Patents, Innovation and the current Apple vs Samsung battle


The ongoing IP infringement battle between Apple and Samsung in the multiple courts across the world has generated a lot of discussion on Patents and their relevance to innovation. The most prevalent view being that Apple is using patent laws to curb competition and there by innovation. For E.g. see the ZDNET article: Apple’s worldwide war on Samsung and Android. The article states that it is a delusion to see any connection between ‘real’ Intellectual Property (IP) and Patent wars. The patent wars are seen as attempts to exhort cash from people who create real products. The result, the article concludes, is that innovation in any technology will come to an end.

There is an apparent irony here that the patent laws were intended to help innovation by protecting those who innovated against those who just copy. It comes from not differentiating innovation from consumer choice. Consumer choice is also created by companies who create look alikes at a lower cost. Consumer choice is definitely necessary, but there are times when it seems to be in conflict with innovation. If the market encourages copying, it helps develop choice. But according to the ‘IP philosophy’, this will discourage innovation as there is less protection for your ideas.

Is IP protection necessary to encourage innovation? In a system where IP is not protected, who will invest in innovation? Will companies continue to innovate? Will innovation come from non-profit organization? Will innovation die? These are not easy questions to answer. But today we seem to overdo the ‘property’ thing by tagging anything and everything as a property and assigning an owner to it – From very tangible land and water to very intangible ideas, thoughts, stories, phrases, designs, patterns, methods. It will be a good idea to ‘free up’ some of these and return them into the common pool.

Another more relevant and practical question is that are the patent laws today protecting ‘real’ IPs and investment in IPs? Experts agree that the patent laws and the process of awarding patents need a serious re-look. Today we see the patent system driving companies into buying patents instead of investing in innovation.

In the case of conflict, should the system protect competition at the cost of innovation or the other way around? The Zdnet authors that we mentioned above are upset about killing competition in the name of innovation. The real irony is that though they seem to think that they are on the side of innovation, what are really rooting for is competition at the cost of innovation.

Comments

  1. UnknownDecember 2, 2011 at 1:57 AM

    If the PDA makers had patented touch screen devices, we would never have an iPhone. iPhone is an innovative touch screen device.

    If Google had patented voice actions on Android, we wouldn't have Siri. Siri is a more innovative form of voice actions. But, I think Apple bought Siri so that they could make it exclusive for iOS. Siri was planning on making apps for Android and WP7.

    If Google had patented the Notification Bar on Android, then iOS users would be stuck with crappy notifications till Apple found some other way of implementing it.

    Basically, one can innovate only on existing tech. Patents, I feel, does stifle innovation. But, your point about the competition blatantly copying the exact functionality of your device and releasing it in the market for a lesser price is an issue. And that is why we have courts!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mohanakrishnan GopalakrishnanDecember 2, 2011 at 2:21 AM

    I guess you are agreeing with me here. Let me know if I got it wrong :-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. UnknownDecember 2, 2011 at 2:45 AM

    I think Apple's patent claims are wrong. Samsung is not blatantly copying Apple's iOS. You wouldn't get the same experience on an the Samsung Tablet as on an Apple iPad. Some people prefer the iOS while other prefer Android. I still don't think one is better than the other. And as far as form factor goes - http://gdeluxe.com/tablets-before-ipad-part-ii/

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mohanakrishnan GopalakrishnanDecember 2, 2011 at 4:24 AM

    Well, I was not going to the specific rights are wrongs of the Apple Vs Samsung battle here. If Apple is within its rights or not with respect to the current law will be clear once the courts give their verdict. My questions here was more generic. Should the patent law allow companies like Apple patent stuff like multitouch and protect it. If they should not, then how do you prevent blatant copying? Or are we saying that blatant copying is okay?
    Let me know your views on that...

    ReplyDelete
  5. UnknownDecember 2, 2011 at 5:36 AM

    That would go back to my first comment. I am fully behind the idea of not allowing blatant copying where one company makes the exact same product of another company - same look and feel - and then sells it for less money. eg - duplicate chinese products! I saw a phone that looked like an exact copy of the iPhone. It was running the Android OS. But, the look and feel were completely iOS. You wouldn't have been able to tell them apart if you didn't know the difference between Android and iOS.

    But, I am against what companies like Apple/Microsoft patenting every small detail in their products (maybe they did it to have an upper hand over the type of products discussed in the first para) and using those products to stop sales of competitive products so that they can have a monopoly in the market. Taking the Apple - Samsung dispute as an example, I for one do not believe anyone has any doubt that they are buying a Samsung device to get the iPhone like experience. Apple has realized that these products could harm the market share of iPads and decided to stop them. Microsoft on the other hand has decided to make more money out of the devices using their patents. This use of patents, I do not approve of.

    So, basically, I am agreeing with your point, I think :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. UnknownDecember 2, 2011 at 5:42 AM

    By the way, in my previous comment, I did not mean only Apple and Microsoft uses patents in the wrong way. They were cited as examples. Basically, powerful companies with huge patent portfolios.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mohanakrishnan GopalakrishnanDecember 2, 2011 at 7:18 AM

    Once you agree that the ideas, interfaces can be patented, companies will patent it and will use the patents to their gains. The question here here bigger and more to do with the philosophy. That is what I was trying to bring out in my note. Should ideas be patented? Just because an idea occurred to you first does it follow that you own it?
    At the same time you have the practical issue of protecting someone's investment in developing a product. It appears to me that we have not found the right balance on this.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Evolution in Indian politics

I was following the IPL-Tharoor saga not just as another scandal, but rather as a definition of what is the Darwinian fitness in Indian Politics. When Tharoor became prominent in politics, to me it was a welcome mutation – not a perfect new species, mind you – but a mutation that was a definite improvement on the existing species. And there was reason to believe that the environment of selection too has changed with increasing education of the masses and increasing influence of the electronic media. From that perspective it was quite interesting to watch if this new gene survived. It is probably too early to write the obituary of this political gene, but I think it looks unlikely that it will survive. In Indian politics it appears that the fittest one is the same old fashioned, wily gene. For those who are wondering why I am wasting my breath in supporting someone who apparently misused his position of power, I am not here to justify what he did or what he is supposed to have do
Read more

Evolution in politics – Part II

In 2010, when the Shashi Tharoor – IPL controversy was at its peak, I wrote a small note wondering about the future of politicians like Shashi Tharoor – well qualified, polished, with international exposure – in the Indian political environment. Here is a link to that note. I worried then that the environment is too hostile for this new life form – let’s call it the T-gene - to survive. Half a decade has passed and there is good news as well as bad news. The good news is that he has survived the test of time so far. If anything, he is stronger today than he was then. The bad news is that I still don’t see many more like him coming into politics. So the T-gene survives but does not seem to prosper. It is not difficult to see why. The environment of selection remains as hostile as what it used to be. If the T-gene has survived, it has survived on its own tenacity and not by benevolence of selection. Media still prefers Lalit Modi or Lalu Yadav brand of politics. Let us consider a
Read more

Google acquiring Motorola Mobility

Why is Google buying Motorola Mobility? Interesting question! A more relevant question – what will Google do with Motorola once they buy it? Given below are some of Google’s options. The assumption is that Google is most interested in Motorola’s patents and least interested in their Cable business. This assumption eliminated some of the combinations from the options. Option 1: Keep the patents, keep the operations – phone as well as cable. This option offers multiple advantages for Google: it will help Google get the protection of the patents, Google can attempt to achieve the same advantage that Apple has achieved through tight integration of the phone hardware and software. This option might help Google in their TV battle through Motorola’s existing installed base and partnerships. But there are many questions here. Is Google interested in the tightly integrated model? In fact, Google’s press statement says that it will keep the Moto phone division at an arm’s length f
Read more