Talk:Patent thicket

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Kud0z 2 YU0![edit]

Nice job.--Nowa (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Edcolins (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe his source is incorrect: A "patent thicket" was also defined as "the utilization by a patent owner of some patents but not others, or the failure to license others for the purpose of obtaining or maintaining an illegal monopoly." ref. 5 (Kenneth Robert Redden, Enid Veron, Modern Legal Glossary, 1980, Michie Co., p. 398, ISBN 0872152375)

Patent owners are not required to use or practice any - let alone all - patents they possess, nor to license their patents, nor to refrain from monopolizing the production of their inventions. The only right granted by a US patent is the limited-time monopoly on the right to sue infringers. The reference as stated does not show that the term "patent thicket" was actually ever used this way; the glossary is a secondary source. Even if the source cites some other source it is nearly 30 years old and some more recent reference is needed to support the current use of the term in this legally confused sense. If there is no objection here I will delete the quote and reference. Enon (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Examples? (Cell phone, laptop "design principles", etc)[edit]

I don't know details here, so I can't "Be Bold", but are there other articles about "specific patent thickets"? I remmeber reading some article that said there were something like 7,000 patents covering the various aspects of a cell phone, so the idea of "building the next iPhone-killer in your garage" is basically a pipe-dream (at least when the lawyers come knocking). I know there are other "ridiculous patents" out there, like Apple patenting the wedge design of the Macbook Air. What other examples are there? Jimw338 (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

→ patent thickets aren't ridiculous patents, but when needing to license several different patents makes it functionally impossible for a new competitor to be formed. Hence why patent pools can potentially eliminate the thicket (a patent pool, provided it charges actually reasonable licensing fees, means there might be a lot of patents, but it's not difficult to gt a license for all of them, hence it isn't actually a problem. Standards that require FRAND licences be available for the underlying technology ( FRAND means Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) help too, because they have a list of the patents and their owners.)Ridiculous patents are a different problem, though they can indeed contribute to a thicket.--Sstabeler (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)