|
|
|
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 07:40 PM EDT |
In more
recent times, Microsoft has become the chief among the
patent trolls. Once the giant of the software
industry Microsoft has been
unable to make the leap to
portable devices such as telephones and tablet
PCs.
Unable to create and produce for the marketplace,
Microsoft now attempts to
claim a share of the
profits Googles generates in this market through patent
litigation. A firm that when it was young and
innovative had a strong position
against software patents –
Bill Gates said in 1991: “If people had
understood
how patents would be granted when most of today's
ideas were invented and had
taken out
patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill
today...A
future start-up with no patents of its own
will be forced to pay whatever price
the giants choose to
impose.” – now lobbies in Europe and Asia for
the
introduction of software patents, which it already
obtained in its home
country.
Later...
Hence we see both Apple
and Microsoft
attacking Google with patent
litigation. Apple in an effort to
keep the market to itself
for a few more years; Microsoft because it is
better
to get a share of Google’s revenue than be shut out
of the market completely.
The actual economic
value of Microsoft’s patents can be measured by their
inability to produce a product that occupies more
than a small corner of a
large and growing market.
Only one small blemish due to
naivety...
Hence the best solution is to abolish patents
entirely through strong constitutional measures...
Forget
constitutional amendments. It's never going to
happen, and not necessary
anyhow. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 04:26 AM EDT |
It is about patents and not just software patents.
I searched for
'software' and was set back on my heels by this:It is also the case
that modern “disclosure” in patents is
negligible – it is essentially impossible
to build a functioning device or software program from a modern
patent
application, a fact which is especially clear since some patented ideas do not –
and cannot – work.
A case in point is the patent for moving information through
the fifth dimension.
The piece is well informed and well argued.
It goes right to the essence of the reason the Constitution gives for
patents.
This is at the root of the
“patent puzzle”: in
spite of the enormeous increase in the number of patents and in the strength of
their
legal protection we have neither seen a dramatic acceleration in the rate
of technological progress nor a
major increase in the levels of R&D
expenditure – in addition to the discussion in this paper, see Lerner
[2009] and
literature therein. As we shall see, there is strong evidence, instead, that
patents have many
negative consequences. Both of these observations, the
evidence in support of which has grown steadily
over time, are consistent with
theories of innovation that emphasize competition and first-mover
advantage as
the main drivers of innovation and directly contradict “Schumpeterian” theories
postulating
that government granted monopolies are crucial in order to provide
incentives for innovation.
The
differing predictive and explanatory
powers of the two alternative classes of models persist when
attention is
shifted to the historical evidence on the life-cycle of industries. The initial
eruption of small
and large innovations leading to the creation of a new
industry – from chemicals to cars, from radio and
TV to personal computers and
investment banking – is seldom, if ever, born out of patent protection and
is,
instead, the fruits of highly competitive-cooperative environments. It is only
after the initial stages of
explosive innovation and rampant growth end that
mature industries turn toward the legal protection of
patents, usually because
their internal growth potential diminishes and the industry structure
become
concentrated.
Amen to that.
Unfortunately, the
following quote is on-topic, but I just don't care.
On the other
side of the coin, the rationale for patent systems is weak. In most industries
the first
mover advantage and the competitive rents it induces are substantial
without patents. Again: the smart-phone industry – laden as it is with patent
litigation – is a case in point. Apple derived enormous profits
in this market
before it faced any substantial competition. The first iPhone was released on
June 29, 2007.
The first serious competitor, the HTC Dream (using the Android
operating system) was released only on
October 22, 2008. By that time over 5
million iPhones had been sold, and sales soared to over 25 million
units during
the subsequent year, while total sales of all Android based phones was less than
7 million.
In
the tablet market the iPad still has no serious
competitor despite having been introduced on April 10,
2010. While it is hard to
prove this delayed imitation would have occurred also in the complete absence
of
patents, it is a fact that Apple did not try to use patents to prevent the
Android phones from coming
into its market and the subsequent “patents’ fight”
has been taking place largely after 2010, something
that the Boldrin and Levine
[2004] model predicts. More to the point, companies typically instruct
their
engineers developing products to avoid studying existing patents so as to
be spared subsequent claims of
wilful infringement, which raises the possibility
of having to pay triple damages. Based on sworn
testimony by Google’s chief of
Android development in Oracle vs. Google the engineers that developed Android
were unaware of Apple (or other) patents, and so were
unlikely to have been
helped by them.
How valuable financially, for Apple, was the delay in
the Android phones entry? Based largely
on the fact that Apple has kept its
first mover advantage in spite of a large imitative entry in this market,
the
value of Apple stock – during a severe market downturn – has gone up by a factor
of approximately
five.
While there may have been some delay in
competition due to Apple’s threat – since executed – of
patent litigation, the
fact is that similar but less successful devices had been available for a number
of
years before Apple finally cracked the market.
We tend to
whisper that Apple's patent attacks are anti-competitive rather than protection
of their inventions, but this article puts it front of stage. That they
reference the model that predicts this behaviour is stunning.
I cannot
see this paper has having any substantive effect on the patent system. The only
implied recommendation is to substantially weaken the protection to restore the
patent boost to innovation called for by the Constitution, or the complete
abandonment of the system and the allowance of First to Market Advantage be a
company's only advantage. I think that vested interests will ensure that this
report is ridiculed and buried for being dangerously accurate in its
findings.---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 08:29 AM EDT |
"The views expressed are those of .... and not necessarily reflect official
positions of ....."
Is this standard or are the writers on a different page than de federal reserve
bank ?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
