When patents hinder progress

I started thinking today about whether it is worth the money it costs to patent great ideas. I was speaking at the time with architect Arie van der Neut, co-founder of HVDN Architecten, and Vincent van der Klei, co-founder of Studio Ninedots.

Between them, these two firms have built 50 major projects in Amsterdam. Five of these use an innovative technique of pre-fabrication developed by the firm. Two of these projects, including a school, were built in 19 weeks from concept to “lock-up”, using this pre-fabrication – an incredible timeline for a major construction.

I asked van der Neut if he had patented the technique. He has not. Pointing to a drawing of a continuously expanding circle, he explains that innovation is never ending. By the time imitators have caught up with HVDN’s ideas, the firm will have moved on to the next iteration.

Patent attorneys will always warn entrepreneurs about the dangers of leaving their ideas legally unprotected. But proper protection is very expensive, and fighting over patents is even more expensive. The best advice I ever heard is that a patent is only as good as your ability to protect it.

It brings to mind a sad case of a man who had invented a natty kind of window cleaning squeegee. He spent a fortune – more than $100,000 – on patents. With no money left to market the product, he went broke.

On the other hand, Barokes, a company that invented wine-in-a-can and patented it, also at a cost of more than $100,000, fought for its idea right to the court in The Hague. It won. Fortunately, it found an equity (or angel) investor with the $3 million to fund the battle.

Then there is van der Neut and his fellow directors in this medium-size firm of 24 people. HVDN’s ideas are at the forefront of architectural thinking: these pre-fabricated buildings can also be taken down and the components reused: cradle-to-cradle construction. And they have a life span of 25 years. Together with Studio Ninedots, HVDN will start pitching for work all over the world, including Australia.

Their approach is what is known as the first-mover advantage. They get smarter and quicker every time they use their pre-fab techniques.

And the time and money that might be spent on lawyers and in courtrooms is redirected to keeping themselves and their ideas ahead of their rivals.

BRW

Comments (0)