On the 24th August 2012
Samsung was ordered by a court in San Jose, California to pay Apple just
over $1 billion in damages for patent infringement. Apple is now
seeking to ban the sale of certain Samsung products in the USA and a
hearing is scheduled for 20th September for that claim. This
long-running dispute between these technology giants over infringement
of smart phone patents shines a spotlight on the failings of a decaying
capitalist system.
On the 24th August 2012
Samsung was ordered by a court in San Jose, California to pay Apple just
over $1 billion in damages for patent infringement. Apple is now
seeking to ban the sale of certain Samsung products in the USA and a
hearing is scheduled for 20th September for that claim. This
long-running dispute between these technology giants over infringement
of smart phone patents shines a spotlight on the failings of a decaying
capitalist system.
History of patents
The granting of patent rights dates back as far as Queen Elizabeth I.
Patenting was originally a method by which to stifle innovation by
granting a monopoly to a particular favourite of the monarch.
As the power of the feudal aristocracy declined the revolutionary
bourgeoisie began to transform the economy and the patent system along
with it. The feudal system was overthrown and an economy based on free
exchange and individual property rights took root. Privilege based on
hereditary titles was replaced by privilege based on money.
This was reflected by changes in intellectual property rights.
Patent rights were transformed from an oppressive weapon used to
buttress the strength of the monarchy into a progressive form of
protection for individuals who were able to keep the rights to their
inventions for themselves instead of being forced to pass them onto a
parasitic feudal master.
Patent rights then represented a careful balancing act between giving
rights to the inventor and allowing others to make use of the
invention. Currently, patent law trades protection for publication: the
details of the invention are published in return for roughly a twenty
year monopoly.
Modern patent rights
An economy with free competition of capital as its basis will
inevitably tend towards a concentration of that capital. As businesses
merge, take over, and bankrupt each other we are left with an ever
decreasing number of companies with an ever increasing percentage of the
market share.
This inevitably results in a concentration of patent rights in the
hands of a few companies, giving those companies a monopoly over the
production of an ever increasing number of inventions. We seem to have
returned full circle to a situation where patent rights are used to
cement monopolies and stifle innovation, albeit in a capitalist context
rather than a feudal one.
In February 2011 the oil companies BP and DuPont took a bio-fuels
company to court over infringement of a patented advanced bio-fuel.
Innovation in cleaner fuel was prevented through the use of patent law
by oil companies.
The phenomenon of “submarine patents” is not uncommon. Companies will
hoard as many patents as they can get their hands on without ever
intending to use them to produce anything. Instead a “cold war”
situation develops where Company A tries to sue Company B for patent
infringement but Company B has accumulated enough patents that something
produced by Company A probably infringes one of them, so Company B can
sue Company A straight back.
Such a situation prevents improvements being made to existing
inventions and the enormous litigation costs are all passed onto the
consumer in the price of the products.
Is law reform the solution?
In its analysis of the Apple v Samsung issue, the Economist
(01/09/12) notes many of these problems and attributes them to the
current state of the law. Its solution is to reform the law on patents
so that fewer inventions meet the criteria for patent protection thus
benefitting consumers and innovators.
This suggestion fails to take into account the historical development
of patent law as a reflection of the economic system that it regulates.
The difficulties allegedly caused by patent law are not the cause of
the problem but a symptom of it.
It would be incorrect to say that, without patent law, BP and DuPont
would have been unable to stifle the innovation of a small bio-fuels
company. It would also be incorrect to say that, if it weren’t for
patent law, small companies would flourish and new inventions would
increase. Because ultimately, what is to stop a large company buying out
a smaller one, or undercutting and bankrupting it?
The real cause of the stagnation of innovation and the crushing power
of big business is the concentration of capital that is inevitable in a
capitalist system. Patent law is not much more than a manifestation of
the power that concentration brings, but the enormous cost of patent
litigation shines a spotlight on how stagnant and regressive capitalism
has become.
Socialism is the solution
Socialists
stand for the socialisation of the means of production. If the patents
currently being disputed by Apple and Samsung were owned by a socialist
democratic state, billions of dollars and a wealth of resources would
not be wasted on legal and other matters that serve no progressive
purpose what so ever.
In fact, patents as such would disappear, as companies like Apple and
Samsung would cease to be private entities. And the rudiculous trench
wars aimed at stifling development would be replaced by cooperation for
the benifit of all. These companies, whose products have become social
in the sense that they are produced and used socially, would become
common property. Their software and designs would be open to all, as
well as the right to innovate and improve on them.
The bourgeois revolutions were able to smash the limitations on
production and innovation created by the feudal system of property and
servitude. The capitalist system introduced by the bourgeoisie has now
also reached its limitations. It is the role of the working class to
transform society and smash these capitalist fetters on development.
This can only be done by placing the means of production under the
democratic control of working people.
