When Patents Go Wrong…
Warning, Patent Rant follows.

Sure, everyone knows about high profile patents like Amazon One-Click, but what about the effect of less prominent cases?
A patent is a monopoly over an invention – in order to encourage innovation, patents are granted to inventors so they are assured of an income from the invention. Inventions usually make money either through the sale or licensing of the patent or through production of a product that makes use of the invention. The patent prevents others from simply copying the idea. Unlike Copyright, however, patents cover the idea even if the second person came up with the idea completely independently.
But why am I writing about this now? Well, I’ve come to the end of the line with a child’s clock. Yep, you read that right.
Back in 1991 Julian Renton designed a clock for children. The intention was simple, provide children who were too young to tell the time a visual indication of whether or not they should be awake. This is a great idea and one that, as a father of three, I whole-heartedly support.
All would be fine and dandy if he, or a licensed manufacturer, had gone on to produce a product based on the patent that both worked in practice and was sound value-for-money. Unfortunately that’s not what happened. Without the patent the idea would have been open for several manufacturers to pick up the idea and produce competing versions. This would have had the usual market benefits of encouraging the development of better products as well as driving cost down. The patent prevents this.
So, we’re left with just Sleep Time Bunny.
Now, as far as Julian’s concerned, the patent system has worked very well. He has a nice little business selling Sleep Time Bunny directly over the internet and through some shops. The usual street price for Sleep Time Bunny is a little under £20. Bear in mind that, other than patent-protected bunny face, this is the same complexity as a standard alarm clock. It’s also been manufactured with cost very much in mind – you can tell. I would suspect the manufacturing cost doesn’t exceed £2 per clock – and it is possible to buy unbranded alarm clocks that appear to be the same quality for around £4. Julian should be making a healthy profit on the sale of each clock.
But as a consumer, the patent protection has delivered me poor value-for-money and resulted in no consumer choice. The problem for me, as a consumer, is that the idea has been allowed to run as a monopoly, thus requiring no innovation or development to make the product better or cheaper. Take one of the most obvious problems for a children’s alarm clock:
A 2½ year old, the stated lower end of the age range for the clock, will often go to bed around 7pm and be expected to stay in bed until 7am the following morning. This is obviously something that people ask a lot as makes it onto Bunny Clock’s FAQ:
Bunny Clock Q. I tried to set Bunny Clock to sleep at 7.00pm to wake at 7.00am but the Bunny won’t stay asleep. Why is this?
Bunny Clock A. The waking time selection is set with the normal alarm set hand. However, the alarm mechanism, as with all alarm clocks, works on a 12 hour cycle and so you are effectively trying to set Bunny Clock to sleep when it wants to wake. If you want Bunny to sleep for 12 or more hours you will need to adjust the wake setting at a later time – possibly just before you go to bed.
Right, so for a very common case the clock simply doesn’t work. Notice the aside there, “as with all alarm clocks”. Not all alarm clocks are marketed for young children, not all alarm clocks are patented. How much product development has gone into solving that problem in the past 17 years? Zero. Because there is no need to solve it. The product has no immediate competitors.
What the patent doesn’t prevent is someone designing a product that solves the exact same problem and competes in the exact same space, as long as it doesn’t infringe on any of the claims made for Sleep Time Bunny. And that’s exactly what someone should do. Please someone.
6 Comments to When Patents Go Wrong…
We have this: http://www.thingamababy.com/baby/2006/04/kidsleep_clock_.html
Which seems, in almost every respect, exactly the same concept, only digital. And, in that regard, meets your requirement (since it’s a 24 hour clock).
It was a little pricey (no doubt to pay the patent license :)), but works quite well for Che (who is two and a half and definitely on the lower end for the product).
BTW, there is nothing like this, that we have found, in the States. We had to import ours from the UK.
January 19, 2009
Awesome, now that’s much closer to Sleep Time Bunny than I was expecting to see – but being digital and not changing the face means it doesn’t infringe on the claims IMHO.
Che loves it. He stands on his wipe warmer to set it every night and says “Night night” to the bunny when he’s being put to bed.
Of course, since he’s gone to the “big boy bed”, it’s sort of thrown the night night bunny rule out the window, since he wakes up and turns on the overhead light every morning about 20 minutes before “night night bunny wakes up”.
But while he was in his crib, it worked like a charm. I suspect once he’s into a routine again (and the night night bunny is in a better vantage point), he’ll go back to respecting it.
Rob,
You are taking a very short-sighted view on the issue of patent monopolies. Sure, it would be better for everyone today to invalidate patents, but what about 10, 50, 100 years down the road?
Who is going to spend money inventing anything new, if free-loading competitors are simply allowed to steal the market out from under them. Monopoly profits are what drive innovation.
I realize that means twenty years before your bunny clock is cheaper, but it also means that thousands of drugs, costing billions to develop, are currently off patent and available to you at generic prices.
There is simply no industrialized nation that has ever seriously considered crippling innovation by getting rid of patents on mechanical inventions. No one can dispute that mechanical patents benefit society over the long term.
January 20, 2009
Brett,
I can see why you read the post that way, and on re-reading I should have been much clearer. I agree with the principles o both Copyright and Patent law and support them. However, they do have a downside, and that downside is that some companies rest on their laurels – as Sleep Time Bunny appears to have.
What I see as a concern here is not the patent system in general, but simply that their is an absence of any mechanism to ensure that an invention is used to the greatest effect. Patent squatting if you like.
rob
February 25, 2010
[...] good things on that. But I’ve also seen some posts that are really rather silly, like this one where the author claims that since a great invention could not be copied by several manufactures [...]
Leave a comment
Additional comments powered by BackType
Search
What I'm Doing...
- @JingyeL I don't know yet, someone from here will be. in reply to JingyeL 2 days ago
- @JingyeL are you going to ISWC 2010 in November, Shanghai ? 2 days ago
- Back from work to find 666 unread emails waiting for me — must be a sign... 2 days ago
- More updates...
Recent Comments
- Puia on ISBN 10/13 Converter in Excel
- tee on Fixing a plasma TV
- computer doctor on Fixing a plasma TV
- Mars on left wondering…
- neeli on Pranav Mistry: The thrilling potential of SixthSense technology | Video on TED.com
- infopeep on You’re not the one and only…
- talisians on You’re not the one and only…
- olyerickson on Semtech 2010, San Francisco
- PaulMiller on Semtech 2010, San Francisco
- ldodds on Semtech 2010, San Francisco
Categories
- .Net Technical (8)
- Blog on Blog (6)
- commands I have issued (10)
- Enterprise Architecture (19)
- event (4)
- Fiction Book Review (2)
- Food (2)
- Intellectual Property (9)
- Interaction Design (27)
- Internet Social Impact (43)
- Internet Technical (16)
- IP Law (10)
- Library Tech (19)
- Linked Data (1)
- Music (2)
- New Toy (4)
- Non-Fiction Book Review (7)
- Ontologies (6)
- Open Data (7)
- Other Technical (20)
- Personal (36)
- Random Thought (16)
- Resourcing (4)
- Review (1)
- Security And Privacy (11)
- Semantic Web (32)
- Software Business (11)
- Software Engineering (37)
- Talis Technical (9)
- Uncategorized (44)
- Working at Talis (26)
- [grid::blogpaper] (8)
- [grid::fatherhood] (4)
Archives
- July 2010 (1)
- June 2010 (2)
- February 2010 (1)
- January 2010 (4)
- November 2009 (10)
- October 2009 (4)
- September 2009 (2)
- August 2009 (9)
- July 2009 (12)
- June 2009 (5)
- May 2009 (6)
- April 2009 (7)
- March 2009 (3)
- February 2009 (6)
- January 2009 (10)
- December 2008 (4)
- November 2008 (4)
- October 2008 (9)
- September 2008 (23)
- August 2008 (8)
- July 2008 (1)
- June 2008 (1)
- May 2008 (6)
- April 2008 (14)
- March 2008 (3)
- January 2008 (5)
- December 2007 (6)
- November 2007 (13)
- October 2007 (9)
- July 2007 (2)
- June 2007 (1)
- May 2007 (10)
- April 2007 (5)
- March 2007 (11)
- February 2007 (10)
- January 2007 (13)
- December 2006 (8)
- November 2006 (8)
- September 2006 (2)
- August 2006 (1)
- June 2006 (2)
- February 2006 (2)
- January 2006 (3)
- December 2005 (3)
- November 2005 (2)
- September 2005 (2)
- August 2005 (5)
- July 2005 (8)
- June 2005 (3)
- May 2005 (2)
- February 2005 (1)
- January 2005 (4)
- December 2004 (3)
- November 2004 (6)
- October 2004 (2)
- September 2004 (2)
- August 2004 (5)
- July 2004 (1)
- June 2004 (4)
- May 2004 (4)
- April 2004 (3)
- March 2004 (13)
- February 2004 (6)
- December 2003 (3)
- November 2003 (1)
- August 2003 (2)
- July 2003 (1)
- June 2003 (2)
- May 2003 (1)
- March 2003 (1)
- January 2003 (1)
- October 2002 (1)
- May 2002 (1)
- March 2002 (1)
- August 2001 (1)
- May 2001 (1)
- April 2001 (1)
- January 2001 (1)
- December 2000 (1)
- November 2000 (1)
- December 1999 (1)
- November 1999 (1)
- July 1999 (1)
January 19, 2009