3 ms·

"short lifetime" is relative. Had Apple been granted a patent on the idea of a smartphone the same year they released the iPhone, that patent would only expire

"short lifetime" is relative. Had Apple been granted a patent on the idea of a smartphone the same year they released the iPhone, that patent would only expire in three years. There are some industries where due to slow-moving markets the 20 year patent period is still sensible, but for most sectors we would be better off with a 5 or 10 year patent period to account for the increased speed of innovation.

bluGill 3y ago
Apple did not invent the smart phone. The invented several features that make them useful (even their version one lacked apps), but others made smart phones before them. What Apple really did was make them useful by eliminating several of the things that made them annoying not not useful before.
- Nevermark 3y ago
  They didn't say Apple invented the iPhone. That was a counterfactual example to make a point. Also, the point counts even if Apple just patented enough to block comparable phones. The point: For the smartphone market, 20 years would be a very long effective time for any foundational or gatekeeping patents.
  - hhshhhhjjjd 3y ago
    Didn't Samsung and Apple have a tiff over the shape of the phone? "Rectangle with rounded corners"
- paulmd 3y ago
  > What Apple really did was make them useful by eliminating several of the things that made them annoying not not useful before. that’s literally every patentable invention ever, though. Remington didn’t invent the hunting rifle… they didn’t even invent the first self-loading or lever action rifle, probably. “removing the annoyances and downsides that make a previous approach infeasible or impractical” is more charitably described as “a useful innovation that advances the field”. Now, the problem is that a lot of patents are issued for things that someone else already has done, so the recipient of the patent isn't actually advancing the state of the art. But on the face of it, "removing the annoyances and downsides that make a previous approach infeasible or impractical" is literally what patents are supposed to be granted for.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    The difference is you can work around those patents*

bluGill 3y ago

Apple did not invent the smart phone. The invented several features that make them useful (even their version one lacked apps), but others made smart phones before them. What Apple really did was make them useful by eliminating several of the things that made them annoying not not useful before.

Nevermark 3y ago
They didn't say Apple invented the iPhone. That was a counterfactual example to make a point. Also, the point counts even if Apple just patented enough to block comparable phones. The point: For the smartphone market, 20 years would be a very long effective time for any foundational or gatekeeping patents.
- hhshhhhjjjd 3y ago
  Didn't Samsung and Apple have a tiff over the shape of the phone? "Rectangle with rounded corners"
paulmd 3y ago
> What Apple really did was make them useful by eliminating several of the things that made them annoying not not useful before. that’s literally every patentable invention ever, though. Remington didn’t invent the hunting rifle… they didn’t even invent the first self-loading or lever action rifle, probably. “removing the annoyances and downsides that make a previous approach infeasible or impractical” is more charitably described as “a useful innovation that advances the field”. Now, the problem is that a lot of patents are issued for things that someone else already has done, so the recipient of the patent isn't actually advancing the state of the art. But on the face of it, "removing the annoyances and downsides that make a previous approach infeasible or impractical" is literally what patents are supposed to be granted for.
- bluGill 3y ago
  The difference is you can work around those patents*