Patents vs Innovation

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 27, 2009.

  1. 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.

    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.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 27, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > 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.
    >
    > 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.


    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
    victor, Nov 27, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In message <hepsis$399$-september.org>, victor wrote:

    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> In message <hepn4f$94e$-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.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 28, 2009
    #3
  4. In message <>, Gordon wrote:

    > 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 “innovationâ€. Patents are only about
    “protecting†the “inventionâ€, they have little or nothing to do with
    “innovationâ€. That’s why they’re a waste of time.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 28, 2009
    #4
  5. In message <heqqip$q0o$-september.org>, victor wrote:

    > 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?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 28, 2009
    #5
  6. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    JohnO Guest

    On Nov 28, 4:13 pm, victor <> wrote:
    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > > In message <hepsis$-september.org>, victor wrote:

    >
    > >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    >
    > >>> In message <hepn4f$-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.


    Not the first time and sadly won't be the last time.
    JohnO, Nov 29, 2009
    #6
  7. In message <heq4hh$cbk$-september.org>, victor wrote:

    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> In message <hepsis$399$-september.org>, victor wrote:
    >>
    >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In message <hepn4f$94e$-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.


    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, Nov 29, 2009
    #7
  8. In message <hepi38$92p$>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > 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>.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 30, 2009
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    684
    Silverstrand
    Aug 29, 2005
  2. Silverstrand

    Sapphire Pure Innovation motherboard at bit-tech

    Silverstrand, Nov 24, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    795
    Silverstrand
    Nov 24, 2005
  3. Silverstrand

    Sapphire PURE Innovation PI-A9RD480 Crossfire

    Silverstrand, Dec 15, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    728
    Silverstrand
    Dec 15, 2005
  4. steve
    Replies:
    64
    Views:
    1,202
    Waylon Kenning
    Sep 17, 2005
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Re: Patents vs Innovation

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 28, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    372
    victor
    Nov 28, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page