There Are 250,000 Active Patents That Impact Smartphones; Representing One In Six Active Patents Today
from the patent-thicket dept
A few years back we created a graphic to highlight the ridiculous patent thicket around smartphones. It really just highlights some, though not all, of the litigation concerning patents related to smartphones.
A new analysis shows just how insane the patent thicket is today. Done by “defensive” patent aggregator RPX (they try to position themselves as the “good” version of Intellectual Ventures), the estimate is that a stunning250,000 active patents today impact smartphones. 250,000. As the article notes that’s one in six active patents today — and for an industry that is certainly less than 1% of US GDP. As a comparison, the pharma industry, often put forth (inaccurately, in my opinion) as an area where patents make sense, has accounted for a little over 6% of US patents over the past 15 years. Also, there’s this:
… in the pharmaceutical industry, there are approximately 46.8 patents per every 1,000 jobs, whereas in the computer and peripherals equipment sector, there are 277.5 patents per 1,000 jobs. Even the semiconductor industry, known for its highly complex products, has a patent/job ratio of 111.6 patents per 1,000 jobs — approximately 40% the rate of patents to jobs as the computer and peripherals market.
It definitely appears that there’s something of a “bubble” going on around smartphone patents — which is what happens when you have a hot emerging area, combined with ridiculously broad patents. It also makes for an astounding minefield for anyone new who wants to enter the space, especially if you don’t have a massive war chest to license or fight in court.
Filed Under: patent thicket, patents, smartphones
Comments on “There Are 250,000 Active Patents That Impact Smartphones; Representing One In Six Active Patents Today”
And probably 90% of those (or more) should never have been granted and should be invalidated.
Re: Re:
I’d risk many of them are software patents. There are virtually infinite variations of code that can achieve the most varied results (or even the same result). I wonder how many of those really refer to innovative and how many are just transformative…
Re: Re: Re:
If they were just transformative, then no patent would have been awarded. Clearly you don’t understand how the patent system works.
😛
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you mean “no patent *should* have been awarded”.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I have trouble understanding insanity lol
Re: Re: Re:
ofcourse everyone here knows that a patent is a METHOD of doing something, and not the thing itself, I can patent a method of making cheese, does not mean I have a patent on cheese, just a way to make it.
there would be many methods of achieving something with software, the problem occures when the people making a product dont bother to work out their own method to achieve somthing, so they just use your method of making cheese, instead of developing their own method.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
ofcourse everyone here knows that a patent is a METHOD of doing something,
And method patents shouldn’t exist, especially not the particularly tortured interpretation of them currently in force in the United States…
Re: Re:
Yep this is ridiculous. But its what happens when the government caves to the patents as the end all be all.
The article is wrong. There are at least 2M maybe 3M patents today.
Re: Re:
Which is irrelevant, as the article is only talking about patents affecting smartphones, and not the number of patents overall.
In the future, at least read the title of the article before commenting please.
This harkens back to the Cornell article
You posted earlier that Cornell is building a center to encourage innovation. One of the quotes was that the inventor of the next iPhone may come of it. With this many patents in the smartphone realm, it is my guess there will be no new smartphones. If you aren’t already a player in that space, good luck becoming one. You will be sued/licensed out of existence before your plans have a chance to come off the whiteboard.
Look at all those names. Clearly, Mike, this is more about trademark because I said so and I cant believe you didnt mention it, and I know my shit because I have a certificate that says so. I am so much better than you, me, me , me, I am sooooooo smart.
Perhaps there are a lot of patents because (shock) there is a lot of actual innovation in this area, with new ideas, new systems, and new ways of doing things coming out every day?
“in the pharmaceutical industry, there are approximately 46.8 patents per every 1,000 jobs, whereas in the computer and peripherals equipment sector, there are 277.5 patents per 1,000 jobs. Even the semiconductor industry, known for its highly complex products, has a patent/job ratio of 111.6 patents per 1,000 jobs — approximately 40% the rate of patents to jobs as the computer and peripherals market.”
A nicely misleading series of stats, because it leaves out the key: how long the business has been around. Pharma is ancient, semi conductors go back to the 50s, and cell phones go back about 30 years… and smart phone less than a decade – which means that 100% of the patents in the smart phone area would be active at this point.
There are also a number of companies absolutely pouring money and resources into R&D.
The number of patents doesn’t suggest over broad patents, rather it suggests a large number of very narrowly focused patents. I suspect many of them are variations on a given patent. Given that there are a number of different cellular systems, data transmission methods, and the like. Many of those patents are likely replicated to cover operating with different systems.
I just think that it’s easy to go “wow, 250,000”. Really, you should be going “wow, thousands of new products released every year”. Innovation rules!
Re: Re:
Do we know you? I think we do.
Re: Re: Re:
“The number of patents doesn’t suggest over broad patents, rather it suggests a large number of very narrowly focused patents.”
Citation needed.
Re: Re:
Yeah, cause the patents that Apple is using to sue people over are brand new and innovative, and not overly broad at all. I mean slide to unlock?! holy crap, where do they come up with this. Bouncing screen animations, Open as, those guys are brilliant
Re: Re: Re:
And I still don’t know why the “Rubber Band Patent” isn’t instantly invalidated by having both prior art and obviousness in its nickname.
Re: Re:
“The number of patents doesn’t suggest over broad patents, rather it suggests a large number of very narrowly focused patents. I suspect many of them are variations on a given patent. Given that there are a number of different cellular systems, data transmission methods, and the like. Many of those patents are likely replicated to cover operating with different systems.”
That’s stupid. A patent describes a method of doing something. Minute variations on a patent that are prompted by the idiosyncrasies of the an arbitrarily chosen platform/technology should not be patentable.
Example: just because I discovered how to make a car run on water, that doesn’t mean that I should be able to patent a method of making a motorcycle run on water: they use the SAME technology, with minuscule adaptation to fit the form factor.
Re: Re: Re:
There are are certain to be duplicates and near duplicates as it is beyond the ability of any reasonable number of people to examine all relevant patents when applying for their own. Further the patent office cannot carry out a thorough search of possibly relevant patents to prevent this.
Re: Re:
I just think that it’s easy to go “wow, 250,000”. Really, you should be going “wow, thousands of new products released every year”. Innovation rules!
After the 1 download = 1 lost sale bogus assumption now we have 1 patent = 1 new product assumption. Sounds right.
It also makes for an astounding minefield for anyone new who wants to enter the space, especially if you don’t have a massive war chest to license or fight in court.
We have plenty of examples of patents crushing the starters 😉
Re: Re: Re:
“After the 1 download = 1 lost sale bogus assumption now we have 1 patent = 1 new product assumption. Sounds right.”
Wow, you suck at math. 250,000 patents, 1000s of new phones. There is no 1 to 1 relationship.
Another stupid comment from Mike’s toady.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sarcasm. Look it up. Either you’re unable to pick up on it, or have a really poor presentation of your own.
Re: Re:
Perhaps there are a lot of patents because (shock) there is a lot of actual innovation in this area, with new ideas, new systems, and new ways of doing things coming out every day?
Considering patents are currently being granted something like five years after being filed, no, I don’t think this has anything to do with the current state of “innovation” in the market and everything to do with the amount of leverage that comes with a large patent portfolio. Leverage you can exert over (actual or potential) competitors.
Also, have you seen these patents? They’re laughable. None of them are covering anything non-obvious or innovative, and often in fact are covering things that were already extant years before the patent application was filed.
Also, the only real source of “innovation” (and I use the term very loosely, here, as most of these “innovations” are just obvious extensions on existing concepts) on the software side of the smartphone industry right now doesn’t actively seek patent protection for their “innovations”…
Re: Re:
Mobile phone patents are also relevant to the smart ohone market. Impact doe not mean only smart phone specific patents.
Re: Re:
Instead of “wow, 250,000”, I would ask what data underlies this number and applicable cites, as well as how many of these are directed specifically to “smart phones”, and not generic inventions that cut across a multitude of diverse industries? Experience informs me that the number will whittle down quite fast to a much, much lower number.
Re: Re: Re:
The relevant number is how many would be likely to affect someone trying to develop a smartphone. It doesn’t matter if the word “phone” appears in the patent.
Re: Re:
“Perhaps there are a lot of patents because (shock) there is a lot of actual innovation in this area, with new ideas, new systems, and new ways of doing things coming out every day?”
Sure, but a lot of the patents in the smartphone space are just obvious, and follow even a robotic algorithm:
1) Take something done on computers over networks
2) Design method to do same thing on computers over wireless networks
3) Patent the method, and sue.
4) Kaching $
Poster child for above, NTP. But the same can be said for mobile search, mobile advertising, mobile video streaming, etc, etc. There’s patents for all this stuff, even though it is completely obvious that all stuff done on computer networks should be tried on mobile networks too.
Each of these comprises a “new way of doing things” as you mention, and each adds value to society. But almost none is inventive or worthy of granting a monopoly.
BUT the whole field just keeps growing!
IF patents are so bad, how do you explain that? — I’m sure you’ll just ignore the correlation, as doesn’t fit your mania.
My solution is the usual plain and simple brute force: I’d do away with trivial patents by requiring a physical model (NO software patents, then) and having a (trained) monkey (or a committe of such) glance at them and immediately discard those which are obviously trivial, never to be raised again in appeal, nor fee refunded.
Re: BUT the whole field just keeps growing!
I’m not sure what you’re trying to do here. Is ootb actually suggesting compromise?
Re: BUT the whole field just keeps growing!
Nobody said it was completely stopping innovation. We have said several times that they are slowing/hindering innovation. How much faster would it grow if they spent more money on innovating than on lawsuits? How many more startups would be successful if they didn’t have to worry about being sued out of existence because of the cost, not because of a valid claim.
Re: BUT the whole field just keeps growing!
My solution is the usual plain and simple brute force: I’d do away with trivial patents by requiring a physical model (NO software patents, then) and having a (trained) monkey (or a committe of such) glance at them and immediately discard those which are obviously trivial, never to be raised again in appeal, nor fee refunded.
The ‘prototype’ could solve shitloads of problems yes but it’d still leave gaps (independent invention, how startups could face the deep pockets of the bigger companies etc). Still, that’s a remarkably sane and productive comment if we ignore the first part.
Re: BUT the whole field just keeps growing!
Saying that growth in the sale of smartphones proves that patents are bad for the industry is like saying drug sales prove that prohibition isn’t bad for the drug industry.
Isn’t there an arrow or two missing between Apple and Samsung? =P
http://www.ipvideocontest.com
Unfortunately, the inculcation of America’s youth with the fallacy of patents,… sigh:
http://www.ipvideocontest.com
another biased article
patent thicket?? Nonsense!
If you were a real reporter, which you are not, you would do your homework and find that the vast majority of the inventions those patents cover are used by…no one. This is just more dissembling by invention thieves trying to justify their corporate greed.
Masnick and his monkeys have an unreported conflict of interest-
https://www.insightcommunity.com/cases.php?n=10&pg=1
They sell blog filler and “insights” to major corporations including MS, HP, IBM etc. who just happen to be some of the world?s most frequent patent suit defendants. Obviously, he has failed to report his conflicts as any reputable reporter would. But then Masnick and his monkeys are not reporters. They are hacks representing themselves as legitimate journalists receiving funding from huge corporate infringers. They cannot be trusted and have no credibility. All they know about patents is they don?t have any.
http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html#pt.
Take your thicket and stick it!
I’d tell you how a useful plan related to licensing and infringement is done but in the spirit of NO-PATENTS I won’t say a thing. It’s my trade secret and you know it really is!
All you get to see is the result of my using my useful chart and planner without having any idea (well actually I’ll just end the sentence there for this Blog has certainly earned the NULL word).
Trade Secret, no maintenance fees! No time limit. No courts and no attorneys. Nobody even knows it exists.
what do you know about patents?
No patents?? Well at least we can still make Stradivarius violins. Oh that’s right, HE NEVER TOLD ANYONE HOW TO MAKE THEM!!
No patents? Brilliant idea.
Patents are hindrance to progress.
Patent thickets
Great article and sad to think that it’s come to this point. It seems like patents are playing as much a role in stifling the diffusion of technology as they are in promoting it. Begs some interesting questions about the way the goals of the IP system have been twisted over the years. Have a look at this and let me know what you think: http://theriskyshift.com/2012/11/three-facts-you-should-know-about-intellectual-property/
it's just business
So now all patent trolls are aware of how big their competition really is?
Kill software patents! Competition is good for innivation, and patents kill innovation. If you want to make money quickly, immitation is the way to go anyway.
Re: it's just business
of course I meant innovation…
Here is an interesting article on patents:
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-12-19/cutting-through-the-patent-thicket
affordable press release service
Useful…!!