Apple's Billion Dollar Patent & Other Stories From Patentland 130
DECS writes "It has been widely reported that Apple secured a patent worth a "billion dollars." According to a patent attorney involved in the issue, Apple will be "after every phone company, film maker, computer maker and video producer to pay royalties." The good news is that all the news reports were based on misleading hyperbole. " Don't let the title fool you; the essay is a good background on patents, the horror stories of some of them but also why companies feel compelled to seek patents as a business "safety" precaution.
In my opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In my opinion (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple has shown some very litigious behavior for many years, I think it's a valid point if a bit overblown (and not really relevant if you RTFA, but heck this _is_ slashdot).
If you think it's not a valid point, why not refute it?
Incentive Misconception (Score:3, Insightful)
My favorite is the line in the article about how without patents there would be no incentive for pharmas to, say, develop a new treatment.
Innovation will always be driven by necessity, not by profit. That, and laziness: if I can invent a cotton gin so I don't have to spend hours and hours picking seeds out of cotton by hand, what do I care if I don't have a patent on it? My life is still simpler. What about drugs? If enough people are getting sick, then people will pool together their resources and develop a treatment. Sure, it might not happen in the same way we know things today, but I think that patents are a form of competition, and I'm beginning to think that cooperation is a more powerful force in economics than competition, despite the prevalent thinking.
Re:Apple got a patent on not playing games (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Apple got a patent on not playing games (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Press Releases (Score:4, Insightful)
I would correct Starkweather's last statement to be "That's why patent writing is a dark art, and requires the surrender of all ethical bounds checking".
Eli Whitney cared (Score:5, Insightful)
Eli Whitney, and the U.S Congress certainly cared. Although Whitney was able to patent his cotton gin, the U.S. patent laws at the time (under the first Patent Act of 1790) were so weak he was unable to enforce his patent and nearly went bankrupt. Whitney himself sold few cotton gins as large manufacturers could undercut his prices due to their established distribution chains. The next two patent acts (1810 and 1836) were drafted with Whitney's story in mind and provided greater protection for inventors (Abraham Lincoln's famous "patents are the fuel for the fire of innovation" quote was referring to the 1836 act).
So, out of all the examples you could pick as to why patents don't matter, Whitney's cotton gin isn't one of them (it is probably the worst possible example).
Developing Drugs Costs Big $$$ (Score:1, Insightful)
Here's why it's not going to happen, and here's also the argument for why pharma companies need strong patent protection:
Pharma research costs big money, because 1) paying your PHDs to do the research, and maintaining research facilities, costs quite a lot, and 2) the FDA approval process is costly and takes years.
If a pharma company pays big money to develop a drug, and then pays big money to go through the FDA tests, and then, on the day they start selling the drug, a generic manufacturer sells the same thing and cuts them on price--it's going to be very hard for them to recoup their investment and work on their next drug.
The generic manufacture would have received the benefit of the original pharma company's research, without investing a single cent of their own in research. Which isn't exactly fair.
(Pharma is a funny industry because on the one hand, medicine has the potential to improve the quality of life of tons of people . . . and on the other hand, pharma companies are businesses, just like an investment bank or department store. Arguably, we should think about businesses which manufacture things that affect the public welfare in a different way than we think about other businesses. But that's another different interesting issue.)
Re:Developing Drugs Costs Big $$$ (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly, and there's no reason patents are needed. Other industries still make products there is demand for, without ever registering a single patent.
Pharma research costs big money, because 1) paying your PHDs to do the research, and maintaining research facilities, costs quite a lot, and 2) the FDA approval process is costly and takes years.
They spend more on advertising than they do on research. The FDA thing is another government created problem that can be done away with as easily as the patent system. The risk of lawsuits is so great that the phrama companies will still be plenty careful about what they release. If anything the FDA gives them permission to be sloppy as it stands now. They only have to do the minimum required for approval, nothing more. A private branding mark of quality, similar to UL, can be used instead of FDA approval.
on the day they start selling the drug, a generic manufacturer sells the same thing and cuts them on price--it's going to be very hard for them to recoup their investment
Wah. Every other industry deals with knockoffs. There's nothing special about pharmacueticals. Most of them are not trivial to synthesize.
without investing a single cent of their own in research. Which isn't exactly fair.
Plenty of markets exist without ever involving patents. Those markets are generally very successful at providing the service.
medicine has the potential to improve the quality of life of tons of people
It does, which is why it's so much more important to eliminate patents here than anywhere else. I don't know why you want to support corporate handouts so badly.
Re:Eli Whitney cared (Score:1, Insightful)
I hope well for your immediate family despite their evident plight.
no reason for patents (Score:1, Insightful)
The argument is POINTLESS and INNANE due to the fact that people have spent great effort (multitudes greater than what is on face here) researching hard data in attempts to determine the effects of patent policy on innovation. The conclusions that the overwhelming majority reach fall somewhere in between 'patents are worthless' and 'patents are perfect'. Without even attepting to build on this body of work in fashioning an argument is hilariously unpersuasive.
Re:Not getting it (Score:3, Insightful)