Rent Seeking on Wall Street

by on August 11, 2006 · 6 comments

Steve R. points me to this fascinating New York Times article on Wall Street’s patent race:

For now, all the big firms seem to be playing nicely with one another. Many lawyers involved in patenting systems and products on Wall Street label the patents as defensive in nature. They say Wall Street banks are trying to patent products or software systems in an effort to protect themselves from claims or litigation brought by individuals or small companies whose primary business is holding patents–those known to their detractors as patent trolls. But some warn it is merely a matter of time before the patent activity turns from defensive to offensive. Wall Street firms will eventually look for ways to license the technologies or products they have patented, hoping to earn a high-margin revenue stream, or they will begin to litigate against each other, lawyers say. “Right now, people are figuring out they need some playing cards so that if someone comes to us and says ‘You’re infringing,’ well, we have some patents and we can do a cross-licensing deal and everyone goes away,” says Raymond Millien, a former patent lawyer for American Express who is now the general counsel with Ocean Tomo, a merchant bank specializing in intellectual property. “But there are going to be some companies on the Street who are going to start licensing their products and enforcing the patents to get a revenue stream from them.”

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the patent system has gone badly awry. The standard theory of patents is that inventors get patents to allow them to share information about their inventions with other companies. But it doesn’t sound like anything of the sort is happening here. A few companies are getting patents so they can extract royalties from other companies for “inventions” they discovered independently. And the rest of the industry is getting patents in self-defense, so that they’ll have some ammunition to defend themselves when the more aggressive firms come knocking.

There’s a weird disconnect between academic discussion of patents and what’s going on in the real world. At least in the realm of software and business method patents, companies have long since dropped any pretext that their “inventions” are genuinely novel discoveries. This is very different from the academic conception of patents, in which inventions are always assumed to be clearly defined and non-obvious. Software and busines method patents might promote innovation on academics’ blackboards, but in the real world, it’s hard to see them as anything but a burden.

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    Is this the coming of Wall Street patent trolls? They’ll even wear pinstripes. I’m curious what kind of disputes will occur. The same fear of litigation wars has marked the software industry, yet you often find its not the usual painted villains such as big corporations on the offensive (or if they are, at least against each other), but on the defensive end of litigation.

    academic conception of patents, in which inventions are always assumed to be clearly defined and non-obvious

    Look at empirical research, perhaps by Mark Lemley, Kimberly Moore, Dan Burk and a few others. I think Carl Shapiro and Robert Merges have done some work too. I can send you some links when I have more time.

    At least in the realm of software and business method patents, companies have long since dropped any pretext that their “inventions” are genuinely novel discoveries.

    Perhaps some, but I’m not sure who they are.

    How much can you really tell by claim construction alone? If two parties aren’t in dispute, they’ll license. If they go to litigation, they’ll witness an evolved role on patent policy for court interpretation and reexamination at the USPTO. Court interpretation and USPTO re-examination decide how and to what extent a patent is enforced, if at all. Hopefully some of the lessons learned recently will integrate into good patent reform laws.

    There is certainly a disconnect between the academic literature and the real world. While its good to take preventative measures for a possible dire situation such as the one Tim writes of, I’d say lets see how things develop. Professor Merges voiced similar view in a 2003 publication where he addressed fears surrounding business method and software patents: “A funny thing happened on the way to the demise of the software industry. It never happened.” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=410900.

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    Is this the coming of Wall Street patent trolls? They’ll even wear pinstripes. I’m curious what kind of disputes will occur. The same fear of litigation wars has marked the software industry, yet you often find its not the usual painted villains such as big corporations on the offensive (or if they are, at least against each other), but on the defensive end of litigation.

    academic conception of patents, in which inventions are always assumed to be clearly defined and non-obvious

    Look at empirical research, perhaps by Mark Lemley, Kimberly Moore, Dan Burk and a few others. I think Carl Shapiro and Robert Merges have done some work too. I can send you some links when I have more time.

    At least in the realm of software and business method patents, companies have long since dropped any pretext that their “inventions” are genuinely novel discoveries.

    Perhaps some, but I’m not sure who they are.

    How much can you really tell by claim construction alone? If two parties aren’t in dispute, they’ll license. If they go to litigation, they’ll witness an evolved role on patent policy for court interpretation and reexamination at the USPTO. Court interpretation and USPTO re-examination decide how and to what extent a patent is enforced, if at all. Hopefully some of the lessons learned recently will integrate into good patent reform laws.

    There is certainly a disconnect between the academic literature and the real world. While its good to take preventative measures for a possible dire situation such as the one Tim writes of, I’d say lets see how things develop. Professor Merges voiced similar view in a 2003 publication where he addressed fears surrounding business method and software patents: “A funny thing happened on the way to the demise of the software industry. It never happened.” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract….

  • http://tieguy.org/ Luis Villa

    Perhaps some, but I’m not sure who they are. Take your pick. Every significant software company has a rewards program for engineers who file patents- and they make it very clear to those engineers internally that it doesn’t matter how negligible or insignificant the ‘discovery’ is, as long as there is even the smallest option the lawyers can twist the wording into something patentable. The goal is very explicitly quantity and not quality. The cheap companies give you a t-shirt (‘I filed a patent!’) and a gift certificate; more generous companies add extra options. Again, this is all just for contacting the lawyers- if the patent application is actually successful, most companies then add more incentives.

    (I’m sort of surprised that the Times didn’t point out how these sorts of things, in an industry like Wall Street, almost inevitably turn out- the large players come to a standstill, cross-license, and then sue everyone small or up and coming.)

  • http://tieguy.org/ Luis Villa

    Perhaps some, but I’m not sure who they are.
    Take your pick. Every significant software company has a rewards program for engineers who file patents- and they make it very clear to those engineers internally that it doesn’t matter how negligible or insignificant the ‘discovery’ is, as long as there is even the smallest option the lawyers can twist the wording into something patentable. The goal is very explicitly quantity and not quality. The cheap companies give you a t-shirt (‘I filed a patent!’) and a gift certificate; more generous companies add extra options. Again, this is all just for contacting the lawyers- if the patent application is actually successful, most companies then add more incentives.

    (I’m sort of surprised that the Times didn’t point out how these sorts of things, in an industry like Wall Street, almost inevitably turn out- the large players come to a standstill, cross-license, and then sue everyone small or up and coming.)

  • Noel Le

    Hmmm. Tim Im curious, which academics do you find "disconnected" from the real world of patents? On another note, Ill point to the absence of popular OSS proponents Lessig Moglen Weber from patent industrial organization and law and econ conferences in the past decade. OSS supporters Hunt Kahin Varien on the other hand seem to have positioned their way onto very important invite lists. I`m deeply surprised you and Enigma give them the silent treatment when they support your cause w/ more credibilty than others you cite.

  • Noel Le

    Hmmm. Tim Im curious, which academics do you find "disconnected" from the real world of patents? On another note, Ill point to the absence of popular OSS proponents Lessig Moglen Weber from patent industrial organization and law and econ conferences in the past decade. OSS supporters Hunt Kahin Varien on the other hand seem to have positioned their way onto very important invite lists. I`m deeply surprised you and Enigma give them the silent treatment when they support your cause w/ more credibilty than others you cite.

Previous post:

Next post: