Let me start by saying I'm a believer in openness and sharing. The concept of owning ideas seems to stifle innovation, and in particular, the emerging re-mix culture we're seeing explode seems like it's on a collision course with owning and controlling IP.
So when Fred Wilson pens a blog post that calls for the abolition of patents, I found myself nodding in vigorous agreement. But then, something happened.
The United States Patent and Trademark office sent me a letter. My Patent had been granted. US Patent # 8,117,545.
My first reaction was... "Huh???" Then, it all came back to me. The year was 2006, and I had an idea of what the future of web video would be. We had invented a process, created code, built out a solution, and written a patent. Then we hired a patent attorney and we waited.
Along the way the world changed. Software became more prevalent and iterative.
Companies sprung up to buy IP, and turn innovation into a series of chilling litigations. And the line between early stage IP and big corporate patents became a battle line. Cross it at your own peril.
So -- here we are, holding a patent today that was filed many yesterdays ago. 
What's an entrepreneur to do?
Fred, always the friend of the startup -- had an easy word of advice. "Patents are the anti-Christ," he told me. Ouch.
But the more I thought about it -- the more I found myself feeling like Fred was telling other young entrepreneurs not to use a tool that is very much part of the current landscape of how larger players manage their intellectual assets. Would Fred ask Google, or Apple, or Microsoft to relinquish their patent portfolios? What about TIVO, a company who's entire future hung in the balance until their patents paid off?
Are software patents bad? For arguments sake lets say yes.
But, like any peace treaty -- the decision to set down arms needs to be bilateral. Will the big tech companies burn their patent portfolio if I burn mine? If so, then we're on all on an even playing field. But so long as every employee at Google or Apple is writing patents and adding them to the value of those companies -- then Magnify.net and our feisty startup friends should be able to do the same.
After all -- it's not often you get a letter from the Federal Government that says you've been awarded protection under Federal Law. So on behalf of my investors and clients, having protectable IP is a good thing. And so long as a patent is the coin of the realm, then owning one seems like a good thing to me.
There's only one problem; within the startup world, patents are seen as anti-competitive, and a force that stifles innovation. So for companies like Magnify.net -- we're in a place where we need to walk a tightrope between the world of predatory patent prosecution and the need to promote your invention and innovation within the context of current patent law.
As I explained to a friend the other day -- it's like getting someone a puppy for their birthday. Much as they may be happy, now they have to feed it. And that can be a time consuming and costly effort, depending on how big the dog gets.
By all measures, our patent has big paws. So stay tuned.
Originally published on Forbes.com.
Follow Steve Rosenbaum on Twitter: www.twitter.com/magnify
No, you're not. They are bigger, richer and more powerful than you. True, they have more patents, but your patents at least give you a chance at tilting the playing field back toward your direction. As I wrote previously:
"By giving every individual an equal opportunity to seek exclusive rights, a level playing field is created that allows the best inventions to succeed, not simply the inventors with the most funding."
http://gametimeip.com/2011/05/30/america-invents-act-un-american-patent-reform/
The original concept of patents was supposed to be that ... (a) the idea was "useful and not obvious" ... and (b) the granted patent would be an affirmation of that fact, granted by some system that was supposed to be a knowledgeable authority on such matters. In other words, (b) the patent would actually mean something.
I think that we all can safely acknowledge what the patent system has always actually been. It has been, at best, a part-time job that Albert Einstein endured until he could get a real job as a nuclear physicist. It's been a carefully compiled conundrum of 6 million slightly different ways to produce a cast-iron cooking stove. Or a doubly-linked list queue. Or some other equally-useless "property of me" declaration that means absolutely zilch except for the fact that someone can sue your pants off for not having one.
The original concept of patents was, I think, a good idea ... but I do not think that it has ever in human history had a decent implementation. Right now it relies upon patent examiners (sic...) who are daily confronted with another 1,000 (no kidding) new applications to churn through. And it produces ... nothing useful to anyone.
Given the U.S. Government's refusal to help protect intellectual property, and patent trolls run amok, I think it's time to consider abolishing the whole system.
in hundreds of applications. We lack the $ Millions to enforce them, so we simply wait for the
opportunity to claim some value from litigation or joint venture or ?
Patents are a useful reward for creative work, not a simple consideration.
What is easy is getting the software out to other software developers that will get it to others that will all build upon one another creating things I can't even imagine long after I'm gone. The internet was not built on patents, it was built on a legal licence prohibiting patents. Without such non-patent work, our world would be much further behind technologically. It is this free work that is leading to great things.
Look at the difference between Europe and the US on internet technology. America has so many rights given to limited parties that you even have monopolies in things like coax and fiber networks. Europe has done the opposite, and they are quickly leaving the US in the dust. Rights as properties helps only the big established companies, not the innovators.
Patents have even infiltrated our food chain ... to the point where independent science cannot challenge the findings of this patentable food ... and that is frightening. Behemoth corporations operate every system within our government ... just look at the revolving door between government agencies and private corporations - Monsanto has much of this going on for itself. Frightening that a poisonous chemical company can infiltrate our food system and never be taken to task for it.
It's all about the money ... follow the money and you will see the very few corporate behemoths involved and their involvement with the others at the very top. Big agri connected to big oil connected to big pharma connected to big banks makes for big public safety problems.
we once imported a product from the same factory as another company...they had a tradedress of the shape of the product...it was a 40 year old product that the patents had run out on many years ago......