Do Patents Encourage or Stifle Innovation?
I just posted a longish post on the Union Square Ventures weblog summarizing the patents discussion at our recent Union Square Sessions event. If you are interested in the subject of patents and how they impact innovation, go give it a read.
Doesn't the patent office bear some of the blame for our current patent mess? Or, rather, the funding it receives from Congress appears woefully inadquate.
Posted by: Dave | July 10, 2006 at 02:27 PM
in my opinion there is no value to patenting software, and at this stage i think it is pretty clear to everybody that it is not helping innovation.
and in any case when a patent dispute comes to the court in case the suing entity does not use the patent in a meaningful way the potential royalties/damages should be very limited, and of course there should not be an option to issue an injunction.
Posted by: Avner Ronen | July 10, 2006 at 03:16 PM
The value of patents would not be in question if the we did not award frivolous patents. Because "any logical thing" can be patented here, the credibility & usefulness of the entire system is being eroded. Sad.
You are asking the wrong question - the right questions are: a) does the US award frivolous patents? and b) What should we do about it?
Have you read the (now awarded) Friendster patent?
Posted by: David G | July 10, 2006 at 10:20 PM
Forgetting biotech patenets
It would be interesting in comparisng the size of those companies acting as Plaintiffs to those not and the timimg of such suits (during S1"s, acquisitions). I can guess the results .
Any software patent issues on web services or social networking is not a patent as conversation and commerce were invented at the beginning of time nd the internet is just a new way to converse. After you get past the first few patents on those that created the internet, pretty much everything is way too far a reach to say it was invented.
Posted by: howard lindzon | July 11, 2006 at 08:21 AM
Perhaps an even better question would be:
Do *Parents* Encourage or Stifle Innovation?
think myspace FUD, babies with chips etc
Posted by: james governor | July 11, 2006 at 11:40 AM
The problem with these software patents is that some of them are just plain silly. Today, Vonage got sued by a company who holds a patent for a "software that gives users a visual notification of new voicemails that can be retrieved by clicking a link."
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=98808&f_src=lightreading_default
Vonage is being sued for $180 million dollars! It can't get any sillier. This patent is hardly the result of extensive research or a stroke of genius. I would claim that patents like these stifle innovation.
Posted by: Thomas B. Pedersen | July 11, 2006 at 01:15 PM
This is an interesting topic. I don't think innovation is stifled by our current patent system, but business is being stifled.
I began to write a response here in the comments, but ended up with a full article, which I've posted at: uf911.blogspot.com
Posted by: Jason Warren | July 12, 2006 at 02:07 AM
to paraphrase churchill, the patent system is the worst possible system... except for all the alternatives.
forget all the details for a minute, and we're just talking about property rights again. while abuses occur and the current system certainly could use some thoughtful reform, patents allow the little guy or company to compete against the behemoth. otherwise, size would be all that mattered in the marketplace and innovators would simply be suffocated or squashed by big companies which would only to lie in wait for good ideas to steal or destroy. thats why the founding fathers and mothers of the USA felt strongly about patents and its still true today, maybe more so, as big companies are so awesomely big and powerful now
Posted by: steve | July 13, 2006 at 05:49 AM