I don't think patents were designed to create monopolies so much as they were created to incentive research. It sucks to go through a lot of expensive R&D that leads to a simple implementation if other people can just copy that and enjoy a huge second mover advantage.

Don't get me wrong, the end effect of patents has been nightmarish (I think mainly because the courts are so out of touch with technology). But I don't think the actual intent behind them is necessary evil or anticompetitive.

One of the main issues, as I see it, is that the thresholds for obviousness and prior art are woefully lax.

If patents were only applied to "expensive R&D that leads to a simple implementation", I think there would be much less argument over their benefit to society. But what seems to frequently happen is that patents are issued covering abstract, conceptual ideas which are just rearrangements of existing techniques in a marginally novel way, and which may never have actually been proven by a concrete implementation. That's not really rewarding research effort, it's just rewarding whoever was first to stake their claim and pay an attorney to draft the language convincingly.

And what's particularly galling is when a company obtains large numbers of patents like that, but only has the focus and/or resources to turn a tiny fraction of them into real products. So whatever consumer value might theoretically have been created by the others is squandered until the patent expires.

Agree completely. The base idea might have some merit but the way it's been deployed is atrocious.

This is a common misconception about patents.

They were never intended to reward innovation. They do intentionally grant fixed-duration monopolies.

Patents were intended to encourage companies to disclose trade secrets, forwarding public knowledge. In return, that company is granted continued exclusive use of the idea, as if it had never been revealed. This is also why ALL patent drawing are in the public domain.

If patents were only intended to encourage the disclosure of trade secrets, then they would only cover things that you actually can keep secret. Many if not most of the patents cover features of products that become obvious when the product is released. You cannot keep a trade secret on your innovative mouse trap design and then go ahead sell the mouse trap.

The incentive is a time limited monopoly.

I suppose it depends on how you define monopoly. A patent protects a (theoretically, non obvious) solution to a problem that you came up with. Other people can still work on that problem, they just need to come up with their own solutions.

You wouldn't say copyright gives an artist a monopoly on any particular type of creativity and - if patents worked properly, which they don't - I like to picture a similar outcome.

I just want to point out that in the Qualcomm case, their patents were used in creating standards (CDMA-related I assume?).

From the article:

> When a standards group is developing a new wireless standard, it assembles a list of patents that are essential to implement the standard—these are known as standards essential patents. It then asks patent holders to promise to license those patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Patent holders usually agree to these terms because incorporating a patent into a standard enhances its value.

> But Qualcomm doesn't seem to be honoring its FRAND commitments. FRAND patents are supposed to be available on the same terms to anyone who wants to license them—either customers or competitors. But Qualcomm refuses to license its standards-essential patents to other chipmakers.

So Qualcomm has a monopoly on essential technologies to implement standards. If you "come up with your own solution", then you are no longer standards-compliant. That means these patents give them a non-negotiable monopoly on an entire industry.

> You wouldn't say copyright gives an artist a monopoly on any particular type of creativity

You wouldn't say that because that's factually incorrect. Copyright protects specific works, not ideas/concepts/styles/etc.

I really think you and others should actually read the actual terminology used in established law/documents regarding patents instead of trying to throw in your opinion. This isn't a matter of opinion.

The law and commentary (at least in Australia) talks about monopoly a lot, you're right. I just don't think it has the same meaning in IP (which is concerned with implementations) as it does in common usage (which is concerned with markets). If IP was done properly (it isn't) Qualcomm wouldn't have a monopoly on cell phone chips - they'd have a monopoly on one specific, non obvious way of doing chips that they had developed (and they'd only have it for a fixed time window).

It's semantics but I think the word monopoly is both sensitive and overloaded. This is actually a discussion we had during my law degree, but obviously different countries have different particulars and the point I'm trying to make here is more philosophical than legal.

> I don't think patents were designed to create monopolies so much as they were created to incentive research.

I think a fair understanding of the history of patent law allows for both. However their increasing use as tools of monopolies is clearly the pattern we've seen over the last 40 or so years.

The provision in the US Constitution that authorizes patents (and copyrights) states:

> The Congress shall have Power [...] 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;

Which is pretty clear that the end goal is incentivizing R&D that ultimately contributes to the public domain, with the temporary monopolies being merely a legislative tool to achieve that purpose.

Probably the same people who gave the USPTO a profit motive to issue patents, no matter how absurd.

(Well, not "profit" in the sense of having shareholders and dividends, but definitely in the sense that its budget comes from fees and it gets more fees if it issues more patents.)

I chuckled when the article raised the question about the cause of Qualcomm's continued stranglehold over the supply of modem chips. Oh, maybe it's their fantastic engineers, or maybe their huge investments, or maybe their innovative chip designs. Or... maybe it's their 140000 patents? It's really impossible to figure out.

A patent is a monopoly on the patented invention, for the lifetime of the patent.