BLOG@IPJUR.COMCalendar
QuicksearchArchivesCategoriesSyndicate This BlogOther StuffBlog AdministrationPowered by
|
IP And The Fight On Business ModelsWednesday, June 23. 2010
In my previous posting I had reported and commented on certain lobbying efforts of (newspaper) publishing companies. Those entities were used to run on a long-established business model which apparently is doomed to fail in the age of the Internet. But the publishing companies in question won't let their business model die without further fighting, and they are cudgeling hard to push the state into politics offering help by creating a new type of auxiliary copyright bespoken to the suppositious needs of this branch of businesses. The reason offered as justification for such doing - which of course would degrade the prospects of other entities running different and conflicting business models - is that traditional press media are essential to the functioning of a parliamentary democracy. Others, however, doubt that the role of traditional print media is that singular to justify the creation of additional IP rights. There are different business models which did not exist since long but the proponents of which are lobbying to push the politicians and public to accept them as legitimate forms of doing business. In this context, I think of so-called Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), companies monetising patents by issuing licenses but not providing any other goods or services. Others strongly prefer to name such entities Patent Trolls, and it becomes clear that there is a big dispute on the legitimacy of their business model. Yesterday the IPBC 2010 held in Munich closed. There has also been a session titled Getting to Grips with NPEs, and one of the attendees, Mr Andrew Watson, wrote in the Tangible IP Blog: "I can’t leave Munich without a comment on that NPE session. [...] With one very limited exception (genuine lone inventors) I concluded that the whole troll business model is just so lacking in any creativity or social worth. I found myself asking “What went wrong in these people’s childhoods or lives to lead to a conclusion that they can look themselves in the mirror and believe that they are doing anything good?”. Daniel Papst by the way gave a good human explanation if I understand their heritage, gamekeepers turned poachers. And then I realised I owe slashdot an apology for ever expressing any admiration for organisations that create nothing. So here I am, saying sorry and asking for forgiveness for my error. I’ve now seen the inside and see how futile it all is. The one exception that one has to make and should make it for the small and lone inventor. He/she deserves reward if he is the godfather/mother of a new technology that creates wealth. He or she, exceptionally, deserves a fair reward. The rest of you, have you really got nothing better to do? [...]" OK, according to Mr Watson, in general - and with only one legitimate exception - the whole troll business model is lacking in any creativity or social worth. Well, I think it is safe to assume that while Mr Watson surely will find numerous comrades-in-arms joining his fight against the business model on which NPEs or Patent Trolls run but surely there are other guys out there who would prefer to defend a case that NPEs nevertheless can be valuable for the society e.g. because of their ability to add liquidity to the markets for IP assets. Whatever camp the readers of this Blog might adhere, it appears to be evident that there will be no chance to obtain unanimity on the answer to the question which business models are valuable for the society in its entirety and which are not. Politics on IP strongly influence the environmental climate for business models. If patent law would be modified e.g. by allowing or dis-allowing patents on computer-implemented inventions or biotechnology inventions, such decisions could shape the habitat of potentially viable business models. I think that it makes sense to transform the political debate on proposed modifications of the system of IP as we know it into a corresponding debate on which business models would be hampered / would thrive under the influence of such proposals. This would make the interests behind such politics as well as possible intended an un-intended consequences thereof much more transparent. For example, Mr Castendyck has organised his article discussed in my previous posting - the conclusions of him I really don't like - around the concept of business models instead of dwelling on moral and/or natural rights of the authors etc. pp. By doing so, the interests he is serving become ultimatively clear. (Photo (C) 2010 by Danoobiel via Flickr licensed under the terms of a CC license) Tools
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
There is one reason that the NPE ("patent troll") business model has become increasingly popular: it works. It is also legal, and often helps protect independent inventors and SMEs from exploitation of their intellectual property by larger, more powerful entities. Notably, it is almost invariably such multinational corporations that complain most about NPEs -- because, before the latter became so prevalent, greedy corporations could more often infringe SMEs' IP with impunity. Although abuse of the system should be condemned, most so-called trolls do nothing worse than Wall Street traders, for instance. Like it or not, NPEs are here to stay. And that may be a good thing.
http://www.generalpatent.com/media/videos/patent-troll
I have responded to Andrew's post on his blog and would refer you to that for the detail.
My main concern is that we should not tarnish all NPEs with the Patent Troll brush. This over simplification of the position as expressed in the tangibleip blog and on slashdot undermines the NPE offering as opposed to the Patent Troll model. Be aware that the NPE definition includes technology transfer from Universities for example. What we need before we enter a debate is clarity as to what the subject of the debate should be. |
ProfileTools
List Of LinksLinkedIn GroupsBlogroll
Bob Sutor's Website and Blog
Tangible IP Danny Weitzner - Open Internet Policy IAM magazine - Blog Intellectual Property Watch IP Asset Maximizer Blog IPKat - news and fun for everyone! The Invent Blog® Patent Baristas Patent Law Blog (Patently-O) Peer to Patent Class 46 - for your European trade mark news NIPC IP/IT Update Patent Docs Better Mousetrap Blog BlawgIT phosita TechnoLlama Suepo Visae Patentes CC LicenceExcept where otherwise noted, content on this site is licenced under the terms of a Creative Commons 3.0 Licence as follows: 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Share this Article on LinkedIn
