In light of our upcoming class discussion on intellectual property, I found this article in the New York times pretty interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/technology/21patent.html?_r=1&ref=technology
In the article, Steve Lohr shows how, "...the world can be a rough place for independent inventors." He tells the story of Dr. Daniel Schlager, co-founder of Zoltar Satellite Alarm Systems, and inventor a device which beams locator beacons from cell-phones. This device makes individuals in emergency situations easier to find by emergency response personnell.
After securing a patent on the device, Zoltar presented the invention to large cell-phone makers. These companies showed no desire to purchase or use the invention, but in the years to follow, Zoltar's founders started to see the ideas and designs show up in products made by the major companies. Zoltar took the companies to court, and after millions of dollars in court fees, settled in each of their cases.
This story is descriptive of many inventors who, rather than finding the licensing rights they seek, turn to courts to find a return on their investments. This path sometimes yields results for inventors, but rarely does the same for their investors. Also, some critics argue that the time spent in litigation limits innovation activity and slows the speed to market of viable innovations.
Venture capital firms and investment groups are responding by creating a market-based solution to the problem. These firms buy patents from small investors and auction them off to larger corporations. This, the firms argue, is a win-win for inventors and corporations alike.
Some critics argue that the "little guy" still loses out. Patents are hard to price, they say, comparing them more to "works of art" than stocks.
What are some benefits/drawbacks to this approach to commercializing innovation? Is this business model itself a form of innovation? How do you think this will effect innovation in this country as a whole?
