The
cynic says: Let’s consider what big IT companies such as IBM,
Microsoft, and Hewlett-Packard find attractive in “patent reform:”
1. Big companies have historically stolen lots inventions, and seldom been caught.
We all know the famous stories, the rare times when companies did get caught, and individuals and small companies either prevailed or at least were heard.
But what of the thousands of times when the theft was unnoticed, or could not be proved, or where the innovator could not afford to defend his or her claim?
2. Big companies want to continue to steal ideas at will, and they have a problem with two megatrends:
A. Most of the innovation in the world of information technology now happens in the world at large, not in their private labs. They do not want to have to license this world-spawned technology. Indeed, they don’t want to have to keep systematically informed of it. (Hey, IBM, subscribe to TechCrunch!)
B. Big companies like IBM now and in the future plan to make most of their money as consultants and systems integrators. Technology is a “cost of goods” to them. Technology innovation is a cost of goods to them. They would like to make the cost of technology as low as possible. They would like to make the cost of innovation, the cost of inventions, and the cost of licensing patents as small as possible.
3. Big companies have come up with a solution that allows them to continue to steal inventions and deal with the megatrends arrayed against them:
Reduce the protection afforded to small companies and individual inventors under the patent law.
A. Make it harder for small inventors to get patents by attacking the patent office for “lack of quality” specifically in IT and software patents. Note: Under the “old” “low quality” system IBM already has 32,000 issued patents in its name, and 45,000 it controls in total including patents acquired. IBM files about 3000 new patents per year, as does Microsoft.
B. Reduce the damages inventors can collect, thus reducing big company direct exposure to amounts that big companies can easily afford, and reducing the willingness of law firms to take on claims of small inventors because of the limited potential returns on the investment in a lawsuit.
C. Fund–under the table–”patent busting” activities on patents that are seen to potentially stand in the way of large company systems integration business. In this way IBM and other large firms outsource legal attempts to invalidate others’ patents. IBM and others are then able to use non-profit talent, they are able to join with other firms in alliances that would otherwise be illegal collusions under anti-trust law, and IBM can “donate” tax free.
