Patently Absurd (continued)

John Markoff tells the story of Geoff Goodfellow (aptly named) who invented the idea of wireless email in 1982 but never patented it because, like many innovative thinkers, he disdains the idea of patents.

Ten years later a Chicago inventor named Thomas J. Campana Jr. did patent the idea of wireless email and his company NTP scored $612mm when they finally prevailed in a patent litigation with Blackberry.

Geoff Goodfellow tried to build a wireless email business and failed.

NTP partnered with AT&T to build a wireless email gateway and I have no idea what came of that.

Blackberry got it right and has a huge business to show for its work.

In my opinion execution is what matters, not who came up with the idea in the first place, as long as there wasn't outright theft of the idea involved.  And it's pretty clear that by the time Blackberry came along the idea of wireless email was out there.

I think the idea of wireless email is obvious and was from the day that wireless devices like pagers showed up.  Geoff Goodfellow says as much in this quote from the Markoff piece:

"You don't patent the obvious," he said during a recent interview. "The way you compete is to build something that is faster, better, cheaper. You don't lock your ideas up in a patent and rest on your laurels."

Exactly.

Comments

[steve]

Fred, "obviousness" is, well, in the eye of the beholder, no? Geoff Goodfellow is indeed a good fellow -- you couldn't make up a better name, given his views! -- but most of the human race would deeply regret not filing patents if they were in his shoes. RIM may be a great company that executes well, but RIM did not invent wireless email -- not that there's anything wrong with that. But if someone else can make a bona fide claim to have patented that, and the legal system upholds that claim, RIM is guilty of infringement and should -- must -- pay. Otherwise, little companies will have zero recourse against big companies, who will be emboldened to simply steal at will.

As always, I am mystefied as to why you are only selectively against property law. You own a home, I believe. But your ownership of that home can only be proved by a slim, meager process -- a registry of deeds. Take away that fragile piece of paper -- the deed -- and the legal framework surrounding it -- the registry -- and anyone could come along and say you do not own your home, and without the protection of law, and with big enough financial or paramilitary strength, literally remove you. This happens all over the world, every day, in places where property rights are not as egalitarian and operated under law as here. Is there some scenario where, in exchange for the elimination of patent and copyright law you would be willing to forego your real estate property rights?

[anonymous]

maybe the solution is making the patents more specific... such as using the language consisting of instead of comprising (there is an enormous difference)... if you look at a patent it will always say, the invention can, not the invention will... thats leaving things tremendously open ended.

[charlie crystle]

My brain hurts.

[Mano]

Seems like they waste much time and resources on absolutely useless stuff !
mano

April 11, 2006 from Scientific American

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10:21:11 pm, Categories: Public Policy , 303 words

Eugene Ionesco at the Patent Office
Recent litigation affecting Research in Motion, maker of the BlackBerry, and a case against eBay that is before the Supreme Court have focused attention on the Patent and Trademark Office, which is struggling to cope with a 225 percent increase in applications since 1985.

The office grants patents for inventions that are new, useful and unobvious (inventive). It does not get too picky, however. Last year, the august examiners issued patent 6,928,960, which describes equipment for a non-lethal form of cockfighting. The chicken outfit consists of foam rubber boxing gloves (instead of knives) that are attached to a bird's spurs. An electrically conductive wrapping that fits around the animal's body transmits a signal to a scoreboard whenever the avian pugilist is whacked hard enough by its opponent. During the match, all beaks are taped shut.

Arguably, if patent examiners hadn't spent so much time on chicken boxing gloves, they might have devoted more effort to considering the implications of issuing a patent that gives an Australian company broad rights to the entire non-coding portion of DNA. So-called "junk DNA" is now deemed essential both in basic research and in the development of certain drugs. The patent holder, Genetic Technologies, has extracted royalties from Applera and other major biotech players. A patent that covers methods of obtaining information from all non-coding DNA places a huge swath of the genetic frontier behind a high, chain-link fence, acting, in effect, as a brake on innovation.

For cockfighting aficianados who also happen to be animal rights activists--and for those who just want to be amused by other absurd inventions that have been vetted for novelty, utility and lack of obviousness--go to: www.patentlysilly.com. Check out the "orienting and sorting device for corn dogs" and the "water skipping article incorporating an elliptical outline and a hollowed interior core."

[james governor]

whitfield diffie of Sun, who invented PGP encryption has the same disdain for patents.

maybe we need to create a list of patentless heros of innovation...