Patents

In one of the readings, Microsoft general counsel explains, “Protection for software patents and other intellectual property is essential to maintaining the incentives that encourage and underwrite technological breakthroughs. In every industry, patents provide the legal foundation for innovation. The ensuing legal disputes may be messy, but protection is no less necessary, even so.” Patents protect creators from others using their invention for a certain number of years.

I do believe there are are some limitations that come from patents. Hindering the ability to use inventions and manipulate them freely has to hinder creativity in some way. However, an argument can be made that patents do the opposite. Because companies or entities are not allowed to forge inventions that are patented, they often choose creative ways around the patent. In some cases these inventions failed miserably like the Microsoft Zune (to Apple’s iPod). Nevertheless, there is some creativity in copying a product in a different manner. It’s like Youtube covers of famous songs. Sure, the Youtuber didn’t write the song but he or she still made a version that, though lyrically and melodically the same, is his or her own version of the song.

Tesla is a big proponent of no patents. In fact, they encourage others to steal their technology as they believe this is the best use of it. Letting others use their technology which is constantly striving to improve humanity, lets others do the same. In Tesla’s case, their mission is to produce electric cars that are environmentally friendly. Putting patents on these vehicles would effectively prevent others from manufacturing these cars which would mean more profit for Tesla, but would also mean their mission is being fulfilled which undoubtedly should be their goal.

So if I had to come up with a sure fire rule: patents yield profit but prevent creativity. In software, it becomes even hazier. I really do not have a good answer for this. Software can be very different and completely the same. Software is typically built on layers and layers of code. Some of these layers can sometimes be replicated by accident. In this sense, patenting software makes close to no sense.

Patent trolls essentially try to make more out of the abuse of the patents they own through many methods like litigation. In the readings, a company called Commil sued Cisco for using one other patents. Commil, which was a startup that made nothing from their patents, won $63.7 million. They owned these patents purely for this type of scenario. I think this is evidence that patents are broken. When creativity is taxed in this form, how can we say we are doing what the purpose of software really is: creating. If companies cannot create freely without having to worry about paying $63.7 million to a company that had no plans of ever creating the product in the patent, then I would argue creativity is constantly being lost.