Why The Answer To The Smartphone Patent Thicket Is Not A Patent Pool
from the sorry,-but-no-thanks dept
We recently wrote about the incredible patent thicket in the smartphone space. For some reason, in the course of a few days, about ten different publications all created a very similar graphic about "who was suing whom" in the smartphone space for patent infringement. Unfortunately, most of those graphs had the wrong data and/or did not include non-practicing entities, who make up some of the most serious (and expensive) lawsuits in the space, and are certainly an important part of understanding the thicket. We created our own graphic here:
We've heard this before, and explained before why patent pools aren't a really good solution. In fact, two years ago we pointed to new research showing evidence for why that famed sewing machine patent pool actually did more to hinder innovation than to encourage it. As we explained at the time:
First, companies scramble to get patents that can be included in the patent pool (rather than focusing on actually innovating in the market and understanding what the market wants). Once the pool is truly established, patenting decreases, because it's just not worth it to compete. After the patent pool dissolves, then others finally get back into the market. Second, because the patent pool locks in the effective "standard" early in the process, it might not actually be the best technology. In their research, Lampe and Moser found that this is exactly what happened with the first patent pool concerning the sewing machine. It "shifted the direction of innovation to an inferior technology... which was known to be significantly less robust, and unsuitable for mass production."Are patent pools better than the legal jumble of lawsuits from the graphic above? Maybe. But are they the best solution out there? Absolutely not. Instead, a better solution would be to just let the market compete on the merits of the products and let the market decide, rather than focusing on any monopoly rights that will exclude innovators.
Then, once they're in the patent pool, they become anti-competitive: suing any upstart that tries to innovate and is not a member of the patent pool. So, effectively, rather than innovating, they use the patent pool to block any competition. Finally, once the patent pool is in place, the companies involved decrease their own pace of innovation, because they've basically just blocked out the competitors. Thus, they don't need to keep innovating at the same pace.
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: competition, innovation, patent pool, patents, sewing machine, smartphones
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Collusion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Collusion?
"Though anti-trust legislation today would likely render a smartphone patent pool an impossibility"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Collusion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shut down a new industry?
We'll call it the circular lawsuit industry. Follow enough of those lines around in the chart and you'll start to find that everyone is suing everyone else and being sued by everyone else.
In a deep recession this is a growth industry for all those surplus graduates from lower level law school so we need to support it.
Mind you very little of all this activity actually produces a real object that can enter the real economy to be bought and sold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shut down a new industry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Stitch in Time: The Rise and Fall of the Sewing Machine Patent Thicket by Adam Mossoff, George Mason University School of Law
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1354849
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prior art?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygxVg1rqFQE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prior art?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prior art?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If A Patent Is A Monopoly, Then A Patent Pool Is A Cartel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem today, is the overwhelming number of bad patents that would never stand up. A patent pool actually depends on the presumed validity of the patents therein. This has been called into question since the introduction of process patents. So, at some point, companies that hold patents which are undoubtedly valid, would have to acknowledge the likely invalidity of patents held by the likes of MS or Apple. Nokia, for example, holds many patents, most are for hardware some for software, they have a fairly high degree of quality to their leases. It would seem unjust for them to exchange legitimate research for the asinine patents the USPTO has been granting for the last 12 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Graphic Key?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
incentive and reward
HELL-O-O! The point of patents is to give the creator a limited monopoly as an incentive and reward for innovating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: incentive and reward
"First, companies scramble to get patents that can be included in the patent pool (rather than focusing on actually innovating in the market and understanding what the market wants). Once the pool is truly established, patenting decreases, because it's just not worth it to compete. After the patent pool dissolves, then others finally get back into the market."
(Emphasis on what you missed)
So, basically, what's being said is that yes, eventually the patent pool will be dissolved and others will be allowed into the market, but only after a large period of intellectual stagnation. Also, the members of the pool will fiercely stop any external innovation before it can happen and *gasp* compete with them. Hum...actually, isn't this strikingly similar to how a cartel works?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: incentive and reward
Let me try.
Staff says: "I'm stupid."
Oh, what? I created that quote by removing all the letters in between the ones I wanted? Oh well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great
Nice article, thank you for posting. will be valuable for Business
https://nooras.ae/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]