IBM Wins Annual Patent Race for 20th Consecutive Year

Status
Not open for further replies.

cinergy

Distinguished
May 22, 2009
251
0
18,780
0
I didn't know there was a competition about the quantity of patents in the US. That's why Apple files so much idiotic patents?
 

bigdragon

Distinguished
Oct 19, 2011
597
49
19,010
0
The winner here looks like a loser to me. More patents in an ecosystem currently being crushed by an overabundance of patents. We need less patents, not more.
 

RazorBurn

Distinguished
Feb 7, 2011
65
0
18,630
0
Sample of IBM Patents:
Research in Graphene, Racetrack Memory, Carbon Nanotubes..

Sample of Apple Patents:
Square Devices with Rounded Corners..
 

wildkitten

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
816
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]bigdragon[/nom]The winner here looks like a loser to me. More patents in an ecosystem currently being crushed by an overabundance of patents. We need less patents, not more.[/citation]
You do realize patents are neccessary for innovation right? If people can not have at least a certain amount of time where they alone can profit from their work, then no one would invest the time and money to come up with new items.

A good example is the pharmaceutical companies. They spend literally years and tens of millions of dollars researching new medications and all during the R&D process, they make bring in no money off it. Now, when their product is proved successful and is approved for sale, if they had no patent rights, then other companies would just make it for pennies, if not a fraction of a penny, on the dollar compared to what the creator of the new drug can make it for since the creator has to make up for all the money spent to develop it. This would lead EVERY company to stop trying to develop new products. The same goes for every other type of product.

The problem we see with patents these days is not the idea of patents, but the awarding of patents for vague ideas that can cover way to much.
 
G

Guest

Guest
wildkitten: That is wrong. Patents were originally intended to protect small companies from having their ideas stolen by large companies who can execute on products faster and at a larger scale. The idea that the doers, thinkers and stock manipulators of the world would stop innovating without the "protection" granted by patents is absurd, it would actually force much more and faster innovation to stay on top. Wall Street is the one who likes patents, not the scientists and engineers of the world.

Patents are currently the mechanism by which big companies prevent small companies from being able to compete with them. Business works like this now:

1. Create a tech startup
2a. Fail on your own
2b. Succeed on your own and either:
3a. Get bought out by a big tech company and make a few million or:
3b. Refuse to be bought out by a big tech company and be sued into oblvion for "infringing on their patents"
 

wildkitten

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
816
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]sciengineer[/nom]wildkitten: That is wrong. Patents were originally intended to protect small companies from having their ideas stolen by large companies who can execute on products faster and at a larger scale. The idea that the doers, thinkers and stock manipulators of the world would stop innovating without the "protection" granted by patents is absurd, it would actually force much more and faster innovation to stay on top. Wall Street is the one who likes patents, not the scientists and engineers of the world.Patents are currently the mechanism by which big companies prevent small companies from being able to compete with them. Business works like this now:1. Create a tech startup2a. Fail on your own2b. Succeed on your own and either:3a. Get bought out by a big tech company and make a few million or:3b. Refuse to be bought out by a big tech company and be sued into oblvion for "infringing on their patents"[/citation]
Sorry, but that is what's wrong. You argument is based on the assumption that people would invent and innovate solely out of a sense of charity. Sorry, no one is going to invest tens of thousands of dollars, possibly millions of dollars and more, just so that when they do develop a new product every one else can come along and make it and undercut the developer on price because they have no investment to make up for.

It doesn't matter of the company is small or large. A large company can just as easily steal from another large one and a small business can steal from a large one. Are you saying you would devote your own money and time to develop a product and then not patent it? Somehow, I doubt that.
 

ericburnby

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2010
636
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]RazorBurn[/nom]Sample of IBM Patents:Research in Graphene, Racetrack Memory, Carbon Nanotubes..Sample of Apple Patents:Square Devices with Rounded Corners..[/citation]

Sample of Apple patents:
- LTE patents used in your cell phone (if it has LTE).
- Patents on microprocessor design.
- Patents related to integrated circuit design.
- Manufacturing processes to allow 3D stacking of components on an integrated circuit die.
- Patents related to materials sciences.
- LCD patents (which Samsung has to use under license before they can actually make screens for Apple).
- A whole slew of patents related to low latency synchronization, beat matching and other functions related to audio/music recording and production. This is why iOS totally dominates the music production field and Android is useless (due to its horrible audio latency and lack of API support).

Then again, you can go on trying to spread the myth that Apple only has patents on the shape or look o their devices. For every patent like that you can find I can list 10x as many technical patents Apple has.
 

ericburnby

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2010
636
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]wildkitten[/nom]You do realize patents are neccessary for innovation right? If people can not have at least a certain amount of time where they alone can profit from their work, then no one would invest the time and money to come up with new items.A good example is the pharmaceutical companies. They spend literally years and tens of millions of dollars researching new medications and all during the R&D process, they make bring in no money off it.[/citation]

Totally agree. Except on the dollar figure. It can cost hundreds of millions to get a new drug developed and tested.

I don't know how so many stupid people can keep claiming that patents stifle innovation. Without protection there's no way companies would spend the billions they do on R&D. These areprobably the same people who think it's OK to download software for free instead of paying.
 

wildkitten

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
816
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]ericburnby[/nom]Totally agree. Except on the dollar figure. It can cost hundreds of millions to get a new drug developed and tested.I don't know how so many stupid people can keep claiming that patents stifle innovation. Without protection there's no way companies would spend the billions they do on R&D. These areprobably the same people who think it's OK to download software for free instead of paying.[/citation]
I think it's because in this day and age people making money is considered bad. They believe that people should work and make things and not profit by it, but at the same time, those who think that way would never invest the resources to create something new and innovative.
 

GreaseMonkey_62

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2009
521
0
18,980
0

I'm sure Apple has technical patents, but it's when they sue based on patents for objects with rounded corners that they look silly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY