit) didn't really get going until dot com insanity at the turn of the century. So, given over 360 years of the 20+ year patents, the only thing they did, was to give ownership of industry to those who had the means to pursue patents. The system became unbearable with entrenched patent hoarders dictating the pace of innovation (Which is where we find our selves yet again). You can see in this graph, that the system went off the rails in 1998, the year State Street opened the door for idea patents. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/US_patents_1790-2008.png . In short, patents were then and are now, a king's sport.
2. There are no honest economic historians who would back you up on the claim, BTW. If you had any knowledge of the historical roll that patents played in the development of the industrial backbone (which actually ushered in the tipping point for advancement), you would be ashamed of your comment. So I'm just going to presume ignorance on that one.
3. The roll of patents up to the 1970's was somewhat justified, though at that time, they're stated requirements were vastly harder to satisfy than they are today. Process patents essentially destroyed what value the patent system had. If you actually loved the patent system, you would support a ban on imagination monopolies. The presumed validity of patents is gone now and that makes more work and waste for everyone. Except you and others that exploit the broken system. It's managed to make many of you very wealthy.
4. You show me a list of patent wins for independent inventors, and I'll build you a 10 to 1 ratio of inventors that got smacked down by the hand of patents. You can't deny that the independent inventor gets hosed far more often than he gets paid, can you? because that's just not supported by the statistics, staff.
5. and, I didn't even want to respond to this one, because it's so ridiculous, but.. here it goes: "Without patents there would be no small companies developing technologies pushing large entrenched firms.".
So what would the small companies be doing? How would they compete? Are you suggesting that there would be no small companies if the USPTO were shuttered tomorrow? That's funny, because nearly all of the patents that drag the system into the state that it's in today, wouldn't have existed until the dot com bubble really started inflating, and the USPTO was suddenly granting patents for "a process where in a user ".
So, yeah...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: modern patents
And it's the large firms that abuse the system. It should plainly be put into law without any changes to the market that patents can only be used against large firms if what you say is true.
Science is about information (not traditionally the subject of patents, I don't think) and that took off after the printing press and has hit a new stride with the Internet.
Want to know what else stands out in the last 200 years? A democracy was born with many freedoms and a bunch of land and raw materials to be conquered and exploited. It's also true that we copied many inventions that were patented elsewhere but not in the US. [and this is what other nations are doing to us now as we stagnate with monopolists calling the shots]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Try your own
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you upload someone else's work to Flickr, should you not make damn clear in the title or description who did it? You've even released it under an Attribution license with no clue who to attribute it to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent lawyers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
check..http://www.sinapseblog.com/2010/12/never-ending-mess-of-telecom-patents.html
Thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow
Read some books on graph drawing and then you'll see how much of a pain it is to draw these thing "right". But if you think you can do better, by all means, provide a better picture.
The fact that the diagram is a mess only accentuates the fact that this patent warfare is a also a huge mess and that the patent system is definitely broken.
iPod | iPhone | iPad Gadget | Telephone Mobile
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
products with patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]