Skip to main content

Patents & Intellectual Property Rights

Patents & IPR (Intellectual Property Rights)

warning

This is an early draft and isn't yet up to our standard. You can contribute improvements.

Definition & Summary: Using patents, copyrights or other IP rights to slow competitors by legally fencing off portions of the space . In practice, this means securing broad intellectual property and then enforcing it (or even just having it as a deterrent) so others cannot easily evolve a component further without dealing with you.

Detailed Explanation: The origin is classic defensive strategy: protect innovations with patents. But as a Wardley mapping play, it's about going further -- obtaining IP such that you limit competitors' ability to compete or evolve an activity . Purpose: create an artificial barrier (a legal constraint) that buys you time or royalties. Key principles: file patents proactively (even on things you don't intend to build immediately), create a patent "thicket" around key technologies, possibly use litigation or the threat of it to discourage encroachment. Essentially, instead of (or in addition to) physical or market constraints, you wield legal monopoly rights to freeze the evolution in that area to your benefit.

Real-World Examples:

  • Historical: Pharmaceutical patents -- A drug company patents not only a drug compound but also manufacturing processes, derivative compounds, and even medical uses. This heavy IPR presence prevents generic manufacturers from easily creating alternatives or limit them until patents expire. It slows competitors (generics can't come for ~20 years) and even after expiration, the firm often has next-gen patented drugs ready. This is a straightforward use of IPR to hold a market.

  • Tech Industry: Qualcomm and its cellular technology patents -- Qualcomm accumulated a massive portfolio for 3G/4G. Any phone manufacturer wanting to use those standards had to pay Qualcomm royalties (or risk lawsuits). This IPR strategy meant Qualcomm could slow competitors in chip design (they had to navigate around patents or pay up) and also secure a revenue stream that funded further evolution on Qualcomm's terms. It ring-fenced aspects of the wireless evolution .

  • Hypothetical: A robotics startup patents a broad method for drone delivery (covering not just their specific implementation but general concepts of drone-based package drop-off). As bigger logistics companies start exploring drone delivery, they find key aspects are patented. The startup's IPR could force them to license or slow down while designing workarounds. This gives the startup leverage -- maybe to partner on favorable terms or to delay giants until the startup scales.

When to Use / When to Avoid:

  • Use when: You have a technical innovation or design that can be patented and is likely to be important for future development. It's especially useful if your competitors have the capacity to catch up technically -- a patent slows them regardless of their money or talent. Use it early to stake out territory (e.g., patent emerging tech now to constrain others later). Also use when you can afford patent battles if needed (legal enforcement isn't cheap).

  • Avoid when: The field moves faster than the patent process (in some software domains, by the time a patent is granted, the tech moved on). If enforcing IP will cost more than its protective value, or if it will tarnish your image (some industries scorn heavy patent litigation, e.g., open source communities). Startups often can't effectively use this play unless they truly have a unique patent and plan to partner with a big player via it.

Common Pitfalls:

  • False security: Having patents doesn't guarantee market success. Competitors may invent around them (alternative solutions) or the value of the patented idea may diminish.

  • Litigation focus: You might spend a lot on legal fights instead of innovating. In tech, patent wars (smartphones) drained resources for all players and sometimes just resulted in cross-licensing stalemates.

  • Patent thickets harm ecosystem: Aggressive IP can stifle complementors too. If you sue small innovators, you might deter an ecosystem that could actually help your tech become standard.

Related Strategies: Licensing Play (from Poison category, which is essentially using IP licensing as a strategic move -- very much overlaps), Defensive Regulation (patents are a form of private regulation of a tech space), Open Approaches (opposite approach -- open vs. proprietary IP).

Further Reading & References:

  • Wardley, S. -- "Patents & IPR: Preventing competitors from developing a space... ring fencing a component" . Emphasizes how IP can be used to box others out of evolving a technology.

  • Examples: Patent Wars (Smartphones) -- e.g., Apple vs. Samsung litigation (2011-2012) illustrates how IPR was used to slow competition and extract payments. Court documents and analyses (e.g., Wired, "How Apple and Samsung Became Patent Warriors") show strategies behind each patent claim.

  • Economic studies on patent thickets (e.g., in semiconductors) -- highlighting how companies create dense patent landscapes to deter entrants, which is exactly the slowdown effect desired.