Do Patents Stop Companies From Creating 'Perfect' Products? 292
Chris M writes "In a recent CNET article, the mobile phone editor writes about what he thinks would make a perfect phone. Unfortunately, as someone in the comments section points out, much of the technology that is used in this concept phone belongs to separate companies. 'I'm sorry to be the Devil's Advocate here, but most of those feautres are patented to separate companies. It would require almost all the major manufacturers [working together] to do this, which is highly unlikely.' Do you think patents are stopping companies from creating 'perfect' devices, or are there other factors at work?"
Not Really (Score:5, Insightful)
I think in certain respects patents spur competition and make every phone better. Each company tries to come up with something that their competitor hasn't thought of to help differentiate their product. They would be less likely to invest the time and effort to develop innovations if they knew their competitor would just immediately copy it. The really perfect phone would not be possible to begin with without all these previous innovations. One could argue that patents made the author's ideal phone possible, but it is more a business issue whether it ever comes to market.
During WWII, the British and Germans both independently and secretly discovered chaff as a radar countermeasure. Neither side used it in the beginning because they were more afraid of the enemy copying them and gaining a bigger advantage than they themselves would receive.
(I do think software patents need to be drastically reformed or completely done away with altogether)
What would be cool (Score:3, Informative)
Then you could drag and drop the desired features onto the phone that is plugged into your computer via USB.
That would be the perfect phone.
You can improve a patent and then get a different patent for it. So it seems to me that someone saying that it's patents holding this back only show their ignorance of the patent system.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That would be the perfect phone.
Can you drag and drop different form factors, so that Bob can have a big, rich iPhone-like interface with a camera and touchscreen and whatnot, while Mary can have one of those really tiny flip phones that's not much bigger than your thumb and has physical buttons?
There's still a LOT of difference between what I consider a perfect phone and what you consider a perfect p
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I want something small enough to fit in my pocket that won't die on me when it's in my shirt pocket and lean over the pool or toilet (both have happened) and it falls in.
Other than that, I really don't care. Sure, the camera feature is neat and I do find myself spending time playing sudoko on my phone to kill time, but I don't text message, I've never seen the need to read email
Re:What would be cool (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I might want more RAM, or a faster CPU, or an advanced GPU
golly, gee. I'm thinking you would need to get a new goddamn phone.
The article is about certain features, Clearly certian things would upgrade. Of course if it is perfect at the time you get it, you wouldn't need to change any of that crap, would you. What everyone but you and one other poster know is they mean 'perfect at the moment of purchase.'
See, what you want is a fucking magic phone pixie.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That is absurd (Score:2)
Do you have any references to back up your claim?
He is technically correct... (Score:5, Informative)
You are NOT technically correct... sorry (Score:3, Interesting)
Why? It's non-commercial "R&D" use. I (personally) can use the disclosure to create a device for "R&D" as long as it's not used commercially (which might include giving it away as that could cause commercial harm to the patent rights owner or licensee).
This stands in most jurisdictions but the US non-commercial use allowed is very limited and R&D by businesses (which includes Universities in US patent la
Re:What would be cool (Score:5, Informative)
That's not how patents work. If you change one thing and patent the new "invention", it's a new patent, completely separate from the original one. You have to reference the original, but there are no fees to be paid.
True. But if you try to create any instances of your patent, then you will have to pay fees to the original patent-holder (or get sued.) See, patents are like class definitions, but to create an instance of that class, you have to pay. You may extend someone else's definition, and then they will need your permission to change it, but you still need to create an instance of the base class with yours.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no such thing as an "idea patent". There is such a thing as an "invention patent". You can't patent an idea. You can patent an implementation of an idea. Amazon's one-click patent doesn't patent the idea of one-click shopping. It patents the only practical implementation of one-click shopping, which isn't strictly
Re:Not Really (Score:5, Informative)
Currently, I own the Samsung i607 (blackjack) which earns about an 8/10 from me, which no other phone ever did. It's very thin, light, durable, and has an easy-to-care-for matte finish. It has a full QWERTY keyboard, and a very nice screen, fast processor, 3G, etc... If it had a 4-day battery life instead of 1.5-2 day, and a standard bluetooth stack that would let me sync and tether with ease from my Ubuntu laptop, it would match my dream phone... Not so hard, really...
Yes, not just phones (Score:5, Informative)
Company A patents technology X, but has no interest in making a product that has technology X plus feature Y. Company B would like to make a product with technology X and feature Y, but is stumped by the patent. Result: the world never gets an X+Y product.
This is not just theoretical. I work in a field knee deep in patents and I see this sort of nonsense all the time.
Yes. Tragedy of the Anticommons (Score:5, Informative)
This is a well known phenomenon, referred to as the Tragedy of the Anticommons [wikipedia.org]. Yochai Benkler describes how multiple patent holders delayed the development of radio [jus.uio.no] until the U.S. government intervened:
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
My Sony Ericsson P-800 came close to it but lacked a decent QWERTY keyboard and the camera was really bad. The 910 QWERTY keyboard was bad and I did not try hard enough to like the 990. My Nokia E62 has a decent keyboard, combined with a screen big-enough for doing SSH (saved my day a couple weeks ago when I could log-on and fix a problem on a server while my laptop batteries were dead), but no camera and no WiFi. It is also a little bit too large.
My perfe
Perfect phone without a keyboard?? (Score:2)
A "perfect phone" should take into account that text messaging and IMing are at least as important if not more so than actual audio calls.
Not Really - why develope when you can copy? (Score:2)
"They would be less likely to invest the time and effort to develop innovations when they could just copy them from their competitors."
Companies are lazy and risk adverse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not Really (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, using this kind of "e-cash" is extremely convenient -- you can use it on teh train, in teh shop, etc. etc. There are some kinds that have your name on it, there are some that are (nearly) anonymous. Pretty neat, really. But, we didn't have it until like yesterday. So, why did this boom come _now_?
It seems that most of the e-cash/e-money/e-payment patents taken out by a few small and innovative companies in the late 80s (which innovative companies AFAIK have traditionally requested egregious licensing fees) expired just around the time the e-cash boom started. So now we have the implementations built on those ideas popping up, as it is finally feasible, sans the patent fees.
Since the implementations and the features are now largely non-exlusive, companies have to compete hard on the service; and since there are no licensing fees and no risks now from using _that_ technology, people concentrate resources on the solution instead on risk avoidance and litigation.
Finally, I can't see how the patent holders have profited from the patent-- noone licensed them then, noone's paying fees now. So, the patents in this case seem to have stopped inovative product development that benefits the society for what -- a decade?
I bet enough research into the way patents are used will show it results only in preventing competition and raising the price of the service, countering the intent of the patent in the first place.
Well.. (Score:2)
however
2)A bad idea is still a bad idea.
the problem with co-operation (Score:2)
Create a Patent Stock Exchange (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's getting the bean counters together that is going to kill these projects, not the engineers.
Sometimes (Score:4, Insightful)
Other times, someone patents "the way it's done" and the result is, when you try and find another way to do it, you actually find a better way.
The problem is, you never know which one you're going to get when you're just starting. I definitely thing innovation can overcome most patents, but a lot of time that's a real pain in the ass, when all you want to build is a slightly better breadbox.
Re: (Score:2)
And so it goes. You want a hammer? licenses it or make it better. And the patent will expire.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Other times, someone patents "the way it's done" and the result is, when you try and find another way to do it, you actually find a better way.
Yes, like when ogg-vorbis was created as a free replacement for the patented mp3. The problem, however, is that those who have the patents for mp3 are still saying that ogg-vorbis is violating some (unspecified) of their patents, so almost no commercial entity has dared support this new and better format.
Originally I was only against patents on software and business methods. But after spending years learning more about patents and how they work in the so-called free market, I now think that it is time
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine a world where companies compete on service because all companies provide the same basic products. It would be amazing, exactly like the online bidding world, a thousand companies offering real-time streaming and basically the same product but they compete on quality of service and speed of delivery or some balance between to two. That sounds like a terrible place doesn't?
Course then you go and look at Apple copying the MP3 player which took lots and lots of R&D and then make tons in profit. Do
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If there is any one type of IP law that I would not want abolished, it is patents. Far from stifling innovation, they actually require it. Because the patent system requires that all patents are fully documented, and since the patents themselves expire relatively
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have a good point there.
My point is that when the government issues monopolies in the market (as patents are), the government is actually working against the free market.
Of course it isn't quite as simple as I state it here. There are some arguments for patents that look good on the surface.
One of these arguments often seen in the mainstream media is the idea of the lone inventor who gets a patent to protect his investment in the research and development he has done, so he will not be ripped off
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you could try to get a compulsory license to the "a hammer" patent if the patent holders of this patent wants an extortionate amount of money in license fees. But this could take a long time to get, and you would not even be sure to get it. So most businesses would abandon their R&D on "a hammer with a really cool grip" because of the uncertain future for the prod
The Perfect Phone in 20 years (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Perfect Phone in 20 years (Score:4, Insightful)
In 20 years, there will be a host of new technologies around, all encumbered with patents, that people will want to have in a 'perfect phone.' The stuff that's under patent now will be like pulse-dial rotary POTS equipment. If you're lucky it's still use-able, in the most basic sense, but it doesn't do much of what people want.
The problem is that innovation is now moving so much faster than it was when the patent term was set at two decades -- by the time something works its way out of patent protection now, it's generally pretty obsolete. And this will only get worse as the pace of innovation continues to quicken.
Re:The Perfect Phone in 20 years (Score:4, Interesting)
That's the way the patent system is supposed to work. The patent system is a tradeoff... we slow down progress slightly (by making people wait at most 20 years to build the perfect device), but hope that we speed it up more by giving people extra incentives to innovate.
Unfortunately, that's not the way the system actually works. When the patent office lets you patent things that were obvious 10 or 20 years ago (eg. patenting xor, or patenting the idea of VoIP/POTS integration when the idea was an integral part of the design of various VoIP standards released years ago), then the patent system doesn't just slow things down 20 years, it's actually 30 or 40 years instead. And when there aren't realistically sufficient checks to prevent obvious things being patented, it means that a bad patent examiner can slow things down for 50 or 60 years in a few cases where they really screw it up.
Also, in the modern world, clearly companies already have a huge incentive to innovate. Was the dot-com boom driven by the fact that companies could patent things, and monopolize the area for 20 years? Or was it instead driven mostly by VC's hoping to profit from first mover advantage [wikipedia.org]? In my mind, it was clearly the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a really good point here.
There is an economic incentive for patent offices to issue as many patents as possible. And there is an economic incentive for patent lawyers to have as many patents as possible issued and for the patent case law to be as complicated as possible.
And today the patent system is so complicated that very few people except those who work professionally with it (patent offices and patent lawyers) actually understand it. This means that patent offices can extrend patentable s
Perfect Devices are Bad for Business (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
pfft... (Score:3, Insightful)
No -- Yes.
I say that because the patent system, good, bad or otherwise, has been around long enough that if there was genuine smothering of genius going on, it would have been a major topic long since, and because everyone has a different interpretation of 'perfect' devices. (left handed versus right - textured vs. smoothed...)
For those that need a concept to wrap their heads around, read the book 'The Difference Engine'
Re: (Score:2)
And just because something is patented, doesn't mean you can't use it. All it means is that the holder of the patent is entitled to compensation if you use their patented idea/technology in your gizmo. The only way a patent can truly stifle development is if a patent-holder charges too much for the right to use the idea/technology outlined in the patent. Most aren't going to do that however, as the patent represents a source of cash.
Re: (Score:2)
You are truly naive.
There are any number of reasons to charge exorbitant
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aacarss
Re: (Score:2)
I think the Veyron is the perfect automobile. And with a price of USD$1.16 million (and Bugatti losing $2 million), I consider it affordable. How about you? Didn't think so.
The key word in this thread is 'perfect' - not affordable. The day I go shopping for a car and tell the sales person it must be affordable is the day I stop driving. Thanks for taking a run at the conversation and proving both my points, but you may want to try again if you wa
Re: (Score:2)
Worked so far... (Score:4, Interesting)
Communication is now essentially instantaneous. Bob in New York patents a better belt buckle in 1850, Jim in San Francisco designs something similar. It'll be a minumum of a few months before someone who's seen one happens to see the other and he almost certainly won't care about whether it is or isn't patented and Bob isn't going to go to the expense of sending his lawyer across country for several months to find out. Even if there is a clash, the markets are so separate, it's not worth pursuing getting both sides in a single courtroom.
The pace of invention has continued to dramatically increase. Modern machinery turned up with the industrial revolution. Electricity only became a common power source in the last century. Computers are 60 or so years old. Home computers are less than 30 years old and only common in the last 15. The internet has only really spread in the last 10. And, right now, 3D prototyping tools are becoming available for the first time. Combine those increases in the power of tools for realizing ideas with the increase in population and you're comparing a patent system designed for one level of patenting with one that's being asked to handle exponentially more.
What can be patented has changed. The criteria of "That a reasonable person couldn't come up with on their own" sure as hell doesn't apply to One Click shopping (Wow, really, people would prefer less hassle? Rocket science!) nor does it apply to, Creative's "I have a large collection of music, I'd like to divide it up somehow, perhaps some kind of a folder analogy." which Apple got sued over for daring to copy from the desktop where it was common to MP3 players where somehow Creative were the only people who could ever think of it. Add in being able to patent everything from genes to ways of doing business and you've got a system that is in no way representative of the past.
In the scheme of things, 25 years isn't that long to wait. In a world where computing of 10 years ago is utterly different to the computing of today, a 25 year patent means "a means for using a casette player to store data" would just be coming out of patent protection. So, yes, in terms of digital technology and gene research where 25 years is the entire lifetime of the field, it absolutely stifles things and makes a great case for those mediums to have a 10, or ideally 5 year patent term limit - enough to benefit from your invention, not enough to stifle the whole industry for as long as it's been around again.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
For email, you'd be wanting a portable computer with some form of wireless connectivity %-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's really only battery life and charging capabilities which let mobile tech down now..
Re: (Score:2)
Just because it's not possible now doesn't mean it's impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
The flip out keyboard on the Nokia E70 works pretty well for me. So does the built in wifi and sip client -- When I'm at home the phone is a handset on my asterisk phone system. Calls made out go out over the landline (T-Mobile reception at my house sucks.) When I'm not at home calls go out over cellular. That has the added benefit that my phone system "knows" when I'm not home since there are no extensions to ring when I'm not there. I'm not su
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Qwerty is all you need? You make it too easy. My perfect phone would:
Re: (Score:2)
Flip phones are so TOS. How about a pin we can wear on our shirts?
yay stupid questions (Score:2)
No, of course, it's only patents! If only it weren't for those pesky patents, we would achieve perfection and transcend the physical plane.
Obviously patents prevent people from making spiffy devices. you have to license the patents, and it's not hard to imagine patent licensing agreements that prohibit the inclusion of other (competing) technologies. It would actually go a long way towards expl
Why no OGG support? (Score:2)
So we have a pretty unpopular format with a niche following.
Now we have the decision between a 64K chip and a 128K chip in a given device. Or some similar trade-off on ROM space and maybe RAM space. Is it worth the expense of mo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's plenty of devices with unused space in ROM. And do you know how visionaries become recognized as such? They spot opportunities before others do - perhaps even before the market is aw
It's a hole that's hard to dig out of. (Score:5, Interesting)
Does anyone remember MacWorld/MacUser's take? (Score:2)
Does anyone else recall this? I'd like to read the article again -- I bet it would be pretty interesting.
- AJ
It may hinder the development... (Score:2)
It does allow the little guy to get credit where it is due though and it requires true innovation in the field and not plagiarism of an idea. I do agree that it is relatively ridiculous that 20 year patents are allowed in technological fields where the idea itself will be obsolete in 5, but a lot of the Slashdot community tends to overlook the good
How about this for the 'Perfect' phone: (Score:2)
That said, I haven't seen anything like that for sale in years. You know, a simple, cellular phone?
Our patent system, as broken as it is, doesn't incumber products nearly as much as incompetent companies and mindless consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, that elimenates all the little guys from competing because they can't afford to license the technology.
On the other hand, companies prefer to purposefully 'differentiate' their products so the customer is presented with a choice - which the company is banking on. You will probably never see the 'perfect' phone, as a result. It is the nature of the beast.
Process of implementation of the idea... (Score:2)
The main issue I have with the patent system is that it is not functioning to protect the process of implementation. One cannot patent the idea of a "water tight connector" for example, but one could patent the process / design for creating one. This would then protect the patent holder for a *period of time.* Once that period of time is over, its wide open for cheap knock offs.
Based on both concepts above (the idea can't be patented; the process will eventually be available) I don't thi
Moot (Score:2)
A perfect anything is idealistic at best.
Dual Batteries? (Score:2)
LS
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Nope -- it's the Gillette to the nth degree (Score:2)
Add the ability to use this theoretical phone on ANY network, forcing Verizon, ATT, Sprint/Nextel, etc. into a world where if I get screwed by a ven
A bit OT (Score:2)
Why is it that you don't see generic knockoffs of expensive razor blades? Is it that the razor blade companies change the form factors fast enough that patents protect the properly-fitting blades until they're irrelevant? Is it that razor blades actually are expensive enough to produce that generics can't make money? Is there something else I'm missing?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. A patent can be extended for some 17 years, and a couple of patents on the system which clicks the blades to the holder will ensure that competitors can't legally make compatible blades.
Re: (Score:2)
But the idea of the phone being tied to th
You don't get great designs by mixing... (Score:2)
If only you could combine a Big Mac and a Hershey bar...
If only you could combine Fred Astaire and Rudolf Nuruyev...
If only Gary Trudeau could draw like Albert Dürer...
Perfection vs. Time to Market (Score:2)
Software is often the same thing. You sell a distributor on a product and they want it for Christmas. Come October, you are
Fixed-percent Patent "Tax" - shift burden (Score:2)
Perfect phone was done decades ago. (Score:2, Insightful)
ummmm what happened to LICENSING it? (Score:2)
yes, but patent licensing would allow it (Score:2)
perfection isn't the point (Score:2)
Of course there are. Companies are (if they are any good) motived to make the most money with the least effort. The 80-20 Rule [wikipedia.org] speaks directly to this motivation. The "perfect" product is almost in direct opposition to it.
Mandatory licensing (Score:2)
Mandatory licensing, although it sounds fascist, could be a good idea. If you own a technology that others can use, you could be forced to license it at a fair market rate so as not to restrict innovation. Innovation benefits everyone i
Sorry to claim the obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
Drug industry does it all the time (Score:3, Insightful)
Why the hell would drug companies want to find a cure for AIDS? There's no money for a cure. The real money's in the treatment!
It's an old problem. (Score:4, Informative)
There's plenty of historical evidence that things like patents and copyrights are primarily a barrier to progress, unless the government steps in a second time and decrees some sort of mandatory licensing. (But this doesn't have much effect on the doctrinaire arguments that we read here so often.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There isn't much the Patent office can do about a petty son of a bitch.
Re:Incorrect (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Incorrect (Score:4, Informative)
Welcome to the Internet, folks. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm so bleeding smart that I don't know the basics about what I've just claimed to be so smart about.
Check out Amazon's "One Click" patent. Go ahead.
Re:Incorrect (Score:5, Informative)
Try building a phone that works with the CDMA cellular network, and doesn't violate Qualcomm's patent. It's not going to happen. They've patented too much stuff that's too fundamental to making an interoperable device.
If you piss them off, or if they decide for some reason not to license their patent(s) to you (e.g., you want to make a multi-network phone and their other customers -- the telcos -- don't like the idea), you're S.O.L. as far as most of the U.S. cellphone market is concerned.
Video compression is the same way. Try to build an MPEG-4 encoder that doesn't violate the MPEGLA's patents; it's not going to happen. Sure, you could build some completely unrelated video encoder, but that's of extremely limited utility in a world where standards matter.
The obvious conclusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Incorrect (Score:4, Informative)
You mentioned FUD. A big problem is patent FUD. What matters is what people think. Chilling effects. Many people think patents might be violated even when not. Or they feel they're not in violation but don't want to get in long expensive court battles even if victory is certain. Or they know they will be in violation of patents that should never have been granted, and calculate that trying to get them invalidated isn't worth the expense or that going ahead and hoping they aren't sued is too risky. These problems are made worse by the government's attitude of "when in doubt, grant the patents and let the courts sort 'em out." The patent office rakes in more fees, the lawyers get richer, the justice system hires more people to handle the load, and the rest of us foot the bill for this very expensive system.
As for examples, how about Apple's "Look and Feel" patents on the MacIntosh GUI? Microsoft was not allowed to use a trashcan icon. When they opted for a "recycle bin" they were nonetheless challenged again by Apple, weren't they? How about the hundreds of patents on the hundreds of tiny variations on arithmetic coding? While LZW and the GIF image format weren't too hard to work around, arithmetic coding was another matter. Only takes one of those hundreds of patent holders deciding to sue to make arithmetic coding not worth the trouble, not when Huffman is almost as good. The result is, no one will touch arithmetic coding even though the basic algorithm is free of patent protection. Instead, everyone uses Huffman coding. The primary difference between the long vanished "bzip" and "bzip2" is in bzip2, bzip's arithmetic coding was replaced with Huffman. People would not even use bzip because of that.
Note that we're talking about the users who by rights should have nothing to fear from whatever alleged patent violations authors may have committed. Instead, the possibility that a court might pull the plug, as nearly happened to the Blackberry, is enough to scare off users. Then there's the stunt SCO pulled, trying to shake down Linux users for $699 each in licensing fees, lest they convince a court that they aren't blowing a bunch of smoke and do manage to get an insanely draconian and unenforceable injunction ordering everyone to stop using Linux. That anyone actually paid SCO is sad. That patent trolls might have such leverage is ridiculous. Dell customers don't have to worry should Dell be found in violation of some patent. Dell's PCs won't suddenly stop working. But somehow Linux users do have to worry, with MS claiming Linux is in violation? WTF?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
New Inventions, not new concepts An invention is a specific implementation of a concept. If you can't specify how it's built, it's just a concept. (Or rather, that's the way it's supposed to work. Software patents are a slightly different kettle of fish, but the same rules should apply)
The protection garnered by a patent grant is one of an exclusive monopoly. You can prevent anyone else (within the patent office's jur
Re:Incorrect (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds more to me like a bunch of individual monopolies each trying to force their competitors either out of business or to their knees, resulting in a slew of competing products that do nothing but frustrate consumers due to their lack of interoperability.
How many picture card formats do we have now? 15 major ones? Is that REALLY necessary? There's something to be said for innovation and competition, sure, but there's a reason we invent standards.
Mod Parrent Up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This wouldn't be that silly sheet of metal which was sold as some space-age metal which would thaw your meat quicker, would it? I believe *that* was identified as being basically fraudulent claims since it relies on nothing more than a well known property of metals to conduct heat, and used nothing more than a piece of common aluminum..
I seriously doubt there's a faster way to thaw your meat (without partially cooking it, or altering it) than t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
bzzzzt
Microwaves will absolutely start cooking your food. If you wanted to end up with thawed, raw meat, which wasn't altered any more than the freezing process had already done, a microwave would NOT meet that criterion.
Cheers
Re: (Score:3, Informative)