//
you're reading...
IP, IP Asset, Patent

IP Monetization For Me, But Not For Thee

A recent Reason (sic) blog belittles the patent acquisition and subsequent licensing effort of Rockstar Consortium.  As documented here, Rockstar’s now highly public licensing program marks the beginning of an inevitable recovery and monetization phase, easily predicted following a $4.5 B patent acquisition.  While followers of the IP transactional marketplace recognize Rockstar as simply another in a line of investments bravely forging a more liquid market for patent assets, the blog post’s author resorts simply to epithets, fear-mongering and mystical imagery, rather than, say, reason to understand and describe the firm’s activities.

A rather foreboding, mythical creature adorns the post while the author compares today’s patent licensing activity to the cold war’s feared “nuclear holocaust.”  Aside from slapping the faces of the actual victims of the 20th Century’s cold war, the Reason (sic) author illustrates an obvious appeal to a more visceral, emotional reaction, rather than to the intellect.  By the time the Reason (sic) author mentions the “inevitable anti-innovation fallout” of this so-called patent “cold war,” many a reader likely immediately struck the famous ‘duck-and-cover’ pose, cowering in fear from these patents that sure to destroy us all. (Did you see that evil monster? We’re all screwed!)

Of course, the danger in Reason’s (sic) fear-mongering tactic lies in the appeal of an overly simplistic message: Company A has a piece of paper permitting the court system to prevent Company B from using some Technology X.  If I want to use Technology X, and B wants to provide it to me, then B must be “good” and A must be “bad.”  The work, money or effort behind Company A’s property rights to Technology X suddenly become irrelevant in this scenario, as the hedonistic desire to use available resources takes over.

Unfortunately, after hundreds of years and several attempts, we have create a strikingly imperfect property rights system to protect inventions.  Although laws are passed to secure property rights in new, non-obvious inventions, and government agencies exist to ensure those rights are rewarded or denied appropriately, the execution of both leaves behind a culture of disrespect for property creators.  Our patent system requires inventors to fully disclose how to make and use their inventions in advance, for the promise of exclusive rights to the invention later. Of course, those who use technology to build businesses and products often use proprietary parts or methods without paying.  On a large scale, companies engage lawyers like mercenaries to wage a private war against specific patents, and a very public campaign against patents in general.

When patent owners use the only means available to license and monetize their property, companies–and the publications like Reason (sic) who cover them–issue a stern rebuke, claiming that doing so only uses the courts as a place of commerce.  It’s a no-win situation for the patent owners, however.  When lawsuits are filed seeking injunctions against future infringement, pundits and bloggers claim the patent owner wants to “shut down” some industry.

Ironically, though, monetization of intellectual property is alive and well at Reason (sic) magazine.  While the company mock’s Rockstar’s legitimate efforts to capitalize on its patent investment, Reason (sic) capitalizes on its own investment in creation of intellectual assets.  The blog’s author links to an article by Reason (sic) Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey, who published at article in an earlier print edition of Reason (sic) Magazine.  The link, however, only shows you the opening paragraph of Bailey’s article, with the rest obscured from view with a graphic instructing the reader to “Answer a question” to continue reading (see below).

The survey question enables the organization behind Reason (sic)  to monetize its intellectual property–in this case, a copyright-protected written work by Mr. Bailey.  The explanation behind the survey question states:

The website you are visiting is using a survey, powered by Google, to enable access to its paid content. Answering a quick question here gives you immediate access to the content you want without having to pull out your wallet or sign in. These surveys contain questions written and provided by survey creators that want to conduct market research. The website you’re visiting earns money from the surveys that appear. This service … helps to fund great web content and enables you easily and quickly get access to it.

So, evidently, while Rockstar’s monetization effort receives scorn, Reason (sic) easily demonstrates the intuitive desire to monetize its own IP. Does Reason (sic) magazine think it’s intellectual assets are more deserving of monetization than yours? Of course, the editors will just tell you that their system is entirely voluntary, and that potential readers are free to decline.  However, the same is true in patent monetization.  Companies are free to research and avoid patented technology in their products, and if they do, the patent owners have no means of coercing adoption and payment.  What companies are not free to do, however, is to take proprietary technology and refuse to compensate the owner, just as it would be a crime for someone to take the benefit of Reason’s (sic) content without using one of their chosen compensation options.

Advertisements

Discussion

5 thoughts on “IP Monetization For Me, But Not For Thee

  1. Patrick,

    It is sad to see Reason Magazine diverge from its namesake. Reason’s position on property rights is clearly hypocritical, even if you buy into their idea that ideas are nonrivalrous. This applies to their magazine as much as it does to inventors. But more importantly, the creation and reproduction of inventions uses real resources and there is a limited market for the invention, so inventions are subject to subject to scarcity and therefore rivalrous.

    Note in your example Company A has a piece of paper permitting the court system to prevent Company B from using some Technology X. If I want to use Technology X, and B wants to provide it to me, then B must be “good” and A must be “bad.” If you replace Technology X with Property X (and Company B with the Government), this is the exact argument used by Marxists. It is disappointing to see Reason Magazine which is suppose to be for ‘free markets and free minds’ parroting these Marxist (Utilitarian).

    Posted by dbhalling | May 30, 2012, 9:25 am
  2. “Companies are free to research and avoid patented technology in their products”
    Sounds like innovation to me…

    Posted by BL | May 30, 2012, 9:57 am
  3. You say, “What companies are not free to do, however, is to take proprietary technology and refuse to compensate the owner….” I agree with that. The corollary, however, is that patent holders should not be free to make baseless infringement claims against companies, effectively holding those companies hostage to pay via settlement and/or pay attorneys’ fees through trial. If there is a claim based in reality, then the patent holder has every right to wield his patent to recoup costs. All too often, however, there is no basis for infringement claims . . . and, unfortunately, your blog seems to skip over this huge problem most of the time.

    Posted by Mike | May 31, 2012, 1:20 pm
  4. Every time a patent dies innovation is born.

    Posted by Ken Bingham | June 6, 2012, 9:33 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: