Law & Apple: When Did Patents Become a Tech Weapon?

Law & Apple: When Did Patents Become a Tech Weapon?:
The New York Times has been running a multipart-series called The iEconomy that claims to "examine challenges posed by increasingly globalized high-tech industries" and often does so by focusing specifically on Apple, as if Cupertino is the only US tech company involved in controversial manufacturing issues. While consistently calling Apple out prominently on issues that clearly involve most smartphone and technology manufacturers might not be the fairest way to position these articles, the latest addition to the series focuses on one area where Apple has led the pack in less than savory tactics: patent lawsuits.

Apple vs. The World

The Patent, Used as a Sword takes a look at several areas where US patent law is really broken, specifically regarding technology companies like Apple filing for as many patents as possible for ideas they may never produce. Insiders at apple claim the attitude to aggressive intellectual property protection shifted after Creative Technology snaked a $100 million settlement from Cupertino for a questionable patent.
Then CEO Steve Jobs decided that wasn't going to happen again and started including patent lawyers in development meetings. According to Apple's former general counsel, Nancy R. Heinen, Jobs made a fundamental shift in Apple's legal strategy. "His attitude was that if someone at Apple can dream it up, then we should apply for a patent, because even if we never build it, it’s a defensive tool,” Heinen stated in the NYT article.
Once Apple started stockpiling patents, other companies followed suit, like a modern day gold rush. The workload on the US Patent office increased to the point where is has become unreasonable to even expect accuracy the first time around.
Speaking about a typical day at the office, Robert Budens, a 22-year patent examiner and president of the examiners’ labor union, stated "When I get an application, I basically have two days to research and write a 10- to 20-page term paper on why I think it should be approved or rejected. I’m not going to pretend like we get it right every time."

I can't wait until Steve's patent on the black turtleneck expires.

Now we've reached a point where so many patents are issued so fast, many companies are "sued for violating patents they never knew existed or never dreamed might apply to their creations."
Judge Posner, who earlier this year flat-out dismissed a highly publicized case between Apple and Motorola, stated in the article that "There’s a real chaos. The standards for granting patents are too loose."
And when patents are denied, companies with large bankrolls like Apple just keep applying; the patent for Siri, for example was first submitted for approval in 2004 and was denied then as well as the next 8 times Apple applied. On the tenth application submission, in 2011, the patent (No. 8,086,604) for Siri was granted.
As the patent wars rage on, there are rumors of a possible peace settlement, and from a user standpoint, this could not happen soon enough. According to the NYT article, Apple and Google both spent more on patents and patent lawsuits in 2011 than on research and development, and that's not good for anyone but the lawyers.
Hard to say how much the development of awesome future projects was slowed, or shelved, because of this legal spending spree; clearly, though, the next big thing is not going to come from a courtroom.

Adrian writes the weekly Law & Apple column and the occasional feature story for MacLife.com. Follow him on Twitter, or subscribe to him on Facebook. Also, App.net.