Patents are popular.
Recently, the global IT press literally overwhelmed patent "news." Almost every day we read about company A., who patented something-there, and about company B., who sued company B. I don’t know the reasons for which, in general, a highly specialized and rather tedious topic became interesting to a wider a circle of readers, but I see how wrong the ideas of so many people are, judging by the discussions that are unfolding around the patent news. In this article, I would like to talk about some common misconceptions, and to tell in a popular language, without slipping into legal jungles on the one hand, and on the other, into yellowness like “Apple is a patent troll”.
The most common misconception - considering the patent as an offensive weapon. Vasya patented the wheel? So Vasya will start day and night to look for all the other wheel manufacturers and insert sticks into their products. This is not true. With the exception of individual law firms (real patent trolls!), IT companies never file patents for offensive / hitting others, it simply does not fit into the business process. There are only three main reasons for writing patents: parity, pressure and attractiveness for investors.
I intentionally use this word instead of “protection”, because contrary to popular belief, a patent does not protect the invention itself. People very often express concerns about the patenting of anything and everything, but they forget about some self-regulation of the system: it is becoming more and more difficult to invent something new. The patent office requires all the best and greatest clarifications and narrowing the scope of the invention. If in 1900m (roughly speaking) it was enough to patent the wheel, today, when the number of patents in the US Patent Office exceeded 7 million, you will be required to indicate the exact shape, size and materials of the wheel, and what roads it is designed for. Having patented a brown wheel made of round steel with six spokes, you will close your eyes to a competitor who will release ... a gray wheel. Or wooden. Or with 8 knitting needles.
For this reason, it is extremely difficult to protect an invention from copying with characteristics other than claims, and the role of a patent is reduced to parity with other inventors-corporations. Nokia has invented a private wheel, Apple has invented a private wheel, and modern gadgets contain so many similar “wheels” that it’s impossible to decide who owns what. As a result, no one has an advantage.
')
Why, then, epply suing the Samsung and vice versa? Answer: pressure on a partner or competitor. As a result, most patent lawsuits end with an out-of-court agreement of the parties. I do not in any way assert that no one ever submits a patent lawsuit for the sake of the claim itself. But the most "loud" claims usually have a double or even triple meaning. Apple is trying to click on Samsung to reduce the cost of components. Microsoft is putting pressure on HTC so that it will not forget its “home”, being too carried away by Android. Nokia is putting pressure on everyone in a row in order here and specifically now to show its investors the approximate value of IP assets. The major players, having each, like the nuclear powers, parity - a gigantic patent portfolio, are not at all going to arrange for each other a “nuclear winter” and mutually destroy each other. Very often they are trying to solve some important questions, implicit to journalists and the public.
It so happened that investors like those startups whose intellectual property is protected by patents. In a private conversation, investors nod their heads, agree that patents are nonsense, but ... patent pending will certainly require. Such rules of the game. By the same point, I will take the encouragement of almost all large companies of my employees in writing patent applications. Think why Microsoft has 100,500 patents? It's very simple: an employee of a company who has written a patent application, has undergone a preliminary internal examination (on any, even the most stupid and unnecessary topic to anyone) gets a tangible bonus. The employee receives an even steeper bonus if the application subsequently becomes a real patent. After looking through the patents in the USPTO database, sometimes you wonder what foolish, vague, trivial, or too complicated things were written applications. The answer is simple: for every supposedly unnecessary patent flashes a contented person who has received some very necessary bonus employee tysch. And if the employee is satisfied, then the corporation is also pleased, besides showing the investors a bold IP portfolio.
The most common misconception - considering the patent as an offensive weapon. Vasya patented the wheel? So Vasya will start day and night to look for all the other wheel manufacturers and insert sticks into their products. This is not true. With the exception of individual law firms (real patent trolls!), IT companies never file patents for offensive / hitting others, it simply does not fit into the business process. There are only three main reasons for writing patents: parity, pressure and attractiveness for investors.
Parity
I intentionally use this word instead of “protection”, because contrary to popular belief, a patent does not protect the invention itself. People very often express concerns about the patenting of anything and everything, but they forget about some self-regulation of the system: it is becoming more and more difficult to invent something new. The patent office requires all the best and greatest clarifications and narrowing the scope of the invention. If in 1900m (roughly speaking) it was enough to patent the wheel, today, when the number of patents in the US Patent Office exceeded 7 million, you will be required to indicate the exact shape, size and materials of the wheel, and what roads it is designed for. Having patented a brown wheel made of round steel with six spokes, you will close your eyes to a competitor who will release ... a gray wheel. Or wooden. Or with 8 knitting needles.
The patent, to put it simply, consists of a general description in a "normal" language and claims (applications) in a legal language. Evaluation of a patent by title and brief description is a huge mistake! In the description, journalists will see the “wheel”, “one-click purchase”, “multi-touch”, etc., and we will read another fried article about how Apple patents the power cord, after which everyone else must supposedly use their own cords hang yourself. In fact, the general description has no legal effect. It is the claims that are patent protected: clear, unambiguous, verified and approved proposals by the patent bureau. Here is how claims will look in a patent application for a wheel:And so on. Claims always go from the general to the particular.
- Subject round shape.
- Listed in paragraph 1, designed to move and move.
- Listed in paragraph 2, of wood.
- Listed in paragraph 2, of steel.
- Listed in paragraph 3 and 4, brown.
- Listed in paragraph 5, with six spokes.
An expert in the patent office will immediately strike out the first claim: there are many round objects, there is no new invention in it. By the same principle, the next few points will be crossed out, since there are many devices for moving, including wooden ones. The patent verification process is accompanied by enhanced correspondence between the inventor and the expert: the inventor wants the broadest possible framework (ideally, a patent for any round-shaped object), and the expert is as narrow as possible (ideally, not to find innovation at all). As a result, the expert agrees that only in the 6th paragraph is the desired invention. No one has yet made objects of circular shape for movement, made of steel, brown, with six spokes. The invention is there, cheers! The patent application, having turned into a patent, has shrunk to one point and, as you see, is very different from the general description that invents just the “wheel”.
For this reason, it is extremely difficult to protect an invention from copying with characteristics other than claims, and the role of a patent is reduced to parity with other inventors-corporations. Nokia has invented a private wheel, Apple has invented a private wheel, and modern gadgets contain so many similar “wheels” that it’s impossible to decide who owns what. As a result, no one has an advantage.
')
Pressure
Why, then, epply suing the Samsung and vice versa? Answer: pressure on a partner or competitor. As a result, most patent lawsuits end with an out-of-court agreement of the parties. I do not in any way assert that no one ever submits a patent lawsuit for the sake of the claim itself. But the most "loud" claims usually have a double or even triple meaning. Apple is trying to click on Samsung to reduce the cost of components. Microsoft is putting pressure on HTC so that it will not forget its “home”, being too carried away by Android. Nokia is putting pressure on everyone in a row in order here and specifically now to show its investors the approximate value of IP assets. The major players, having each, like the nuclear powers, parity - a gigantic patent portfolio, are not at all going to arrange for each other a “nuclear winter” and mutually destroy each other. Very often they are trying to solve some important questions, implicit to journalists and the public.
Attractiveness for investors
It so happened that investors like those startups whose intellectual property is protected by patents. In a private conversation, investors nod their heads, agree that patents are nonsense, but ... patent pending will certainly require. Such rules of the game. By the same point, I will take the encouragement of almost all large companies of my employees in writing patent applications. Think why Microsoft has 100,500 patents? It's very simple: an employee of a company who has written a patent application, has undergone a preliminary internal examination (on any, even the most stupid and unnecessary topic to anyone) gets a tangible bonus. The employee receives an even steeper bonus if the application subsequently becomes a real patent. After looking through the patents in the USPTO database, sometimes you wonder what foolish, vague, trivial, or too complicated things were written applications. The answer is simple: for every supposedly unnecessary patent flashes a contented person who has received some very necessary bonus employee tysch. And if the employee is satisfied, then the corporation is also pleased, besides showing the investors a bold IP portfolio.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/124429/
All Articles