Just Because Companies Can Design Around Patents Doesn't Mean There's No Impact For Consumers
from the economic-reality dept
This one's from a few week's back, but a few people have called it to my attention. Nilay Patel over at The Verge argued that because various companies offering Android phones have been able to design around a couple of Apple patents that have made their way into lawsuits -- #7,469,381 which covers the "scrollback" bounce when you scroll to the end of a page, and #7,657,849, which covers the "slide-to-unlock" concept -- that there's "really no day-to-day impact on the consumer" from the big patent fights going on over smartphones.That seems like a rather simplistic analysis. Patel is right that many companies are "designing around" these overly broad and somewhat silly patents, and so it doesn't mean that Android phones aren't available. But that doesn't mean that there's no real impact on consumers. While it can't be quantified directly, there are numerous ways in which these patents are likely impacting the results. First, there's a matter of cost. The legal fights over patents are quite expensive, and that's almost certainly keeping prices on these devices somewhat higher than they might otherwise be. Second, the money and time it takes to do that "designing around" potentially slows the development of these phones. Third, those same resources could have been put elsewhere, working on additional innovations that would make the phones better and more valuable. Instead, they're forced to reinvent the wheel without doing the same scrollback or slide to unlock. Finally, while some will claim that forcing these companies to invent around the patents can lead to new innovations, there's little evidence to support this claim. Certainly it might happen accidentally, but letting developers come up with new innovations based on their own experiments and what the market tells them is always going to be more efficient than stumbling on some innovation because you're trying to avoid the artificial monopoly of a patent.
Of course, this is one of the difficult things in discussing the problems of the patent system. People insist they can't be that bad because these devices are still on the market. It's difficult to see or even explain the innovations that we don't have because of this, or even to show how the pace of innovation is almost certainly slower because of this, but that's exactly what plenty of research has shown for years. No one says that innovation stops completely because of patents, but we have significant concerns about how they impact the overall pace of innovation, as well as the specific direction of innovation. While it might not seem to have a "day-to-day impact on the consumer," chances are it's having quite a large one. We just can't see how big.
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: android, design around, impact, patents, smartphones
Companies: apple, google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Driving Innovation... away
That's innovation, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You miss one more effect
Imagine if the arrangement of pedals on a car had been patented - so every maker had to lay them out differently.
Learning to drive would be a nightmare - just like learning to use a new smartphone can be...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You miss one more effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Wall
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Wall
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Noticing an absence of something is very difficult.
"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
"The dog did nothing in the night-time."
"That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So, your snarky and non-productive comment is a waste of your time to make and our time to read.
How about trying harder to actually contribute a thoughtful and productive comment on how to best work with patents that cost all of us (Even you smarty pants.) money at the register.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Innovation vs Invension
I'm having difficulty getting my head around the different between inventing and innovating. I had to use Google:
"Invention is the first occurrence of an idea for a new product or process while innovation is the first attempt to carry it out into practice." http://www.ipfrontline.com/depts/article.aspx?id=16295&deptid=5
So, an innovation is merely a practical implementation of an invention?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Innovation vs Invension
Or silly things like the "one click" patent for which there were mountain ranges of prior art only it seems the patent examiner either ignored it or was too ignorant to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Innovation vs Invension
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Innovation vs Invension
you can work it out, if you think about it. Invention is coming up with something new, or a new method to achieve a specifc result, such as inventing the rubber tyre to replace wood.
Innovation, is using something that has been invented in a new and different way.
It is innovative to be use your analog wrist watch and the sun to work out the direction of North, that's innovation, you did not invent the watch, or the sun, but you applied those objects in a new and innovative way. It's sometimes confusing because they both start with "I".
(as does Idea) but one thing at a time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Innovation vs Invension
As an aside, it also help me understand a reason why the EU did not want patents included in ACTA.
Patents (inventions) could stifle innovation if the patents granted are too broad (like the "slide-to-unlock" concept patent). I can now understand why the EU made a big kerfuffle did not want to be bound by stifling US patents and make EU innovators criminals for innovating off US patent holders.
Listening to EU authority actors, they often make a big deal about innovation, now I think I understand why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The little guys you know the ones that don't have those capabilities and are responsible for the majority of jobs everywhere are on their own though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
efficent innovation
While innovation is a constant topic for Techdirt, I do not recall and am unable to find any metrics for efficiency of innovation. Perhaps this could be the subject of a future Techdirt posting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: efficent innovation
The yield of random is commonly used as a base-line in metrics. We test possible improvements against this, and don't use anything that offers lower yield.
The efficiency of a good business that will win out over competitors has to beat random, or the competitors could win by simply using random. Thus, the competitive market place ensures that the efficiency of random will eventually serve as a floor, meaning that purpose driven structures will do better on average.
You state we have no metrics for the efficiency of innovation. I state that, so long as patent and copyright laws remain in effect, any attempt to establish these metrics will be skewed. Additionally, these laws hamper the competitive effects mentioned above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it would not slow development, but it would certainly increase innovation, and create product diversity, which is a good thing..
That is how technology, and knowledge progresses, not by doing exactly the same thing others are doing, but by doing the same thing in a different and better way.
Thats why tyres on cars are not made from wooden logs or rocks, because someone designed a better wheel/tyre, that is why we have internal combustion enginess, instead of steam engines, because someone 'designed around' the steam engine.
Therefore it ensures a progression on technology..
So you can have your steam powered, wooden wheeled car now, or you can wait for awile, and have a turbocharged diesel engine with low profile, long lasting and safe rubber and steel tyre, with disk breakes instead of a chunk of wood you hold against the wheel to stop !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If company (A) patents rubber wheels, company (B) patents disc brakes, company (C) patents low-profile cars and company (D) patents diesel engines then WE CAN'T HAVE ONE GOOD CAR, YOU STUPID SHILL FUCKTARD!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, there is no guarantee that the new system will be better. Allow me to provide you with an example. Suppose:
Main(int argc, char * argv) {
printf("Hello World");
}
is our patented method for creating text output. Is:
Main(int argc, char * argv) {
coutmight go down, but that will free up resources for more projects, which allows the company to expand and attempt more ambitious innovations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(streaming an output) really all that useful by comparison?
The answer is that it is useful if it leads to the notion of a stream, but purely redundant if the stream idea already exists.
Thus, some new innovations appear and some innovations are redundant.
Now, let us free up that innovative work to apply it in another fashion. The company is more competitive if they create something new, so they will. This means you obtain no redundant innovation.
In other words, with patents you have (xmight go down, but that will free up resources for more projects, which allows the company to expand and attempt more ambitious innovations.
Now, let us free up that innovative work to apply it in another fashion. The company is more competitive if they create something new, so they will. This means you obtain no redundant innovation.
In other words, with patents you have (xmight go down, but that will free up resources for more projects, which allows the company to expand and attempt more ambitious innovations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The other problem with your post is the assumption that people only innovate when they don't have something that's already good enough. If that were true gas lamps and electric lighting would never have been created, because torches were not patented and therefore there was no reason to design around them. The abacus was around millennia ago so why did anyone see the need to invent computers? Do you think ironclads were invented because someone had patented wood boats, or guns because someone patented the sword? Better things are created because they are better, not because mediocrity is sometimes illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There has been some argument over whether or not the explosion in innovation would have occurred had people not been forced to try to design around or whether it would have occurred anyway. I tend to side with those who say it would have happened, and sooner, had the patent not existed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]