---
title: Patents
date: 2005-12-19T15:30:42Z
modified: 2005-12-19T15:30:42Z
permalink: "https://dogwonder.co.uk/2005/12/patents/"
type: post
status: publish
excerpt: ""
wpid: 213
categories:
  - General
tags:
  - patents
---

With most big companies currently patenting everything from the [colour Purple](http://www.boingboing.net/2005/03/25/cadbury_trademarks_t.html) to [story lines](http://www.plotpatents.com/) and [ofcourse software](http://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/history.html) we are generally experiencing the notion that companies can own a concept or idea and thus restrict future development (or at least make a large amount of money from it).

But I have been thinking how this might be quite bad for a company.

What if patents are both good and bad (for the company) in that (like the [Sony DRM debacle](http://www.boingboing.net/2005/12/16/sony_drm_debacle_rou.html)) they may patent an idea that at the time may seem brilliant (and ofcourse money spinning), yet if it proves like a bad idea, then the iron cage of patent may destroy their own business?

What I am saying is that due to the nature of such patents and indeed their far reaching umbrellas, what if a company (company A) is sued for some misdemeanour and then subsequently finds another company (company B) have patented said idea upon which company A’s product is based. Could company A use as a defence that, even though they are in breach of copyright it’s not really their product/idea. So could company B then could be liable for any damages awarded? Company A would ofcourse be sued by company B for breach of copyright, and everything would get very messy, but if its proven that company B patented idea led to the problem in the first place then company A may not be liable.

My knowledge of the law system is far from good but it seems that patenting such generic things could go both ways.