Are confusing patents the same as no patents?

by on February 1, 2010 · 2 comments

Over at Convergences I ponder a version of Mark Lemley’s argument to the effect that confusing patents tied up in administrative disputes are in effect the same as no patents. I write:

I recently read “Patenting Nanotechnology” by law prof Mark Lemley. Excitement about (and fear of) nanotechnology seems to be waning rather than waxing. The article nonetheless includes a curiously paradoxical line of argument about intellectual property that I think is worth setting out in detail.

Presently there is some concern that there are already too many overlapping nanotechnology patents, and/or too many nanotechnology patents that cover basic research concepts as opposed to actual useful products. A number of observers have warned that these patents could interfere with ongoing nanotechnology research. This is a familiar theme over the past couple decades of patent scholarship.

Of course, patents (with all their warts) were around during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, too, when a lot of important advances were made in technology. All kinds of things from sewing machines to radios were developed, and it all worked out okay in spite of much patent nonsense being involved.

Now, here is where Mark comes up with a twist on the familiar arguments. To help make his paper about nanotechnology more interesting, he seems to want to build up the case that nanotechnology is different from earlier technologies, so that the patent system might cause problems for nano that they did not cause for earlier technologies. So he goes through each earlier technology in some detail, and argues that in each case, in effect, for each of these key earlier technologies, patent protection was in effect non-existent. In the case of sewing machines, for example, the patents were tied up in litigation; in the case of radio, WWI intervened and the patents were taken over by the government.

Therefore, he argues, nanotechnology will be the first important technology that is in effect actually protected by patents. He goes on to conclude that there is no reason to worry about this yet. This conclusion seems sensible enough. So… what?

With his argument that previous key technologies were in effect devoid of patent protection as a practical measure, even though they were patented, well, he’s created a mythical monster, the worm who eats his own tail. I don’t think he fully realizes this, so I will play with the idea a little bit.

For the results of my exploration, kindly visit Convergences.

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com eee_eff

    “Of course, patents (with all their warts) were around during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, too, when a lot of important advances were made in technology. All kinds of things from sewing machines to radios were developed, and it all worked out okay in spite of much patent nonsense being involved.”

    Oh, Solveig, the radio in particular you are quite wrong about. The compulsory licensing of the key radio patents during the First World War made possible the radios of the 20's and 30's. Patent busting lead to innovation. (See Michael Perelman's book Steal This Idea)

    I'd also suggest Drew Endy's talk where he discusses a process in Bio-Technology, where patents of some very simple things again blocked the ability of research to progress.

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com eee_eff

    “Of course, patents (with all their warts) were around during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, too, when a lot of important advances were made in technology. All kinds of things from sewing machines to radios were developed, and it all worked out okay in spite of much patent nonsense being involved.”

    Oh, Solveig, the radio in particular you are quite wrong about. The compulsory licensing of the key radio patents during the First World War made possible the radios of the 20's and 30's. Patent busting lead to innovation. (See Michael Perelman's book Steal This Idea)

    I'd also suggest Drew Endy's talk where he discusses a process in Bio-Technology, where patents of some very simple things again blocked the ability of research to progress.

Previous post:

Next post: