Patents vs Innovation
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/12/14/ft_transistor/> points up some
interesting issues of timing.
The Bell Labs inventors got their transistor working in 1948. Apparently
their patents were accepted that same year. Under the US system, patents
last for 17 years, so these would have expired around 1965—roughly around
the time that transistorized electronic appliances became commonplace.
(Transistorized computers were already common, but remember that computers
were still a niche market at this stage.)
The same page mentions that the CMOS patent was granted in 1963. So that
would have expired in 1980—just about the time that CMOS semiconductor chips
started to become popular.
See the pattern here? It’s often claimed that patents promote innovation,
but it seems clear they actually prevent it, or at least hold it back. It’s
not until the patents lose their force that the innovation happens.
victor
The invention of the first transistor didn't stop the innovation which
produced the first silicon transistor at TI in 1954 or the first
integrated circuit in 1959.
In the case of the transistor patents facilitate and encourage
disclosure of innovations into the public domain for the common good.
Without patent protection the principles are more likely to be kept
secret. A company starting from scratch in 1965 would be at a
disadvantage compared to those already established players who had
licensed the patents.
The proliferation of transistor radios came from the development of the
electronics industry in Japan, the market for Japanese transistor radios
in the US grew from 100,000 in 1955 to 5,000,000 in 1968
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> The invention of the first transistor didn't stop the innovation which
> produced the first silicon transistor at TI in 1954 or the first
> integrated circuit in 1959.
None of which became popular until after the transistor patent expired.
> In the case of the transistor patents facilitate and encourage
> disclosure of innovations into the public domain for the common good.
Doesn’t work that way. In the US, you are actively _discouraged_ from
looking at existing patents. Why? Because if you are later sued for
infringement and it turns out you knew about the patent, even if you thought
it wasn’t relevant, then the infringement becomes wilful and the damages are
tripled.
victor
> In message <hepn4f$94e$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, victor wrote:
>
>> The invention of the first transistor didn't stop the innovation which
>> produced the first silicon transistor at TI in 1954 or the first
>> integrated circuit in 1959.
>
> None of which became popular until after the transistor patent expired.
Rubbish, the large electronics companies simply licensed the patents as
they do now
>
>> In the case of the transistor patents facilitate and encourage
>> disclosure of innovations into the public domain for the common good.
>
> Doesn’t work that way. In the US, you are actively _discouraged_ from
> looking at existing patents. Why? Because if you are later sued for
> infringement and it turns out you knew about the patent, even if you thought
> it wasn’t relevant, then the infringement becomes wilful and the damages are
> tripled.
>
> <http://techdirt.com/articles/20070814/015013.shtml>
>
No one waits for patents to expire if there is a buck to be made, the
royalty costs simply get passed on to the consumer.
whoisthis
victor <reda...@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
The electronics industry is an excellent example of how patents help. It
is certainly one of the most innovative industries, with thousands of
significant players, and with them all licensing from each other. It has
actually not stopped innovation at all, Moore's law could not work in a
stifled environment.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message <hepn4f$94e$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, victor wrote:
>>
>>> The invention of the first transistor didn't stop the innovation which
>>> produced the first silicon transistor at TI in 1954 or the first
>>> integrated circuit in 1959.
>>
>> None of which became popular until after the transistor patent expired.
>
> Rubbish, the large electronics companies simply licensed the patents as
> they do now
Silicon didn’t really take over from germanium until the 1970s—about the
time TI’s silicon transistor patent would have expired. And integrated
circuits had their small beginnings in the 1970s, but really exploded in the
1980s.
See, the pattern continues.
>>> In the case of the transistor patents facilitate and encourage
>>> disclosure of innovations into the public domain for the common good.
>>
>> Doesn’t work that way. In the US, you are actively _discouraged_ from
>> looking at existing patents. Why? Because if you are later sued for
>> infringement and it turns out you knew about the patent, even if you
>> thought it wasn’t relevant, then the infringement becomes wilful and the
>> damages are tripled.
>>
>> <http://techdirt.com/articles/20070814/015013.shtml>
>
> No one waits for patents to expire if there is a buck to be made, the
> royalty costs simply get passed on to the consumer.
This is about your disclosure claim, which turns out to be nonsense.
victor
> In message <hepsis$399$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, victor wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> In message <hepn4f$94e$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, victor wrote:
>>>
>>>> The invention of the first transistor didn't stop the innovation which
>>>> produced the first silicon transistor at TI in 1954 or the first
>>>> integrated circuit in 1959.
>>> None of which became popular until after the transistor patent expired.
>> Rubbish, the large electronics companies simply licensed the patents as
>> they do now
>
> Silicon didn’t really take over from germanium until the 1970s—about the
> time TI’s silicon transistor patent would have expired. And integrated
> circuits had their small beginnings in the 1970s, but really exploded in the
> 1980s.
>
You don't know what you are talking about.
Gordon
> Looking at this item commemorating the invention of the transistor
><http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/12/14/ft_transistor/> points up some
> interesting issues of timing.
>
Gentle readers, we are getting confused in this thread about patents and
innovation. The inovation happens first, then the patent of the
idea/innovation.
Also, it takes time for a new technology to enter the mass market.
victor
The semiconductor industry just isn't a good example, they all have huge
patent portfolios and have been cross licensing for years to the extent
of having matching catalogue numbers for direct drop in replacements.
The adoption curve is the same across the industry regardless of the
first player.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Gentle readers, we are getting confused in this thread about patents and
> innovation. The inovation happens first, then the patent of the
> idea/innovation.
You’re confusing “invention” with “innovation”. Patents are only about
“protecting” the “invention”, they have little or nothing to do with
“innovation”. That’s why they’re a waste of time.
whoisthis
victor <reda...@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
Actually it is an excellent example as it proves that patents have NOT
been an impediment to innovation for exactly the reasons you outline
above. However it should be be noted that the players in the industry
all have significant numbers of unique components to offer.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> The semiconductor industry just isn't a good example ...
Not a good example of patents in action? Does that mean that patents have
not been good for the semiconductor industry?
JohnO
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
> >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>
> >>>> The invention of the first transistor didn't stop the innovation which
> >>>> produced the first silicon transistor at TI in 1954 or the first
> >>>> integrated circuit in 1959.
> >>> None of which became popular until after the transistor patent expired.
> >> Rubbish, the large electronics companies simply licensed the patents as
> >> they do now
>
> > Silicon didn’t really take over from germanium until the 1970s—about the
> > time TI’s silicon transistor patent would have expired. And integrated
> > circuits had their small beginnings in the 1970s, but really exploded in the
> > 1980s.
>
> You don't know what you are talking about.
Not the first time and sadly won't be the last time.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Friendly advice: please to engage brain before shooting off mouth. It makes
you look just that little less sad.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanium>:
From 1950 through the early 1970s, this area provided an increasing
market for germanium, but then high purity silicon began replacing
germanium in transistors, diodes, and rectifiers.
>> See, the pattern continues.
Like I said.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> It’s often claimed that patents promote innovation,
> but it seems clear they actually prevent it, or at least hold it back.
And when innovators start suing over their patents, that’s usually a sign
that they’ve stopped actually innovating. It happened to the Wright
Brothers, and here it is happening to Tivo:
<http://techdirt.com/articles/20091125/1306497092.shtml>.