Kheng Guan Toh - Fotolia

Patents = innovation? Maybe not

Just because a company files lots of patents does not necessarily mean that innovation is alive and well argues Billy MacInnes

This article can also be found in the Premium Editorial Download: MicroScope: MicroScope: February 2017:

Apparently, we are all supposed to be pleased by the news that IBM has been issued more than 8,000 patents in the US, breaking the record for most patents in a year. It’s also a cause for some celebration that there was a record total number of patents issued in 2016 (304,126).

IBM led the field in patents in the US for the 24th year in a row but, between them, the top ten companies, all technology companies (including the likes of Samsung, Google, Intel and Microsoft), accounted for more than 35,000 patents (11% of all patents issued). Apple was in 11th place with 2,102 patents.

Which demonstrates all too clearly that innovation is alive and well in the IT industry. Or does it?

If you look at it another way, it all depends what those patents have been issued for. Are they for real innovations or are they merely a means of forcing people to pay a tax for incorporating technology that they all would have thought of anyway into their products? Not forgetting their importance as a mean of making lawyers rich when the inevitable court cases arise.

In other words, might we be better advised to be more circumspect about celebrating the sheer number of patents issued as an indicator of innovation? Given the number of law suits that patents can generate and the fear of being sued for potential breach of some very wide-ranging and vaguely defined patents that can act as a drag on innovation, should it be more a case of “patents shmatents”?

Might the industry be better served by a reduction in the number of total patents being issued if it meant they were actually granted for recognisable technology innovations rather than as defensive measures intended to protect companies against their rivals or constrain competing organisations in their own product development?

What if, out of the hundreds of thousands of patents issued every year, only a few hundred turned out to be of any real use? What would that say about the effectiveness of the patent regime?

Right now, nobody seems to care. But, in many instances, the most wide-ranging innovation from the ever rising number of patents being issued is in providing more ways for the lawyers to make money. And that’s one thing you can’t patent against.

This was last published in January 2017

MicroScope+

Content

Find more MicroScope+ content and other member only offers, here.

Read more on Finance and Credit

Join the conversation

2 comments

Send me notifications when other members comment.

By submitting you agree to receive email from TechTarget and its partners. If you reside outside of the United States, you consent to having your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States. Privacy

Please create a username to comment.

It's a discussion that started some years ago. But always, remember this kind of topics is good to refresh some concepts and be clear for the innovation process.
Cancel
When you consider only about 5% of issued patents actually make it to market it does appear the only people making money are the lawyers. I have always said "Patentable does not equal marketable". You can patent edible sneakers, but who is going to buy them?
Inventors are the worst for spending money on patents that just will not see a store shelf. The industry feeds off of their desire to hit it big and their fear of having a million dollar idea stolen. In my opinion a majority of the companies that promote getting your product to market make most of their money selling the Inventor services more than actually getting the products to market.
Cancel

-ADS BY GOOGLE

ComputerWeekly.com

SearchITChannel

Close