Rounded Rectangles

In a recent post that I read in HBR ,it was argued why a patent is not necessary for innovation . This is the exact opposite of what all of us have encountered studying about patents in monopoly . The purpose of a patent is to encourage innovation and new ideas. The premise of introducing a patent/copyright is that people or companies will take conscious efforts to innovate or spend on research and development to come up with new and creative ideas that will be beneficial for the society as a whole that can be in terms of better technology or better utilization of resources. If all firms could just copy the product/service of the other , the other firm will lose its monopoly that is helping it too earn revenues and will be alone facing the research and development. This may happen only in one period and the firm after paying high cost of research and development in one period will not continue to do so in the coming periods  and hence will be discouraged to innovate.

 Now let's look at the mobile industry. The pace of innovation in mobile phone industry is highly dynamic and it is not surprising to see a new model come up every week. Considering the dynamic and evolving nature of the mobile industry , does a 20 or 14  year patent for a mobile make sense. Is it right to consider the mobile phone or a table at par with a cancer life saving drug! So the first question is does the mobile industry need patents with a 20 year life? I think the patent life should be decided using a' case by case 'approach rather than following a 'same size fit all' approach'. As mentioned above this to ensure the patent life is decided keeping in mind the pace of changes/innovations in the industry. 

Secondly , as discussed above  the purpose of the patent is to encourage innovation. Apple has been spending a considerable amount on research and development , it is because of the ability of Apple to come up with simple yet such powerful products and technologies that makes it so successful and  'desirable'  across all  segments. Now the law suit of Apple vs Samsung , where in Apple has accused Samsung of infringement on Apple's patents, has largely been in favor of Apple as the Jury claimed 'Samsung willfully infringed Apple's patents on a wide variety of its phones'. If we were to believe that the Jury's decision is true that Samsung did use Apple's patented designs for products, then why didn't it deter Apple to cut back on its research and development expenditure. Why didn't Apple stop innovating even if its competitor was using its patented products and was coming up with almost similar products(sometimes with cheaper cost). The point here to understand is that the very purpose of the patent is that no person can illegally use a  patented product/technology/service  as it has a legal backing; a patent is supposed to be compiled by all and hence will make sure that companies/individuals innovate and have the right incentives to do so. Now even if the patents were infringed still Apple wasn't deterred to  innovate ,this highlights the competitive nature of the industry. The idea is that the nature of the market is so dynamic given the demands of the voracious consumers looking for new features and models ,that patent or no patent apple or any other mobile company has to innovate itself to survive in the market. 

I am not saying that Who should have won the case and who was right! I argue it is  important to realize  the 'nature' of industry to come up with patent laws. So its not about considering 'rounded rectangle's as ludicrous patents, it is to have a proper law that defines precisely whether a specific product is a patent , a special feature or a service and patents/licenses are given accordingly. The idea should be encourage innovation and benefit the consumer through a plethora of choice, not to grant monopoly to the mobile company for features and interface of the phone.