3 ms·
FYI, this actually happened in the nascent aviation industry--the government had to step in to force the players to cross-license their patents (in order to hav
by qohen 15y ago
FYI, this actually happened in the nascent aviation industry--the government had to step in to force the players to cross-license their patents (in order to have planes for World War I):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war
Some interesting bits from that Wikipedia page, which demonstrate that patents don't necessarily promote innovation and that being too litigious with them can damage one's reputation:
From the "Patent War" section:
"The Wrights' preoccupation with the legal issue hindered their development of new aircraft designs, and by 1911 Wright aircraft were inferior to those made by other firms in Europe.[9] Indeed, aviation development in the US was suppressed to such an extent that when the U.S. entered World War I no acceptable American-designed aircraft were available, and the U.S. forces were compelled to use French machines."
From the "Aftermath" section:
"The lawsuits damaged the public image of the Wright brothers, who were generally regarded before this as heroes. Critics said the brothers actions may have retarded the development of aviation,[9][14] and compared their actions unfavorably to European inventors, who worked more openly."
- qohen 15y agoBTW, while the government had to intervene in the aircraft case, there have been cases of various companies coming together to form their own private patent pool too, the most famous of which would be related to the sewing machine: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/10/28/why-is-a-smartphone-like-a-sewing-machine/ http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/10/28/why-is-a-smartphone-l... "The Sewing Machine War was the first instance of what is today called a 'patent thicket.' The disputes prevented Singer from selling his invention, and tensions ran high in and out of court: When Howe personally called on Singer, Singer threatened to throw him down a flight of stairs. But there’s a happy ending to the story, as your machine-stitched clothes evince. The Sewing Machine War ended with a just and lasting peace in 1856, when Orlando B. Potter--a lawyer representing one of the plaintiffs--suggested a solution that Mossoff calls 'groundbreaking but also breathtakingly simple': The patent-holders would combine their patents in a 'patent pool' and share the profits from selling the machines. The patent pool participants lived happily and wealthily ever after--or at least until 1877, when the last patent expired."
- qohen 15y agoBut, it turns out that, the sewing machine patent pool may have inhibited innovation, according to this paper: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1308997 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1308997). "Contrary to theoretical predictions, the sewing machine pool appears to have discouraged patenting and innovation, in particular for the members of the pool. Data on stitches per minute, as an objectively quantifiable measure of performance, confirm these findings. Innovation for both members and outside firms slowed as soon as the pool had been established and resumed only after it had dissolved. "
- flomo 15y agoI think everyone involved understands the end game is a patent oligopoly dominating all aspects of mobile. The current lawsuits are just negotiations over the spoils.
- travisp 15y agoMajor cross-licensing is sometimes viewed with caution now as I understand it because of regulatory antitrust issues, but this seems like it would not have been the case around World War I. The same problem occurred during the invention of the sewing machine, and the patent holders actually got together and formed a large patent pool, enabling them all to profit and innovate while still protecting their work.