The Case For Patents Harming Innovation

from the fleeting-competitive-advantage dept

Last year, we noted that SAP was one of a few big tech companies that had mostly avoided stocking up on software patents, claiming that the company was in the business of selling products, not intellectual property. It appears things may be changing. Patrick Ross at PFFI (huge supporters of software patents) points to a quote from SAP talking about how they're now increasing their patent activities with this quote that goes against what we heard just a few months ago: "Those who drive innovation need patents. Those who don't imitate." Tim Lee rips this logic to shreds beautifully by saying: "In the past, SAP was an innovative company that was able to stay ahead of the competition by virtue of their superior technology. However, now that they're a fat, lazy incumbent, they're discovering the joys of using patent law as a club against their more innovative competitors." What's much more likely, is that it's not this rush to innovate that's driving SAP's newly discovered love of patents, but the recognition that with patent litigation today, software patents are all about nuclear stockpiling. You need to have as many patents as possible, so that when you're sued, you can sue back. What that has to do with innovation is well beyond us.

However, the more important point comes later in Lee's analysis. He basically picks up on the point we've been suggesting for a while. Companies and investors love things like patents because they think it gives them a "sustainable competitive advantage." However, a really sustainable competitive advantage means you don't have to innovate, and society ends up losing out because the fat, lazy incumbent isn't driving any new innovation. Competition drives innovation, and it's an ongoing process. Instead of a sustainable competitive advantage a successful business is really about repeatedly innovating to build continual fleeting competitive advantages. That is, you keep innovating and it no longer matters if your competitors are just copying you -- you have the advantage in the marketplace by actually innovating. This keeps innovation going, rather than stagnating, and it brings to market much better products. All without the need for patents. As Lee correctly points out, this might mean the original creator doesn't get to squeeze every last right out of something -- but that's actually better for everyone. It drives the companies to continue to be innovative, creates real competition, a real market, and better products for everyone.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Mike (profile), 19 Jan 2006 @ 11:49am

    Re: No Subject Given

    Business model has value only for generating money and for getting some people wealthy,
    but NO value whatsoever for the "progress of sciences and useful arts"
    I repeat, NO value at all...


    I would question that assumption greatly. The point of capitalism is that it's the business models that show what progress of science and arts is actually useful.

    If successful business models can be built, then it shows that the progress had value. If that's the case, then it's the competition over business models where the value is built, not in the patents.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.