Since they can be bought or sold, patents are very similar to ownership. The claims define a patent, and the person holding the patent can prevent others from using the patent, including: But while a patent is not property like land, a patent is not necessarily a monopoly either. Most patents are worthless. Other patents are so narrow that, if known, they can be easily conceived. But there are big differences from one industry to another. A drug that is the only known treatment for a particular disease is actually a monopoly. A patent on an abstract ideaAbstract ideas are not patentable. This exclusion developed by the courts was explained more recently by the Supreme Court in Bilski v. Kappos, 2010. Similarly, it is effectively a monopoly on a fundamental aspect of technology. And a patent on a technology that`s part of a standard like Wi-Fi or LTE is effectively a monopoly because you can`t make a Wi-Fi chip without infringing it.

But a patent in some way solves a particular problem may not provide monopoly power – someone else might design around it. The information provided in this article does not constitute legal advice and is not intended to constitute legal advice. All information, content and materials are provided for general information or educational purposes only. The information provided may not be the most up-to-date legal information, and readers are advised to contact their lawyer for advice on a particular legal issue. Although patents may appear to be property, they are not necessarily real estate. Real estate is easy to identify, as for real estate plots. They have precise and clearly defined boundaries. If the owners of two adjacent properties have a disagreement over where the boundary between their properties is, this can be settled with surveyors and land titles. At the end of the day, patents are not property, and they are not always a monopoly. What they are is government regulation of the kind of behaviour that inventors and manufacturers can adopt. This is an industrial policy – and if patent policy hinders innovation and production, then it should be changed. Patents could also be considered as a type of financial instrument.

Although patents resemble property in some ways, they are not real estate and do not behave as such. For example, patents may be continuously licensed to another party. In addition, setting the limits of a patent can be very difficult and costly. It is also possible that patents overlap. Inventors and entrepreneurs generally consider their patents to be one of their most important business assets. However, others believe that a patent on new technologies only creates a monopoly. Despite these superficial similarities, patents do not behave like real estate. The identification of properties is visible and intuitive – many and do not overlap. When property boundary conflicts arise, they can be managed predictably by reviewing deeds and hiring surveyors as needed. But the limits of a patent can be very difficult and expensive to determine.

Each patent is defined by its claims, which can be drafted ambiguously – sometimes intentionally. Understanding a patent requires both technical and legal expertise – and in-depth knowledge of the field, including the scope of prior artPrior art is knowledge in the field of a patent that was publicly available before the patent was filed. And even with expertise, the boundaries are unclear. Ultimately, the final answer to what a patent covers requires costly and time-consuming litigation. It is true that a patent allows a pharmaceutical company to decide how much a new drug costs, and no one disputes that the system is perfect. Nevertheless, patents expire, and these drugs can then be marketed as much cheaper generic versions. In reality, patents are very different from these other types of intellectual property. For example, copyright allows fair dealing, which is not available for patents. Keep in mind that Merriam-Webster`s definition of monopoly includes terms such as “exclusive ownership by legal privilege, delivery order or concerted action” and “merchandise controlled by a party.” Other dictionary definitions speak of the monopoly`s ability to enable “price manipulation.” And unlike the land, ideas are not a naturally finite resource. There is only one 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington DC. There are a potentially infinite number of patents on various aspects of a mobile phone. And the unilateral patent granting procedure (only the applicant interacts with the examiner) means that there is no immediate constraint to grant patents.

Over-patenting usually only becomes noticeable years after the invention. This over-patenting can result in a single product potentially being covered by more than 250,000 overlapping patents. When there are so many patents, it becomes impossible to judge exactly which patents are valid and infringing by a product, resulting in a situation where a manufacturer must either license patents that it is unlikely to infringe or risk litigation. What is the first thing that comes to mind when you think of patents? You can probably think of a patent as a ticket to a market that belongs exclusively to you. Many Edmonton attorneys and patent agents will agree that many inventors mistakenly believe that obtaining a patent is tantamount to owning and controlling the market for its sale. In short, many inventors believe that a patent is a monopoly. But as patent attorneys and agents, we try to help our clients understand what a patent actually offers. In truth, a patent is not a monopoly. To find out why we define monopoly and understand patents in relation to it. A misleading problem with patents is that they are often bundled with other forms of intellectual property: there is a common idea about patents that you can invent something, register a patent monopoly for the invention, and then use the monopoly to make a lot of money. Unfortunately, patent monopolies do not work that way in reality.

In the real world, the patent monopoly system is designed to protect current inventors. Although patents confer certain rights to an invention, they do not generally constitute a monopoly. Many patents, for example, have no real value and the boundaries can be so narrow that they are very easy to circumvent. However, it depends on the industry associated with the patent. It`s much harder to manage an idea than something physical, like a molecule. An example of a monopoly would be a drug, which is the only effective treatment for a particular condition. Despite the rumors that occasionally circulate, it is virtually impossible for a patent to completely lock down a particular market space. Indeed, truly fundamental technologies, which are paramount in this market, are rare. Most patents are more about incremental improvements or advances, which means that patent rights can be very fragile. A patent gives you the right to prevent others from making, using, selling or offering for sale the same or identical invention. However, this right is limited to what you have defined in the claims of your patent application. If a competitor can create a product that goes beyond the scope of your patent claims, they can take advantage of this opportunity to enter the market and make money with their competing product.

If your product does not fall within the scope of your patent claims, you cannot stop them. It can therefore be argued that a patent does not offer a monopoly. If you continually innovate and get more patents, you`ll be able to dominate the market, but you`re unlikely to be the only person in your market. Take a keyword from Apple`s patent strategy. The market or customers for a particular product or service is a necessity for a monopoly. Obtaining a patent does not come with a guarantee that customers will buy your product or service. In fact, the successful commercialization of a patent can be difficult. There are many patents, such as a method of walking on a snake, which have not had much success. If your invention is new, non-obvious, and useful, you are probably entitled to a patent. However, obtaining a granted patent does not guarantee that you will earn money. Without a market and without customers, a patent can never create a monopoly. Here are three reasons why patents are not a monopoly: Both sides of this argument have vehement supporters, but after careful consideration, it becomes clear that patents do not necessarily create monopolies.

This is partly true because most patents end up being worthless. Maybe they`re geared toward technologies no one really needs, or they`re so narrow that competitors can easily design around demands. To some extent, both views are valid.