RSS
Do Patents Help Or Harm Innovation?
from the o'reilly-vs.-walker dept
We complain about stupid patents and "IP licensing shops" here all the time. So, here's a good article discussing whether patents help or harm business innovation. It's basically a debate between Tim O'Reilly (of O'Reilly Associates) and Jay Walker (of Priceline and Walker Digital). O'Reilly is well known for being anti-patent, and was one of the folks who set up the (apparently now defunct) BountyQuest to help find prior art to disprove patents. Walker, on the other hand is a huge patent supporter - and Walker Digital's main focus is on coming up with patents that they can go out and license. O'Reilly says patents stifle innovation by making it costly for anyone to build on previous work to make something better. Walker says the opposite is true - and people wouldn't invent stuff without patents. Of course, if you just look at the number of things being created today that actively shun intellectual property protection, you can easily prove that's not true. Furthermore, even if you must have patents, why won't the defenders of the patent system admit that it's broken? Most of these IP shops aren't using patents to protect their own innovation. They're patenting things knowing that someone else will come up with the same idea (thus, suggesting the idea is not "non-obvious" as a patent requires). So, they just sit back and wait. They don't actually innovate. They don't build anything that helps society. Then, when someone else actually does build it - usually without even being aware of the patent, so it's clearly not "theft" of intellectual property - they come along and try to squeeze them for money. That's not encouraging innovation. The effect is exactly the opposite. So, if there must be patent laws, then why not require the patent holder to actually produce something based on their patent, rather than just sitting on it, stifling innovation?
5 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- Schrödinger's Download: Whether Or Not An iTunes Music Sale Is A 'Sale' Depends On Who's Suing
- We Don't Have A 'Wild West' Internet Now, But We Will If SOPA Or Similar Is Passed
- One Nation, Under Guard
- Supreme Court Denies Appeal For The Pirate Bay Founders
- White House Says It Can't Comment On Possible Chris Dodd Investigation
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Moot Debate
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Moot Debate
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Which can be open to a wide range of interpretation, and don't necessarily mean that patents are a necessity.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Patents on technology processes
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Patents on technology processes
Next, what if Microsoft took Intertrust's ideas and made them much better? Should the rest of the world suffer, because Intertrust is charging too much for their patents?
For every reason that patents seem to make sense, there are another half a dozen problems. I'm willing to discuss a reasonable patent system if someone can answer what do we do about those situations.
I'm not completely against patents - but the current system is much more broken than anyone seems willing to acknowledge.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Patents on technology processes
I agree with your basic line of argument on this one. However, Microsoft has the biggest army of patent attorneys, and tends to file patents on any idea Bill Gates may have from his rocking chair overlooking the Pacific. In this case, Intertrust did invent the stuff, Microsoft stole it and has refused to admit it. The government is now enforcing Intertrust's rights. I am not sure how much Intertrust wanted for royalties, so it could have been excessive, obviously adding to the problem. BTW, enjoy reading your views daily. Chip
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment