Slashdot Mirror
IBM Wins Most Patents In a Single Year For 2008
eldavojohn writes "You might have heard or felt that there is little left to patent these days but IBM begs to differ. They came in at over four thousand for the year of 2008. Now, this isn't a good metric to measure success or progress but for those of you who like to keep track: 'IBM said it earned 4,186 U.S. patents in 2008, more than triple the number of patents earned by rival Hewlett-Packard. Microsoft Corp earned 2,030 patents, while Intel Corp had 1,776 and Hewlett-Packard 1,424, according to the report, which compiled data from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Korean electronics giant Samsung Electronics had the second-highest number of patents at 3,515.' You can find the original source of this study here as well as 2007's data and even 2006's data."
...And if they pay, say, $5000 to maintain each, isn't that a substantial financial burden?
And if it isn't - shouldn't it be?
That would probably hurt more than it would help. If we make maintaining patents cost prohibitive to a company like IBM, who does that benefit? If you've got a really good idea it shouldn't be too expensive to patent it, otherwise you're completely defeating the purpose of the patent system. Yes I know there are flaws in the system, but making it more expensive to patent things only helps the large companies that can afford it, not the small companies that might have some big ideas.
When IBM is doing things like increasing the resolution of MRI by a hundred million times, I'd say they must have earned a lot of their patents. They do much more research than HP or Microsoft.
"A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
The 3000 in the article is technical innovations, not patents - those are the sorts of things companies don't consider patentable, but publish them in case some other company might try to patent it - that way they can't be sued for the innovations use later on.
While it is true that, at least, some of MS's patents are for hardware, most of them are, probably, software related. As far as patent trolls are concerned, I think you have it backwards. There would be noe patent trolls to defend against if we didn't allow software patents in the first place. Software is, simply, a math notation and we used to have the brains to rule that people couldn't patent math.
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
Since when is 4186 "more than triple" 1424?
Why sue other companies when those companies are scared shitless of IBM and will payup? Lots of people pay protection money rather than get beaten up. That doesn't mean it's not a protection racket.
> The entire point of a patent is to allow a person or company to profit from their
> invention without other people ripping it off without doing their own research.
Not in the US. According to the Constitution the purpose of patehts is to promote progress in science and the useful arts:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
The courts have interpreted this as meaning that the point is to benefit society, not to protect an intrinsic right of an inventor to control his invention.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
What proection are they against trolls, though? They don't infringe any patents, so what use is developing a defensive portfolio against them?
How dare you be so modest!! You conceited bastard!!