In 
The trigger for this article is the recent jury decision awarding $1 billion in fine to Apple against Samsung for design patent infringements. By the time you read it, some more cans of worms would have been opened for sure. Im no clairvoyant, but I can say almost certainly that the duel will go on much longer.
For one, granting of patents, their exercise by companies and what they imply for consumers are very complex issues. For another thing, they involve huge sums of money.
Even though patents have increasingly come to rule the roost in a hyper mechanised and computerised society, factors like growing awareness, lawsuits and the notions of justice associated with patenting (or not patenting) are splitting the society right down its ideological spine.
There are strong arguments for and against patents. Proponents say that if we did not have patents, people would lose the incentive to innovate because patents allow the holders to make lots of money. Without the goad of greenbacks, they aver, not many will venture forth to create something new or think differently (Will Apple sue me on this?).
The opponents have their reasons too. Patents line up the pockets of a few and harm the masses in general by making products more expensive, they say. Also, by hoarding/buying patents, monopolies are often createda situation that benefits only the monopolists.
The word patent is said to have been derived from the Latin litterae patentes, meaning open letters. In medieval times, monarchs issued such grant letters to their favoured merchants or inventors, who stood to gain immensely. For instance, in 1449, King Henry VI of England granted a Flemish man called John a patent under which he had a 20-year monopoly to make stained glass.
Such exclusive rights were perhaps all right in times of absolute rule. But patents acquired a whole new tint of equality and fair practice as the power of democracy and freedom of choice grew worldwide. So the granting of patents was democratised through the setting up of patent offices and modification of patent laws that purported to level the playing field.
Despite the bold changes, however, problems with patenting have persisted. At the onset of the industrial age, when dramatic new inventions were beginning to happen and small in number, it was rather easy to recognise genuine innovation from superficial alteration. But as the juggernaut of innovations rolled on into the twentieth century and beyond, keeping track of who can really be credited with which (really new) invention became as challenging as inventing something in the first place!
A big part of the problem comes from the willingness of individuals and companies to apply for patents even for the most trifling and, often, obvious of thingscompounded by the granting of such piddling patents. Just to give an idea of the situations enormity, the US Patent Office, the most powerful and prolific in the world, has a backlog of over 600,000 patents. Globally, according to World Intellectual Property Organisation, around 2 million patents are applied for each year!
No wonder companies are pulling each others hair over rounded corners and pinch to zoom! And the hurt is not going to stop anytime soon.
Add new comment