I'm a patent lawyer, and am generally pro-patent on things. The idea of limited-term patent protection is that it rewards companies that do R&D and take a risk with a new product. So, Automagic/Claymagic did the initial R&D, did the marketing to convince people to use clay, and now get to reap the benefits for a limited time (even though the patent was issued in 1998, it would expire 20 years from the day of filing -- probably was filed 1995/96, so you're looking at 2015/2016).
I think what would be more unfair is for Claymagic to have worked really hard on clays, brought it to market, built the market (i.e., convinced people to use it), and then everyone else copied it to Claymagic's detriment.
I don't know the details of their licensing, etc., but at first gloss it appears the system is working the way it's supposed to here. Claymagic did not patent the technology with the idea that they wouldn't make a product themselves -- they sell one of these products. Furthermore, rather than shutting everyone else down, they are getting a "reasonable royalty" in licensing fees on their invention. This is very different than the Blackberry patent situation that I'm sure most of you are aware of.
The idea here is to encourage people to take risks with new products, be they car care or otherwise. The big question is, if Claymagic wouldn't have come out with clay, would another manufacturer have done so? Here, it does appear that Claymagic started the market, and everyone else jumped on. Ultimately everybody wins -- consumers, because they get to use clay, which is a superior product; Claymagic, which gets licensing fees; and, all the other clay sellers, which still make money on the clay.
I'll get off my soap box now!
- Mike.
