혁신을 가로막는 특허제도 2 - by <The Economist>혁신을 가로막는 특허제도 2 - by <The Economist>

Posted at 2012.08.31 10:58 | Posted in 경제학/일반


A proliferation of patents harms the public in three ways. First, it means that technology companies will compete more at the courtroom than in the marketplace—precisely what seems to be happening. Second, it hampers follow-on improvements by firms that implement an existing technology but build upon it as well. Third, it fuels many of the American patent system’s broader problems, such as patent trolls (speculative lawsuits by patent-holders who have no intention of actually making anything); defensive patenting (acquiring patents mainly to pre-empt the risk of litigation, which raises business costs); and “innovation gridlock” (the difficulty of combining multiple technologies to create a single new product because too many small patents are spread among too many players).

(...)

A world of fewer but more robust patents, combined with a more efficient method of settling disputes, would not just serve the interests of the public but also help innovators like Apple. The company is rumoured to be considering an iPad with a smaller screen, a format which Samsung already sells. What if its plans were blocked by a specious patent? Apple’s own early successes were founded on enhancing the best technologies that it saw, notably the graphical interface and mouse that were first invented at Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Centre. “It comes down to trying to expose yourself to the best things that humans have done—and then try to bring those things in to what you’re doing,” said Jobs in a television documentary, “Triumph of the Nerds”, in 1996. “And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.”

"Apple v Samsung - iPhone, uCopy, iSue". <The Economist>. 2012.09.01


But the case still has big implications for the tech industry, which is facing a tsunami of patent-related lawsuits. It shows how patents covering the look and feel of devices are increasingly being “weaponised” by their holders. It highlights the propensity of juries to award huge damages in intellectual-property disputes. And it will give added ammunition to those who feel that the current system of granting and policing tech patents in America needs to be overhauled.


http://www.economist.com/node/21561912

"Apple v Samsung - Swipe, pinch and zoom to the courtroom". <The Economist>. 2012.09.01





Q: 특허권 보호가 없다면, 대기업이 중소기업의 기술을 마구 빼가지 않을까? 


A : 대기업은 중소기업보다 더 많은 특허권을 가지고 있음. 이것을 고려한다면 현재의 특허권 보호제도는 <The Economist>가 지적한대로 "후발자들의 추가적인 혁신"을 가로막는 "진입장벽"의 역할을 할 수 있다. 그리고 "Innovation Gridlock - 너무 많은 특허가 너무 많은 기업들 사이에 퍼져있기 때문에, 여러 기술들을 결합하여 새로운 제품을 만드는 것의 어려움"을 생각한다면, 과도한 특허권 보호는 오히려 신규기업들의 발전을 저해함. 대기업의 기술 유출 문제는 현재의 특허권 보호제도 방식이 아닌 다른 방식으로 풀어나가야함.


 

  1. 지인 트위터로 흘러들어와서 잘읽고 갑니다. 요즘 특히 관심을 갖고 있는 분야인데요. 이글의 결론도 그렇지만 spill over 효과와 지식재의 공공재적 특성이 만든 긴장관계가 이번 소송의 이면이 아닐까 합니다. 잡스가 기계류로 사람 홀리는 재주는 있었는데 확실히 인성은 바닥인 듯 합니다.
    • 2012.09.23 05:54 신고 [Edit/Del]
      잡스의 사고방식은 어찌보면 초등학생과 비슷하죠. 자신 또한 이미 수립된 다른 기업의 기술 덕분에 커왔음에도 불구하고...

Name __

Password __

Link (Your Website)

Comment

SECRET | 비밀글로 남기기