In the past few years, there have been several law suits originating over the globe by companies trying to enforce patent infringement. Should this only happen in very isolated circumstances, I would say that you have a company trying to knowingly violate the law for self gain (instance: i4i vs Microsoft over XML architecture where Microsoft was even CAUGHT acknowledging guilt and laughing about it through email prompting the judge to severely increase their sentence). But then there is
Vonage being sued,
Sharp sueing Samsung,
agere suing Sony,
Apple counter-suing Nokia, [take a deep breath if you forgot to]
RIM (Research in Motion: BlackBerry) counter-suing Motorola, Apple vs Palm, and now
Apple vs HTC.
And truth be told, it's evident from the list of patents Apple is suing HTC over that they are really trying to attack the Android platform by way of HTC. And honestly, it's just sickening. The patents themselves are at times incredibly vague and some were even written years before they could actually be carried out (if at all) by Apple.
Another example directly relevant to the phone industry is multi-touch: Apple should never have been granted a patent over multi-touch devices. At most, they should have been given a patent over the unique way in which their technology achieves multi-touch sensory input. This is similar to the playlist sort and music sync patent which only is covering an idea and not a specific way of processing the sync. For example, maybe Contois implemented a compression system that allowed for syncing to take half the time. That process should get the patent with direct respect to how they are doing it as opposed to just the fact that their software syncs a device.
Now to be fair, these ridiculous patents are not just originating from Apple. Back in 2005, Vermont-based Contois Music Technology sued Apple saying that iTunes had copied interface elements, including "the ability of the software to transfer music tracks to a portable music player, and search capabilities such as sorting music tracks by their genre, artist and album attributes." [Source:
Apple Insider] Those features go back more than 12 years to programs like MusicMatch and WinAmp, all of which were well before Contois alleged they had the ideas.
By allowing these patents to even exist, two negative impacts arise. The first is that companies are afraid to further enhance their products. For the longest time, Google was afraid to make their android-powered phones multi-touch capable by way of a software restriction even though they were all built with the hardware capability to support it. Then there is the fact that all of this litigation just hurts the consumers because these company's legal teams are not working for free. It is cost incurred against the company's bottom line, and if they want to support these expensive legal battles and maintain profits, costs go up to the consumers.
I don't want to just rant about these flaws though: I want to present a solution, and honestly, we're looking at an overhaul on the patent approval system. Here's what I'd expect the approval process to consider:
1. SPECIFIC: As just previously mentioned, patents should NOT be over just an idea; they should be over how an idea is uniquely carried out or implemented. Apple's multi-touch patent would violate this as it is only of the idea and not specific to how the tech detects sensory input.
2. MEASURABLE: This will tie in with specific in that being broad loses the ability to be finitely accounted for. Patent #5,920,726: System And Method For Managing Power Conditions Within A Digital Camera Device (Filed by Apple, Inc) was granted in 1999. The patent broadly covers managing power in a digital camera device to a power manager that sends state information to a processor controlling the camera.
3. ATTAINABLE: A patent should NOT be granted to a company if it is not even currently possible to carry out the idea.
4. REALISTIC: Patent #7,657,849: Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image (Filed by Apple, Inc) is far from realistic. It's almost exactly what it seems: it covers unlocking a touchscreen device by moving an unlock image. I equate this to someone creating a patent for using the "Home" button to bring up your default screen.
5. TIMELY: A patent should not be granted to a company if the sole purpose is to sit on it hoping your competitors will accidentally implement the idea. The product needs to be put to use. This may be harder to enforce because intent will have to be determined.
My point is this: the patent application process needs to be SMART; amended with new sets of principles on what constitutes an allowable patent. Patents should contribute to revolutionizing society and promoting advancement for the greater good. Believe me, I'm not wanting to see any hindrance to a capitalistic market -- if a company does well they should earn well and reap the benefits; but that doesn't mean future development should be stifled by court cases, battles, and petty road blocks from allowing new technology to truly be revolutionary.
My disclaimer to you as the reader is simple: I'm not a lawyer and my beliefs in how the patent system should work may not be legally substantiated and does intertwine fact with opinion. This article, however, was written in the thought of what I feel would not only be right, but would also better all companies in increasing profits while furthering modern progression.
