Commentary
The iPhone Has Very Little New Technology: So Why Does Apple Need 200 Patents?
Mike Masnick over at Techdirt picks up the old invention vs. innovation debate and how it applies to the iPhone. So, does that mean that Apple's 200 patents surrounding the iPhone are unnecessary? Or even unjustified?Mike Masnick over at Techdirt picks up the old invention vs. innovation debate and how it applies to the iPhone. So, does that mean that Apple's 200 patents surrounding the iPhone are unnecessary? Or even unjustified?According to Masnick's line of argument, invention is the process of actually developing something novel and completely new. On the other hand, innovation is the process of taking a new (or existing) technology and making it useful for the public.
Apple under the leadership of Steve Jobs has been a leader in innovation. Apple didn't invent the MP3 player; they just innovated it and made it mainstream. Ditto with the Mac and graphical user interfaces. Apple is incredibly good at making technology chic, easy, and, most importantly, fun-to-use.
More Mobility Insights
White Papers
- How To Regain IT Control In An Increasingly Mobile World - by BlackBerry
- Red Alert: Why Tablet Security Matters - by BlackBerry
Reports
- Mobility’s Next Challenge: 8 Steps to a Secure Environment
- Time to Move: How to Ensure 'Mobility' Translates to 'Agility'
Webcasts
- Maximize ROI with Database Consolidation onto Private Clouds
- The ABC's of Cloud Computing in the Midmarket
So what about those 200 patents? Does Apple's success at innovation give it the right to patent all this innovation of existing technology? Critics of the U.S. intellectual property law system would argue no. They claim that the rewards of the market -- i.e. strong product sales -- are incentive enough.
Others would claim that both inventors and innovators need patents to give them a profit incentive to invent or innovate. Without these patents, competitors would quickly copy the new ideas and steal any reward the industrious pioneers might have seized from their hard work.
Going further, some defenders of the current patent process would go so far to argue that it is nearly impossible to distinguish between invention and innovation, at least from the perspective of the market.
What do you think? Even if a piece of technology isn't really new, does a company have the right to patent it?
Related Reading
| To upload an avatar photo, first complete your Disqus profile. | View the list of supported HTML tags you can use to style comments. | Please read our commenting policy. | |
|
|
T-Shirt Giveaway: Each week we're selecting one great comment from our readers. The author of the comment will receive an InformaitonWeek Community t-shirt. So get posting! |
Subscribe to RSSResource Links
This Week's Issue
Technology Whitepapers
- Mobile BI: Actionable Intelligence for the Agile Enterprise
- Creating the Enterprise-Class Tablet Environment - by Yankee Group
- The BlackBerry PlayBook tablet's Good Bones - by BlackBerry
- Red Alert: Why Tablet Security Matters - by BlackBerry
- New Visual and Wizard-Driven Paradigms for Exploring Data and Developing Analytic Workflows
Featured Resource
This white paper focuses on the critical need to manage outbound content sent via various avenues including email, Instant Messages, text messages, tweets, and Facebook posts. Read More












