3 ms·

I suppose it depends on how you define monopoly. A patent protects a (theoretically, non obvious) solution to a problem that you came up with. Other people can

I suppose it depends on how you define monopoly. A patent protects a (theoretically, non obvious) solution to a problem that you came up with. Other people can still work on that problem, they just need to come up with their own solutions. You wouldn't say copyright gives an artist a monopoly on any particular type of creativity and - if patents worked properly, which they don't - I like to picture a similar outcome.

Sakos 4y ago
I really think you and others should actually read the actual terminology used in established law/documents regarding patents instead of trying to throw in your opinion. This isn't a matter of opinion.
- entropy47 4y ago
  The law and commentary (at least in Australia) talks about monopoly a lot, you're right. I just don't think it has the same meaning in IP (which is concerned with implementations) as it does in common usage (which is concerned with markets). If IP was done properly (it isn't) Qualcomm wouldn't have a monopoly on cell phone chips - they'd have a monopoly on one specific, non obvious way of doing chips that they had developed (and they'd only have it for a fixed time window). It's semantics but I think the word monopoly is both sensitive and overloaded. This is actually a discussion we had during my law degree, but obviously different countries have different particulars and the point I'm trying to make here is more philosophical than legal.
bogwog 4y ago
I just want to point out that in the Qualcomm case, their patents were used in creating standards (CDMA-related I assume?). From the article: > When a standards group is developing a new wireless standard, it assembles a list of patents that are essential to implement the standard—these are known as standards essential patents. It then asks patent holders to promise to license those patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Patent holders usually agree to these terms because incorporating a patent into a standard enhances its value. > But Qualcomm doesn't seem to be honoring its FRAND commitments. FRAND patents are supposed to be available on the same terms to anyone who wants to license them—either customers or competitors. But Qualcomm refuses to license its standards-essential patents to other chipmakers. So Qualcomm has a monopoly on essential technologies to implement standards. If you "come up with your own solution", then you are no longer standards-compliant. That means these patents give them a non-negotiable monopoly on an entire industry. > You wouldn't say copyright gives an artist a monopoly on any particular type of creativity You wouldn't say that because that's factually incorrect. Copyright protects specific works, not ideas/concepts/styles/etc.

Sakos 4y ago

I really think you and others should actually read the actual terminology used in established law/documents regarding patents instead of trying to throw in your opinion. This isn't a matter of opinion.

entropy47 4y ago
The law and commentary (at least in Australia) talks about monopoly a lot, you're right. I just don't think it has the same meaning in IP (which is concerned with implementations) as it does in common usage (which is concerned with markets). If IP was done properly (it isn't) Qualcomm wouldn't have a monopoly on cell phone chips - they'd have a monopoly on one specific, non obvious way of doing chips that they had developed (and they'd only have it for a fixed time window). It's semantics but I think the word monopoly is both sensitive and overloaded. This is actually a discussion we had during my law degree, but obviously different countries have different particulars and the point I'm trying to make here is more philosophical than legal.

bogwog 4y ago

I just want to point out that in the Qualcomm case, their patents were used in creating standards (CDMA-related I assume?). From the article: > When a standards group is developing a new wireless standard, it assembles a list of patents that are essential to implement the standard—these are known as standards essential patents. It then asks patent holders to promise to license those patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Patent holders usually agree to these terms because incorporating a patent into a standard enhances its value. > But Qualcomm doesn't seem to be honoring its FRAND commitments. FRAND patents are supposed to be available on the same terms to anyone who wants to license them—either customers or competitors. But Qualcomm refuses to license its standards-essential patents to other chipmakers. So Qualcomm has a monopoly on essential technologies to implement standards. If you "come up with your own solution", then you are no longer standards-compliant. That means these patents give them a non-negotiable monopoly on an entire industry. > You wouldn't say copyright gives an artist a monopoly on any particular type of creativity You wouldn't say that because that's factually incorrect. Copyright protects specific works, not ideas/concepts/styles/etc.