It's not important. It's not important. -"unimportant" (especially for internet companies) is because patents are not the source of competitive advantage for general internet or software companies, because the success of such companies depends on their execution ability, the speed of bringing products to market (that is, the time to market), the speed of product update, the (continuous excellent) user experience and no shortcomings. Even with patents, Internet or software companies usually have no incentive to sue their competitors because it is meaningless. On the contrary, pharmaceutical companies rely heavily on patents, because pharmaceutical companies (especially top pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer and Bayer) win by several heavy products that have been invested and developed for many years, and the efficacy of products usually depends entirely on an active ingredient. As long as the molecular formula of this ingredient is protected by a group of patents, the company will see a lot of profits from this unique technical record in the next 10 years (the patent protection period is 20 years, counting from the application, but it usually takes 3-4 years to get authorization). As you can imagine, this kind of success, and the success of Internet/software companies are simply yin and yang poles, but the model of pharmaceutical companies seems to be somewhat similar to VC. Therefore, large pharmaceutical companies usually like patents and support the state to strictly protect patents. In contrast, it is hardware (machinery, electrical appliances, etc. ) and telecom companies that love and hate patents. They usually have a large number of patents through research and development, but at the same time they always risk being sued for infringement. If they lose, they will lose a lot of money and even be asked by the court to suspend the sale of products. If you lose, if you are unwilling, you will try to find someone else to sue (for example, in 2006-2008, Nokia was told that Nokia would compensate Qualcomm for more than $2 billion; Now Nokia is suing Apple; Then Apple sued HTC). The defendant was afraid, or saw others being accused, so he spent money to apply for a large number of patent portfolios. Everyone engaged in an arms race, making patent lawyers make a fortune. (Of course, the arms race is not all bad. Only with genuine technology can we have patents superior to others. Both the Internet and GPS are products of the arms race. Therefore, hardware and telecommunications companies often lobby the government to reduce the cost of patent applications and lawsuits. -"It's also very important" because software companies are also sued for infringement from time to time. At that time, the patent portfolio can be used to counterclaim and protect itself. Although I don't have many patents in my hand, I consider two points:
(1) The other party may be a large enterprise with many products, so many points may fight back;
(2) Small enterprises can consider putting patents together to form a "NATO" defense system-that is, once their allies are sued, they can borrow the patents of enterprises in any system to counterclaim (of course, the expenses should be borne by themselves). Finally, it is relatively cheap to apply for a patent in China (the cost is about 65,438+0.8 of that in the United States, and the government often subsidizes it).