I tend to read quite a few Technology stories on Technology websites and blogs and one thing I’m noticing more and more is the increase in Patent Lawsuits. What is it with these companies who buy up patents for no other reason than to sue other companies and either block their use of Technologies or claim Royalties from them. In essence, all they are achieving is making new Technologies more expensive for the end user who will ultimately end up footing the bill for all these lawsuits or in terms of the ongoing Apple vs Samsung saga, mean that certain Technologies are not available at all.
A really good example of all this was the recent news story about Apple’s touchscreen gesture unlock patent. Apple originally filed the patent back in June 2009 which has been granted. What this means is, devices will not be allowed to use a range of the commonly used techniques including swiping and pattern entry. Essentially the sort of unlocking used on the iPhone and iPad and also found on Google’s Android and Microsoft’s Windows Phone 7.
The story on the BBC Technology website does go onto say:
Apple’s patent – US patent number 7657549 – states: “A device with a touch-sensitive display may be unlocked via gestures performed on the touch-sensitive display.
“The device is unlocked if contact with the display corresponds to a predefined gesture for unlocking the device.”
The text of the patent is broad and would appear to cover a number of the technologies used by Google and Microsoft in their handheld devices.
However, that did not necessarily mean that Apple would be able to exert its will, according to Silas Brown, an intellectual property solicitor with London-based law firm Briffa.“Often you will have situations where patents are argued through long and hard to get to registration, but when they are challenged there is a counter action to claim that the patent shouldn’t have been granted.”
Mr Brown explained that such patents could be invalidated for a number of reasons, including being too broad, too simple or “obvious” in the current technological context.
So assumption being that unless the likes of Android and Windows Phone 7 were expected to find a mechanical way of unlocking the phones. The patent is too trivial and wouldn’t be allowed to stay in place if Apple were to try and enforce the patent. This really does ring home that notion that Patents for Patents sake is harming innovation rather than protecting it. I understand why patents are important for protecting really revolutionary products, but there really should be some sort of clarification on how patents are issued or who can hold them since there are companies out there making bog money from owning a patent with no intention of ever using the technology, merely attempting to profit from it by licensing the technology to companies that will make use of it.
I guess that’s the Price of Capitalism!
No comments yet.