Could a Patent Kill Your Favorite Gadget?
Posted by Harry McCracken | Friday, March 03, 2006 4:10 PM PT
Good news for the BlackBerry-addicted among us: Research in Motion has
reached a $612.5 million dollar settlement with NTP, the tiny company whose patents threatened to render RIM's insanely popular e-mail handheld a digital outlaw. Barring RIM defeating NTP in court, a deal was the only outcome that made sense for anyone involved, so you had to think it'd occur eventually...but it's a relief to see it happen. Even though RIM always said it had a backup plan of some sort.
As I've said before, I'm a Treo 650 user, not a BlackBerrian, so I watched the legal wrangling with a certain detachment. But it got me thinking: Has any popular technology gadget ever run afoul of patent laws in a way that threatened its viability? The only one that comes to mind is Kodak's
instant camera of the 1970s, which became a doorstop when Polaroid successfully sued Kodak and both the camera and film for it were discontinued.
But patent tussles are an ugly part of life in corporate America (
here's my colleague Andy Brandt's news story on them). And some
involve gadgets I have trouble remembering life without.
If you're a BlackBerry user, are you breathing easier today? And whether you are or not, do you have any thoughts on whether the patent system is working for or against technology innovation these days?
I understand the desire to have something say in order to draw responses, but please be realistic, Mr. McCracken (after all, your profession is covering technology, isn't it?)
Patents aren't going to stop anything. If something is popular enough to become many peoples' "favorite gadget", then the company selling that gadget is making too much money, because the popularity will have driven the price to a level far beyond what the product should really be worth, likely creating massive, double-digit ptofit margins. In order to protect such windfalls, the company will simply buy themselves a settlement...just as RIM has done. Expensive though it may be, they know their consumers will eventually pay for it.
what do you think about the rice of stock going up to $85.70 after hours and what is your prediction for Monday market price on Rimm?
I agree with Mr. McCracken. Patents are there to protect realistic innovations, realistic products. But actually what's happening is contrary. Some companies took Patent holding as profession and keep on suing Corporations or Companies which produce popular Gadgets/Equipment/Service and making money off it in many cases, Blackberry case is live and recent example. I don't understand what kind of a profession it is.
If you hold a patent make the product or implement the service for which you are holding the patent for. Is it right to just keep on making money for something that you hold a patent for.
Chances are you guys have not invented anything 90% of the time, You might have bought it off a Company/Individual. For just bieng first Legally by holding the patent, do you think there is no Company/Individual working on the same topic and they are just late to get a patent, because you did already!
Holding patents to protect Ideas is never opposed, but buying ideas and holding Patents to take undue advantage off them is a serious issue.
Some kind of Legal protection is required for those companies which are producing Products which are very popular with the Public. These companies have to have protection not prosecution.
i agree. recently there was this issue where this tiny company supposdly held a patent for ANY rich internet content whatsoever. this includes flash, java, javascript, AJAX, XML, XHTML and other. this is insane. that company didn't invent those things and it has no right to hold the patent.