Apple vs Samsung

[Geoff]

Most small business tech startups today are on the anti-patent bandwagen. It takes time away from designing a truly good product, and small business almost never have the $$ in the bank to actually enforce a patent if in fact it is ever infinged upon.

That's totally incorrect. My startups all had substantial patent portfolios. It's tough to get VC funding if you don't have a plan to create intellectual property.

For example, here's one of my patents:
http://www.google.com/patents/US7035289

 

[Nick]

Cool patent! It might depend on what the technology is. I'm mostly working on various web and mobile consumer or B2B apps .... and there is a huge push for patent reform among VC's and technologists alike. A lot of the more "lean startup" type of endeavors; or accelerators (Techstars, y combinator, etc.) have had lots of negative comments around securing patents.

The thing is that right now it's more of a necessary evil. In other words you need to do it like you say, but it shouldn't need be necessary. Does that make sense?

 

[dmc]

That's totally incorrect. My startups all had substantial patent portfolios. It's tough to get VC funding if you don't have a plan to create intellectual property.

Yup... The VC for my last job was big on patents.. it was a big deal..
We developed a ton of great stuff... i was almost on 2 patents but was laid off before we started the process...

 

[dmc]

Cool patent! It might depend on what the technology is. I'm mostly working on various web and mobile consumer or B2B apps .... and there is a huge push for patent reform among VC's and technologists alike. A lot of the more "lean startup" type of endeavors; or accelerators (Techstars, y combinator, etc.) have had lots of negative comments around securing patents.

The thing is that right now it's more of a necessary evil. In other words you need to do it like you say, but it shouldn't need be necessary. Does that make sense?

You'd be surprised what can be patened...

 

[Nick]

http://www.patentlysilly.com/

The catchline for this is pretty funny

[h=2]Cross USB Drive[/h][h=3]patent#: US D533179[/h]Because Jesus saves.

 

[jack97]

Cool patent! It might depend on what the technology is. I'm mostly working on various web and mobile consumer or B2B apps .... and there is a huge push for patent reform among VC's and technologists alike. A lot of the more "lean startup" type of endeavors; or accelerators (Techstars, y combinator, etc.) have had lots of negative comments around securing patents.

The thing is that right now it's more of a necessary evil. In other words you need to do it like you say, but it shouldn't need be necessary. Does that make sense?

When a technology is at it's infancy, we get more revolutionary ideas. After this phase and the technology has stabilized, the ideas become evolutionary. IMO, more application specific, the type patents granted usually reflect this trend.

IMO, all business wants to make sure they protect their investments even application specific ideas through the patent process. In addition, no matter how silly it may be it can be use as part of their IP portfolio for counter law suits.

 

[Nick]

When a technology is at it's infancy, we get more revolutionary ideas. After this phase and the technology has stabilized, the ideas become evolutionary. IMO, more application specific, the type patents granted usually reflect this trend.

IMO, all business wants to make sure they protect their investments even application specific ideas through the patent process. In addition, no matter how silly it may be it can be use as part of their IP portfolio for counter law suits.

I just think its unfortunate that patents are used as a revenue scheme in and of themselves vs truly worrying about protecting ip

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[jack97]

I just think its unfortunate that patents are used as a revenue scheme in and of themselves vs truly worrying about protecting ip

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Patents are not immune to the predatory practices of inventors and lawyers, the most recent is the NTP vs RIM case. This is an example of a holding company which just own patents, they do not sell nor distribute products however they make a healthy business of demanding royalty or a license fees of the patent they hold. They could of have purchased or obtained such patents from defunct small businesses or failed start ups.

IMO, its these patent trolls which has cause high tech companies to alter their thought process in treating IP..... for right or wrong.

 

[Geoff]

I just think its unfortunate that patents are used as a revenue scheme in and of themselves vs truly worrying about protecting ip

If someone infringes on your intellectual property, your only recourse for products already sold is to sue them for money. It's not "unfortunate" at all.

 

[jack97]

I just think its unfortunate that patents are used as a revenue scheme in and of themselves vs truly worrying about protecting ip

If someone infringes on your intellectual property, your only recourse for products already sold is to sue them for money. It's not "unfortunate" at all.

IMO, that is too much of a blanket statement. If you are trying to establish a business by producing and selling products based on your IP then I can understand the need for patent infringement lawsuits.

What really needs reform are the holding companies that do not produce anything but they own the rights to the patents. They do nothing but search the business landscape on potential patent infringements. Typically, they settle privately... imo its more akin to blackmail.

here's the wiki link on the holding company NTP... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackBerry_Patent_Lawsuit

 

[Nick]

If someone infringes on your intellectual property, your only recourse for products already sold is to sue them for money. It's not "unfortunate" at all.

It is if the damages exceed actual losses

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[ScottySkis]

http://cnnmoney.mobi/wk_snarticle?a...iphone-5-launch-date:1&category=cnnm_business
Apple I phone 5 coming out.

 

[Nick]

yeah, that's been big news for a while. Interesting to see what they do. I'm also going with LTE + bigger screen.

Samsung should have patented a 4" screen :lol:

 

[wa-loaf]

This is a good article on all the work Apple did on the iPhone.

http://www.slate.com/articles/techn..._about_apple_s_secretive_design_process_.html

If you work that hard on something I'd certainly want to protect it.

 

[Nick]

I remember my wife had the first touchscreen blackberry, the Storm .... that was a HORRIBLE phone. Touchscreens have come a long way, Apple was the first to do it well; but I think the growth of touchscreen and fallaway of physical buttons was bound to happen anyway.