Hacker News Reader

Comment by panabee | Hacker News Reader

The patent system somehow has morphed from shield to sword.

Protecting inventors is one path toward innovation, but it should be a byproduct of maximizing innovation and not the end state.

If the objective of the patent system is to foster innovation, then it should grant patents only if they are necessary for innovation, i.e., innovation wouldn't reasonably occur otherwise.

Amazon's one-click patent versus drug patents are two good cases. If the patent system didn't exist, is it reasonable to think someone else would come up with a one-click method of shopping? Yes. Drugs, however, often require hundreds of millions of dollars in upfront investment. It is reasonable to think that pharma companies couldn't raise the necessary capital, and therefore invent these drugs, without some protection.

View on HN

I like that idea, and I believe it rings true with most responsible people. However, it's difficult to measure.

As an example, in the recent Apple v/s Samsung, if it weren't for Apple, we would still be dealing with shitty Nokia, Samsung and Sony Ericsson phones with crap OSes, no decent applications, and the phones would be anything but smart - because there was no need to improve. Once Apple made everyone lift their game, their strategy has been to sue all large players aggressively to ensure they can't implement the things that Apple used, no matter how trivial (eg. the green telephone icon). On one hand you can argue that a "slide to unlock" was not done before on a smart-phone and deserves protection. On the other hand, you can argue that it's a very obvious solution for touch screens and someone else would have easily come up with it. You could also argue there's prior art (but that's another story). So ... In this instance, did Apple drive innovation? Yes. Was it necessary for Innovation? Maybe. Would the innovation have happened if Apple hadn't driven it? Not any time soon.

In my view, your definition needs to be tighter to cover scenarios such as these.

In case the Apple fans get their knickers in a knot, Apple aren't the only ones suing others over trivialities. The industry has been locked in a stale-mate for a long time.

"Would the innovation have happened if Apple hadn't driven it? Not any time soon."

I am fascinated by this statement. What evidence do you have to support it?

The entire mobile industry pre-iPhone?

This is and endless argument, you either acknowledge that they pushed it forward or you don't but there wasn't a significant application platform, touch was nearly nonexistent and even dismissed by RIM, and while many of these things might be dismissed as obvious, Apple made it stick and they beat the entire current crop of competitors to the market.

Everything is easy once you've seen it done...

Take the typical Nokia and Motorola device from 1997 and the typical one from the iPhone launch, biggest improvements? More SMS and the phones got a little bit smaller

I don't think the argument is whether Apple pushed the industry forward. They absolutely did.

The question is, if they knew no patents would get awarded for software features like slide-to-lock or gesture control, would they still have introduced the iPhone?

I believe they would have, but it would be great to hear your thoughts if you disagree.

I agree that apple did bring it all together rather well (over a sustained marketing and development phase) but I just don't see how anyone could think that smart phones similar to those that we have today weren't inevitable with or without apple.

http://mobile.engadget.com/2006/02/21/review-cingular-8125/ This was released over a year before the first iphone.

I think that apple's contribution was not so much innovation as it was popularisation.

Would the innovation have happened if Apple hadn't driven it? Not any time soon.

Maemo, Openmoko, and Android all serve as counterexamples to your claim that Apple was the sole driver of recent smartphone innovation. Our smartphones might look a bit different now had Apple not released the iPhone, but they would still exist. Industry consortia were developing higher-bandwidth data standards (a Danish friend told me in 200[012] that 256kbit/s access on cell phones was already widespread), companies were experimenting with different form factors, operating systems were being developed, etc.

In my view, your definition needs to be tighter to cover scenarios such as these.

Perceived scenarios such as these are often a product of missing information.

Thanks, rustynails77. I also agree it's very difficult to measure, which is why it fails to qualify as the optimal solution.

There is no magical solution, but the contours of the ideal system will account for the capital requirements of an invention. Areas with low capital requirements, such as "slide to unlock" and "one-click buying," should not warrant patent protection.

Not because they require less ingenuity, but because even absent patent protection, companies would still continue to differentiate through new features and ideas.

It's very similar to music and movies. Artists continue to introduce new sounds and new films even though success spawns a host of copycats.

Would Apple cease innovation on software features -- like "slide to unlock" -- if they weren't granted patent protection? I think it's reasonable to assume not because of the relatively small capital requirements and because of their passion to advance technology.

It seems we could solve this by adding some conditions around lifetime and protections offered by a patent. if you are a small company you are afforded maximum protections on your patent. If you're large scale company that has delivered products based on features you've patented, your patent stops being valid after 3 or 4 years. If you aren't actively trying to develop or sell a product based on a patented feature, the lifetime of the patent also is significantly reduced.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com