After Taiwan Province W decriminalized patent infringement a few years ago, all the problems of patent infringement changed from criminal litigation to civil litigation, that is to say, at most, it was only monetary compensation. Moreover, because people have the obligation to prove when claiming compensation, the protection of patents seems to be less intense than expected. Therefore, a well-known patent predecessor put forward the "patent uselessness theory", which caused widespread repercussions, and I think the predecessors should also feel it. At that time, the incompleteness of patent laws and regulations, or deep love and responsibility, was often used by many newcomers as a reference for whether to join the patentee, and it was also a good chat topic for old patent birds after dinner. However, some inventors balked at this, and it is a pity that they did not take patent protection measures for their inventions in time, resulting in losses. While some scholars' predecessors often said that "a good patent is better than many small improved patents", I feel the same way, but it must be added later that if the company does not have a good and high-quality patented invention for the time being, it will still be a weapon for future company expansion and the basis for patent layout.
In fact, the significance of small inventions in patent layout can not be ignored, and they often have a decisive position. With the following Go-like effects, the key minority can attack the city and gradually devour whales in this technical field. The patent group of "using more but using less" can form a fortress inside and build its own patent city; Externally, it can be used as a pocket tactic in patent layout, or form a barrier to prevent others from easily expanding the integrity of their patent layout; For the scattered patented technology, if it is in the middle of other people's patent groups (where others apply for patents), it can also be used as an effect of weakening the opponent's patent strength, and unlike Go, the chess pieces will not be unintentionally eaten by the other party; From this perspective, the benefits of obtaining a patent have two meanings: one is to passively expand one's patent territory, of course, high-quality patents are the best; The other is to actively find the gap between other people's high-quality patents and become their own patent points. No matter how big or small the patent points are, as long as there are more, the effect of cooperation or mutual checks and balances can be achieved. At this level, if a company wants to develop its own brand, it is probably a necessary step to apply for most patents.
Hitachi's famous saying: "patent" is valuable, as long as the company has patented technology to use, this patent is valuable; So when will the maximum value of patents happen? When competitors or other users in the same industry have no choice but to use patented technology, the maximum value of patents will appear! 」
Taiwan Province W consortium legal person Industrial Technology Research Institute, with considerable patent output, began to sell many effective patents several years ago, and many manufacturers competed for bids. For a large number of patent sales, the Industrial Research Institute "packages" several patents with the same nature into a unit and sells them at the same time, which can also make considerable profits, so a large number of patents still have their profits.
In addition, when two competitors have lawsuits and patent disputes, the mutual sharing of patents is often the best outcome. Although there is still some compensation on the surface, it can still achieve a win-win goal. When you want to go to the negotiating table, if the number of patents is small, the momentum will be much worse. Maybe the small patents of Party A can just get stuck in the important key points of Party B's products, so you blindly think that too many patents mean "just a few" or "a few". Of course, although the patent right of outdated products has not expired, voluntarily giving it up is still a way to save the company's expenses. This is another issue and I don't want to comment here.
Therefore, even if the creation is not completed by high-tech means, according to the current patent law, new (practical) patents can still be obtained through formal examination. Many people think it is of little use, but as long as the products are still on sale, it is still unknown whether there is room for negotiation or transfer. This should be a place where intellectual property practitioners can play. Therefore, between keeping patents and deleting patents, we might as well reconsider.
I have met many companies. They think that customers (buyers) have very fixed long-term transactions and have good friendship with each other, so they think that patents are unnecessary and give up patent payment. However, when the patent case was invalidated, other companies bought patents with patent fees and lost many trading opportunities at once; After the patent right is abandoned, a large number of low-priced and low-quality objects in small factories will still disrupt the original market situation and harm their own interests. In this way, it goes without saying that patents are useless or useful.
If my answer is helpful to you, I hope to adopt my answer, thank you!