tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26170409845933927462024-03-05T14:58:06.549-05:00Search The Way You ThinkA Conversation About Intellectual Property and The Joy of Finding Things OutInventrepreneurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369045448865493879noreply@blogger.comBlogger149125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2617040984593392746.post-48825577048882113992012-12-05T06:46:00.000-05:002012-12-05T06:46:22.534-05:00Invention Nonsense Maybe - Green Tech Edition<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYmEhJJY6HKg3_ijxaUj9crqwFVHssaY1fYxFKCVJZDQZN2jTMpwOTg2mK09y1cGe5fswnk6l7-oMhL4yPsDXLqyakwyFJKtfHAV9krRdfYlr_r2Aory3-Thctfxof9OHzqhnDUIztPPk/s1600/iStock_000000687213Small.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="107" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYmEhJJY6HKg3_ijxaUj9crqwFVHssaY1fYxFKCVJZDQZN2jTMpwOTg2mK09y1cGe5fswnk6l7-oMhL4yPsDXLqyakwyFJKtfHAV9krRdfYlr_r2Aory3-Thctfxof9OHzqhnDUIztPPk/s200/iStock_000000687213Small.jpg" width="200" /></a> The <a href="http://www.wayfinderdigital.com/green_program.html">USPTO's Green Tech Pilot Program</a> is probably the closest thing to a proxy to the new changes under the America Invents Act that authorizes the Director of USPTO to designate "economically important" technology for accelerated examination. The program had a set of specific goals, it designated certain technology that was eligible for the program, and then moved the applications that met the requirements to be "made special" - patent speak for moving to the head of the line - to the top of the examiners docket. <br />
<br />
There are lots of interesting topics for the innovation and patent researchers to explore when you look at the program, the impact of green technology, what is green tech/cleantech/sustainable tech? Let's start with how will USPTO determine what is economically important? Did anyone think that the ability to use your thumb in a quick swipe motion to unlock your - personal digital device, electronic device, mobile phone, personal digital assistant - or all those other now somewhat archaic terms for what we call the smartphone would rock the intellectual property world? (See Apple v. Samsung and vis versa.)<br />
<br />
Then there are the issues of how these kind of programs morph from one thing into another and how to determine if the programs achieve their goals. The USPTO Green Tech Pilot Program started with <a href="http://www.wayfinderdigital.com/green_pilot_classes.html" target="_blank">a list of patent classifications</a> that covered applications that were eligible. Then inventors shaped the program by persuading USPTO that they needed a broader definition and that important energy saving, clean tech inventions can come from a lot of places. <br />
<br />
But somewhere along the way, USPTO seemed to do what they hate in patent prosecution - overly broad definition and scope. Here are a few examples that result in the "Really?" response.<br />
<br />
A patent awarded to Tesla for improving the driving experience of electric vehicles.<br />
<br />
Patents were awarded to GE for a built in door for wind turbines and then another was awarded for the bolts that are used in their construction.<br />
<br />
A patent for a car tent that can be attached to the back of an SUV.<br />
<br />
There were also some very compelling patents - patents for improvements to internal combustion engines, new LED lighting, sunscreen for produce to keep it fresher longer while it's in motion moving from the farm to the consumer, commercial cookware that dramatically reduces the amount of gas needed to heat the pots in commercial kitchens.<br />
<br />
So who knows. Time will tell if what seems to be patent nonsense turn out to be disruptive clean tech innovations. Who thought that coin operated binoculars would be around for so long? The electric vehicle driving experience thing seems to be a stretch though.<br />
<br />
*Wayfinder Digital has done an independent analysis of the program. Learn about it <a href="http://www.wayfinderdigital.com/green_discovery_analysis.html" target="_blank">here.</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />Inventrepreneurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369045448865493879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2617040984593392746.post-49839070527555971172012-09-07T08:29:00.000-04:002012-09-07T08:29:09.363-04:00A Fresh Look at Green Technology<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjddmDtGNHGwGXNIp4DkQvdN-tCSTNfqB7wFFd27Azgb7F45d1Zj4Ai3NiMQZu1vtttn0dAa5ZIFOTDDX4yvaHuzi4JPnefM7HKSscXcOn8RPvkTfjrdhyn7UzBhuVhXluIbYa9NbORYxM/s1600/Wind2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="139" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjddmDtGNHGwGXNIp4DkQvdN-tCSTNfqB7wFFd27Azgb7F45d1Zj4Ai3NiMQZu1vtttn0dAa5ZIFOTDDX4yvaHuzi4JPnefM7HKSscXcOn8RPvkTfjrdhyn7UzBhuVhXluIbYa9NbORYxM/s200/Wind2.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
There hasn't been much new and interesting information on the USPTO Green Technology Pilot Program. There was lots of hoopla when the program was announced, and a little more when it was extended and when USPTO opened up the definition of what would constitute Green Technology under the program. There wasn't much real information about the results of the program. Most of the information from USPTO was speeds and feeds -- how many patent applications they received, how many patents they granted, when the program would end, blah, blah, blah. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.wayfinderdigital.com/index.html">Wayfinder Digital</a> published a <a href="http://www.wayfinderdigital.com/green_discovery_analysis.html">Discovery and Analysis Report on the USPTO Green Technology Pilot Program </a>that provides a fresh look at green tech innovations created under the program. The report takes a comprehensive look at the first 800+ patents granted under the program. It looks at the patents, the technology that was patented under the program, the assignees, the geography - where the inventions came from, and the inventors. For patent stat folks they also looked at pendency, complexity, and which technology center handled the applications. The report also follows the primary classifications back to the oldest patents with the same classification to take a look at some of the oldest prior art.<br />
<br />
USPTO created the program to advance green technology and create jobs. Wayfinder Digital looked at the patents and then looked at the Young Guns - the young companies that got patents under the program. The Young Guns may be the most revealing part of the report. The <a href="http://www.kauffman.org/newsroom/high-growth-firms-account-for-disproportionate-share-of-job-creation-according-to-kauffman-foundation-study.aspx">Kaufman Foundation</a>, which studies entrepreneurship, notes that young companies are the engines of economic development creating a disproportionate number of new jobs and economic growth. Looking at the Young Guns in the context of a program that was focused on economic growth and creating jobs is an important metric.<br />
<br />
One of the things I found most compelling about the report is that it provides a timely snapshot of what happens when USPTO offers free accelerated examination (participants in the program didn't have to pay the normal fees for accelerated examination.) The American Invents Act allows the Director of USPTO to grant certain economically important technology accelerated examination if an applicant requests it. Here was a program that did exactly that - granted accelerated examination to technology USPTO deemed to be economically important. The innovation researchers among us might find it an interesting examination of how a program like this might work and going forward following the patents to see if they meet the goals of the program - creating jobs and enhancing US economic competitiveness. <br />
<br />
When you read the report here are a few things you notice. First, USPTO published a list of classification that would qualify under the program. As the program progressed it let inventors explain the environmental, greenhouse gas emission reduction, and other green technology benefits of the inventions without regard to what turned out to be a very restrictive list of classifications. When you look at the inventions you will see that the program reached across inventive domains - urban wind inventions, inventions to cut back power usage from "vampire draw", new methods to recycle tires. There are also some surprises - lots of transportation inventions but not many for electric vehicles or hybrids.<br />
<br />
The report is an important addition to the dialog on whether accelerated examination programs really help speed innovations to the marketplace and help US economic competitiveness. Considering the depth of the analysis <a href="http://www.wayfinderdigital.com/product_plans.html">it's cheap at $19.00</a>. Inventrepreneurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369045448865493879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2617040984593392746.post-11859467572398913552012-05-24T09:54:00.001-04:002012-05-24T09:54:44.770-04:00IdeasAn idea is like a ghost...must be spoken to a little before it will explain itself. <br />
-Charles Dickens (1812-1870)Inventrepreneurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369045448865493879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2617040984593392746.post-66655121109386836972012-05-05T09:40:00.001-04:002012-05-05T09:42:13.310-04:00The Economically Significant Patent<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-right: 1em; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 6px; padding-right: 6px; padding-top: 6px; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8qKNP8VUaNijJU-ffUFbdByGYsuh5Ust3m0lI7kff7fvJVqvZzER1sUJxQWo24G-pbJzYNYj26dhQdXMzs3SIcgcbtulwpBy9B7850gxX8BGJ_Fuy5Z9WKnilsA1JuuN-nbD-m7f4-8A/s1600/easier_said_the_done.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8qKNP8VUaNijJU-ffUFbdByGYsuh5Ust3m0lI7kff7fvJVqvZzER1sUJxQWo24G-pbJzYNYj26dhQdXMzs3SIcgcbtulwpBy9B7850gxX8BGJ_Fuy5Z9WKnilsA1JuuN-nbD-m7f4-8A/s200/easier_said_the_done.gif" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 13px; padding-top: 4px; text-align: center;">Nothing's Easy</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
On April 20th, about a week ago, USPTO issued a <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-04-20/html/2012-9503.htm" target="_blank">request for comments via the Federal Register</a> seeking input on the latest bright idea from Congress. The short version is that Congress (and the technology lobbyists) want to explore placing a secrecy order on "economically significant" patents to protect the economic national security of the United States.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
The Federal Register contains the request, nice background information on how secrecy orders work and the impact on the patent system int he event such a program were put in place. Here are some of the highlights. The request:</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
"Pursuant to a request from Congress, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking comments as to whether the United States should identify and bar from <b>publication and issuance</b> certain patent applications as detrimental to the nation's economic security. The USPTO is also seeking comments on the desirability of changes to the existing procedures for reviewing applications that might be detrimental to national security."</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
Let's start with the basics. A patent is basically a social compact where an inventor gets exclusive rights to their invention for a limited period of time in exchange for publishing information about how to make their invention and how it works. Patent 101. Barring publication is one thing. Barring issuance is a REALLY BAD IDEA.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
In a patent system where it's already taking an average of three years to get your patent application prosecuted and where USPTO can't find enough electrical engineers or computer scientists (or chemical and mechanical engineers) to deal with the explosion of applications we are now going to ask the examiners (or some other economic types) to screen the patents for matters pertaining to their economic significance. </div>
<blockquote>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
"Congress has asked whether the currently performed screening of patent applications for national security concerns should be extended to protect economically significant patents from discovery by foreign entities."</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
What is a foreign entity? Is the overseas operations of a US company that operates as a division of a US company a foreign entity. (Just imagine the definition page that would go along with this set of new regulations.)</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
And here comes the definition of economic security:</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
"In this context, the Subcommittee describes <b>"economic security'' </b>as ensuring that the United States receives the first benefits of innovations conceived within this country, so as to promote domestic development, future innovation and continued economic expansion."</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
Consider Apple for a minute. They are among the leaders in patented technology. In the early days when they were cranking out the patents that would eventually lead to their "i" take over of the consumer electronics world - iPod, iPhone, iPad, iMac, with more to come, no one would have guessed that a touch screen invention where you swipe your finger across the screen to unlock your device would have been economically significant. That was because we were all using Blackberries.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
So now we are going to ask patent examiners, who quite frankly have enough to do and probably aren't the best ones to be in the business of determining market movements, to determine the economic value of a patent. Or we are going to create a whole new universe of innovation police who are going to figure out what is and isn't economically significant. USPTO hasn't been able to do this on well defined areas of the economy - consider the Green Technology Pilot Program where the Office set forth a bunch of classes that were their definition of "green technology" only to have to change the criteria when the innovators showed that there are many more ways to create clean tech that were outside of the boundaries of a certain group of classifications.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
What's even more entertaining is that secrecy orders are handled by the Department of Defense (DOD). DOD has its hands full dealing with cyber security and a couple of wars at the moment. They barely have time to determine which patents have real national defense implications. I doubt that the US Army would have thought that remote control toy car technology used to make improvised explosive devices was significant until, well, it was. How would they have known which technologies would wind up in the latest IEDs? </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
The secrecy order stuff has much bigger ramifications. First, who is going to administer all this? Second, if patents are protected by secrecy orders, they have the potential to lose their priority date when the applicant files overseas. And then there's the really disturbing aspect - not issuing the patent. Does the assignee and the inventor need to ask the government to issue the patent? Will the Government decide when to issue the patent? This whole process feels like it will do nothing but slow down the process and dramatically extend the innovate to market continuum, something the feds are trying to accelerate when they are funding Federal Research grants. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
Which has a bigger impact on our economic security - protecting an application based on some arbitrary determination at the time of the filing of the application that a patent is economically significant; or losing the priority date when the US inventor (this is also something hard to define) goes to file a foreign patent application.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
Also consider the metrics. About two thirds of the patent applications don't get granted. The invention isn't novel or non-obvious, the inventor can't answer the examiner's questions in a timely manner, or the inventor just calls it quits and abandons the application. So we're going to add a process to make an "economic security" decision about a patent application - when? </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
Based on the language in the request, it seems that the decision would be made by a third party because the inventor/assignee has the right to request that an application isn't published already. Imaging that can of worms. Inventor sends an application to USPTO and some agency, government bureaucrat, or overloaded patent examiner decides a patent economic secrecy order is required. Inventor doesn't want it, government does, all hell breaks lose. The only guys making any money at this point are the patent lawyers. (oops...sounds like an opportunity.)</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
The soapbox is out. I'm about to opine as the patent lawyers like to say...</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
This is once again an over reach by the Feds seeking to protect us from a boogie man that doesn't exist. If the INVENTOR or his/her firm think that their invention has significant economic value they have two choices - maintain it as a trade secret; or request that the application not be published. Check the box - fill out the forms - it's not that hard.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
Do we really need the US Government picking winners and losers. Frankly their track record isn't really that good.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>Inventrepreneurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369045448865493879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2617040984593392746.post-65731220781328766782012-05-05T08:43:00.000-04:002012-05-05T08:43:45.772-04:00Change is in Order<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkmAlP_034ERXpXTMtgUYmpawOF0hvBtQnTZ7SSHb1KRkjvUCMDeSWcG47Sr6YoplRv4HOFhyphenhyphen4AXSXXy36qBJKlBZjmbziQrpM_6TpsVn-1lkK6OBKVI2nHpJewKGeb_ncG_Bf0Hw8rQ0/s1600/scream.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkmAlP_034ERXpXTMtgUYmpawOF0hvBtQnTZ7SSHb1KRkjvUCMDeSWcG47Sr6YoplRv4HOFhyphenhyphen4AXSXXy36qBJKlBZjmbziQrpM_6TpsVn-1lkK6OBKVI2nHpJewKGeb_ncG_Bf0Hw8rQ0/s320/scream.jpg" width="228" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; line-height: 16px;"> Edvard Munch's just sold for $119+ Million!!</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The patentsphere is a strange and scary place sometimes. I thought I'd share some highlights on my various outings if only to reassure myself that this stuff actually happens.<br />
<br />
It all started simply enough. An inventor told me that, "Apple is infringing my patent."<br />
<br />
"Wow, really. What patent is it?" <br />
<br />
"It's my amazing turn your iPhone into a flying car patent (an example since I don't want the inventor to be further enflamed.)<br />
<br />
"Wow, you can turn your iPhone into a flying car. Very beneficial here in the land of the Beltway and HOT Lane construction. Sounds novel but I've never seen any people flying over on (in?) their iPhones. So what's the deal with Apple infringing? How did you figure out that they are infringing your stuff?"<br />
<br />
...Brace yourself for this one.<br />
<br />
"My patent number is lower than theirs"<br />
<br />
Poker face, poker face, poker face...no hysterical laughing...poker face.<br />
<br />
"Ok, what claims are they infringing."<br />
<br />
"The whole thing. All of them."<br />
<br />
"Well, what's their priority date vs. yours. Like the basics, who had the earlier filing date."<br />
<br />
"Apple did but I have lower patent number so my patent came first."<br />
<br />
And so it began. Mind you this is an inventor who spent over $30K on patent attorneys to get this patent. (geez didn't they do anything other than cash his checks?) The rest of the conversation didn't go well after that. <br />
<br />
Next enter the Potentate of Patents.<br />
<br />
The Potentate stopped by on his way to visit the Gold Coast. <br />
<br />
His Patentness has been investing in patent applications. (IV are you listening?) $500K here, $300K there. Real money. Structured deals where he "invests" in the application. When the patent is issued he invests some more with the plan being to "get" his royalties after the issuance. It's kind of a sharing of the patent equity arrangement between him and the inventor. No I don't know how this works but some inventors are getting some really big advances on future license fees and aren't feeling compelled to explain how things actually work to His Patentness.<br />
<br />
"What can we do to help you?" He needed help "getting" his royalties. Could I help him figure out who he needs to talk to at USPTO to make arrangements on collecting the royalties.<br />
<br />
USPTO? Really.<br />
<br />
"Your Patentness, USPTO examines (prosecutes was a scary word for this guy) the patent application and makes a decision on whether the invention is novel and non-obvious (another word that was hard to get through - we really need an antonym.) If it meets their criteria, you get a patent. Once you have the patent then you have to enforce it yourself."<br />
<br />
"Me enforce it? How am I supposed to do that?"<br />
<br />
Well...and brace yourself for this one... "You will probably need to hire a good patent attorney, have the patent reexamined for good measure, and then hire someone to figure out who is infringing your patents so you know who to call up to get the money. The gun slingers we've worked with figure out who the biggest infringer is, as in the one with the most money, and then they file a patent infringement law suit against them. While that's going on their team of trusty wingmen call the little guys on the list to share their one time special offer to settle at a lower royalty rate before the suit goes to court after which the license fees are going to go sky high."<br />
<br />
"How long does that take?"<br />
<br />
"A long time."<br />
<br />
"What do you do?" <br />
<br />
"Support the lawyers and the wingmen. Explain in technical terms why these guys are infringing your patent"<br />
<br />
"You mean I have to pay for this?" (Not just us - the lawyers, the wingmen, the reexamination.)<br />
<br />
"Yes."<br />
<br />
"So when will I get my money?"<br />
<br />
"Not soon."<br />
<br />
"That's ridiculous. What good are those examiners anyway?"<br />
<br />
The Potentate of Patents was not pleased.<br />
<br />
Note to self - The Potentate - retainer, cash in advance only.<br />
<br />
Next enter the patent expert. <br />
<br />
"The US patent system just sucks and needs to be completely overhauled. And, these trolls are terrible. They are sucking the life out of innovators and taking their hard earned profits."<br />
<br />
Now I'm seeing stars. Ok, here we go.<br />
<br />
"The average age of a patent being asserted, that means the one the trolls are trying to enforce and get money with, is eight years. If it was published it's been out in public for a while, maybe 10-12 years. Your innovators must not know how to use the internet because these patents have been around for a long time and there are plenty of tools to do a basic search and plenty of guys who can do a deep dive for you (including us). Frankly I think the problem is that the trolls have better researchers and understand the marketplace better."<br />
<br />
What ensued was a conversation not unlike those between Nilay Patel and Joshua Topolsky of <a href="http://www.theverge.com/">the Verge</a>. Suffice it to say, it didn't end well.<br />
<br />
And finally more wisdom from our pals on the hill. The latest is that they want to stop publication of patent applications. They seek to keep "economically significant" patents secret. Aside from the obvious social contract between an inventor and the public - we'll give you exclusive rights to your invention in exchange for disclosure - who will be the arbiter of what constitutes an economically significant patent? <br />
<br />
Did anyone think that a patent that automatically figure out whether your digital device was connected to a PC or a Mac was significant before digital cameras were a consumer product was economically significant?<br />
<br />
Did anyone think placing an order for things on the internet using only one click was economically significant when Bezos was selling books out of a warehouse in Seattle?<br />
<br />
Are we going to let big companies determine which patents are in the public domain and which are not? What next, don't publish peer reviewed articles because it might let people know what the scientists found out?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-04-20/html/2012-9503.htm">Read it for yourself.</a><br />
<br />
USPTO makes a pretty reasoned argument that if an inventor doesn't want to have their application published, they don't have to. The level of ridiculousness to this latest idea is mind numbing.<br />
<br />
So that was my week. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Inventrepreneurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369045448865493879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2617040984593392746.post-78682021291032540892012-04-04T04:58:00.002-04:002012-04-04T04:58:50.724-04:00The Future is NowThe future...the console, the keyboard, and the internet.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://youtu.be/OIRZebE8O84">Arthur C. Clark on the future circa 1974</a>Inventrepreneurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369045448865493879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2617040984593392746.post-9882046771861987592012-03-05T06:46:00.003-05:002012-03-05T06:46:46.521-05:00The Urban Legend of IV Continues<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgK5BhznlbtMF0MSENRVvizAkVtZ8huFtVq54aPiDwm9-fsGVms-wigqpn6-NOmxDM-mdL2t1KDr10CSeVsn6cuypgN6WU61BCf6Pq3TdL6fK26zbQtSUVsBT1D1DdXeqVYWvw8MYLWsqA/s1600/TrollOrange.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgK5BhznlbtMF0MSENRVvizAkVtZ8huFtVq54aPiDwm9-fsGVms-wigqpn6-NOmxDM-mdL2t1KDr10CSeVsn6cuypgN6WU61BCf6Pq3TdL6fK26zbQtSUVsBT1D1DdXeqVYWvw8MYLWsqA/s1600/TrollOrange.jpg" /></a></div>
The latest estimate of Intellectual Ventures is that they now own between 30,000 and 60,000 patents. <br />
<br />
These new IV urban legends come to us in a new paper published by the Stanford Technology Law Review. In the paper, <a href="http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/feldman-giants-among-us.pdf">The Giants Among Us</a>, Tom Ewing and Robin Feldman put on their sleuth hats and tried to figure out exactly what Intellectual Ventures owns, how they do business, and what their impact on the marketplace really is. Their paper tries to put some facts behind the legend but things still remain very opaque. It's a very interesting read.<br />
<br />
Personally I liked the discussion that IV uses over 1,200 shell companies to execute their business plan. Not bad for the revenue for the States in which they organize their companies. Nevada seemed to look good for a while. Texas is good too for obvious reasons. But when the patent cognoscenti are freaking out about shell companies, I feel compelled to point out that there isn't a real estate development company that doesn't use the same business model to buy and sell property assets, form ventures, separate risk on big projects. <br />
<br />
I'm heading out to grab a latte and absorb this latest report. It will be interesting to see what new information comes from this latest effort.<br />Inventrepreneurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369045448865493879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2617040984593392746.post-91995118671540299372012-03-03T20:58:00.000-05:002012-03-03T20:58:39.938-05:00A2K Meets Prior Art<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmvZg5BsVvmeQsl6eT-YJ6lkUg5fDaBhThrXyYzuz3POVcIEfOTLOLJZpbRuZQVVV4U0nPni9ZHv57uJX5VLSScG1t1jucOicYeswIcYVCeGctbUiE1O1QbTTXUl-KIrPxojkNa5m2PH8/s1600/iStock_000006795643XSmall.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="199" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmvZg5BsVvmeQsl6eT-YJ6lkUg5fDaBhThrXyYzuz3POVcIEfOTLOLJZpbRuZQVVV4U0nPni9ZHv57uJX5VLSScG1t1jucOicYeswIcYVCeGctbUiE1O1QbTTXUl-KIrPxojkNa5m2PH8/s200/iStock_000006795643XSmall.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
The civil society Access to Knowledge (A2K) movement has been leading a valiant fight to ensure that we all have access to information in the digital domain. They are addressing issues large and small - making sure that the visually impaired can access digital materials through screen readers that require processing digital works to make them accessible or making sure that search engine operators can actually process works to create search indexes. Much of the patent cognoscenti I've talked to tend to look down on anything that seeks to loosen enforcement of intellectual property law. They tend to take a very conservative view when it comes to these issues. And most of the folks I've talked to view the access to knowledge crowd as a bunch of progressive kooks who just don't understand the rights of IP owners.<br />
<br />
I think things are about to change.<br />
<br />
Enter two lawsuits in which John Wiley & Sons and American Institute of Physics are suing two leading patent prosecution law firms, McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff and Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, for making unauthorized copies of journal articles as part of their preparation and prosecution of patent applications. The nature of action in the complaint says,<br />
<br />
"<i>This is an action for copyright infringement. It arises from the</i><br />
<i>unauthorized copying and/or distribution of plaintiffs' copyrighted works by a law firm, and its professionals, in connection with their filing and prosecution of patent applications, so that defendants and their clients may reap a profit.</i>"<br />
<br />
So what exactly was their copyright infringing behavior?<br />
<br />
"<i>In connection with researching, filing and prosecuting certain patent applications, Schwegman made and/or distributed to the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"), and perhaps others, unauthorized copies of copyrighted articles from plaintiffs' journals, including but not limited to those identified on Schedule A. Such unauthorized copies were used for the commercial benefit of defendants and their clients</i>."<br />
<br />
Basic Wiley and the American Institute of Physics are saying that when patent law firms make copy of journal articles to submit as prior art to submit with their patent applications that they are infringing the copyright. Apparently it's not the articles that actually get sent to USPTO that they have the problem with, it's the copies of the articles that are made internally at the firms to support preparation and submission they have the problem with. The law firms are depriving the copyright owners of their economic rights.<br />
<br />
Wiley's lawyers aren't planning on going after USPTO because the Government has made it's position clear, submission of copies of articles as part of a patent application is fair use. Soon they will have other battles to fight with the Government as the Feds move forward on requiring that journal articles that report on publicly funded research be made available to the public who paid for the articles free of charge.<br />
<br />
These two law suits should be interesting to watch as the law firms who generally seek to protect their clients intellectual property rights have to form their arguments why it's ok to infringe the copyright holder's rights to support their work supporting patent applicants.<br />
<br />
You can read <a href="http://www.patentlyo.com/johnwileyvmbhb.pdf">one of the complaints here</a>. (They are both essentially the same.)<br />
<br />
<br />Inventrepreneurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369045448865493879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2617040984593392746.post-48259551523192666322012-02-29T10:52:00.001-05:002012-02-29T10:52:50.784-05:00Green Patent Conundrum<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsXB-rQ5xV5UyjSK0u0JZ6U-88af-qCLh1TKsyv8v_hgLrH5utQs3uU92PQAeqDYggo_R0uUuMb7UIEGjFViRt4loj-7PGv98ZHwZ719N9t_1tay0n1rFOxt7rw6JIMyGdbVhSU0zibUQ/s1600/IMG_0655.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsXB-rQ5xV5UyjSK0u0JZ6U-88af-qCLh1TKsyv8v_hgLrH5utQs3uU92PQAeqDYggo_R0uUuMb7UIEGjFViRt4loj-7PGv98ZHwZ719N9t_1tay0n1rFOxt7rw6JIMyGdbVhSU0zibUQ/s200/IMG_0655.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
As a student of government policy and its impact on economics, I am always interested in seeing how government programs work and what their actual impact is. Mike Bowman and I have been watching the USPTO Green Technology Program. We looked at the Green Program as a way to accelerate patenting of worthy inventions despite the obvious political undertones as part of the Obama "all things green are good" agenda. Mike is interested in all matters clean and green being an environmental scientist as well as a patent geek.<br />
<br />
What we found interesting about the program is that we worked with some folks who had technology that would have been an excellent fit for the accelerated examination process enabled by the Green Tech Program but the folks we worked with opted for the straight up provisional application followed by a non-provisional patent application a year later with the understanding it could take another 24-36 months before they got their patent. This was fine with them. We have patent pending status. We have 30 months of quiet time before our competitors can figure out what we are up to (12 months for the provisional and 18 months before publication of the application.) This made figuring out who was actually using the program even more interesting.<br />
<br />
We also noticed that despite the benefits of accelerated examination, it seemed like USPTO was having a problem getting to the original 3,000 applications number and then added another 500 to the count bringing the total to 3,500. So when we learned that the program was closed we were curious when the program actually closed and if they actually hit the 3,500 applications threshold. Mike went on a mission to figure out what was up. Here is his recap of what happened at USPTO. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Tripping Through La-La Land<br />
<br />
<br />
The USPTO Green Tech Pilot Program has closed and is no longer accepting additional applications.<br />
<br />
How do we know this? Because of the heading on what passes for the Program home page:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaqHWoar2mvX5I_SZZq93W-C-8xR6wxab3LiJ7iilMqG9RmTnxEDwuMIBNvoR6dkqHqydRTnNHhO47ZM8a19uDsZDWo_g1cGeAH_J28zACLQ8GBI_VdRpMPt40rdPkuwW8DWLpLkwwfc0/s1600/Green+Tech+closed+screen.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="202" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaqHWoar2mvX5I_SZZq93W-C-8xR6wxab3LiJ7iilMqG9RmTnxEDwuMIBNvoR6dkqHqydRTnNHhO47ZM8a19uDsZDWo_g1cGeAH_J28zACLQ8GBI_VdRpMPt40rdPkuwW8DWLpLkwwfc0/s320/Green+Tech+closed+screen.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
One can only assume that 3500 applications were accepted into the program, as the page does not explicitly state this, other than the ‘3500th’ highlighted in the graphic.<br />
<br />
And what about knowing the date on which the Program closed? That information does not appear.<br />
<br />
In an effort to track down this information, on February 25, 2012, I emailed the Office of Patent Legal Administration at the email address (PatentPractice@uspto.gov) provided at the bottom of the Program home page, asking for the closing date and total number of applications accepted into the program. One would think that would be pretty simple to answer, as someone made a decision to close it. As of today (February 28), there’s been no reply.<br />
<br />
So, I decided to call the phone number provided (571-272-7701). I spoke with a very pleasant young man who informed me that the Office of Patent Legal Administration really had nothing to do with the Green Technology Program (to his credit he was aware that it had closed, which I found out when he launched in to a soliloquy before I had even completed my initial question to him, and he assumed that they had received a lot of applications) and I needed to contact the Office of Petitions.<br />
<br />
I called the Office of Petitions, and was swept in to their automated voice mail system. As I did not, thank you very much, want to press a lot of buttons, but wanted to speak with a live human-type person, I didn’t press any buttons on my phone, as directed, and then had to endure the hideous noise that passes for background music (note to USPTO voice mail system administrators — get a clue. The background noise is not helpful to your clients’ state of mind). After about 6-10 cycles (it probably only seemed liked 20-30), a pleasant operator answered the phone, and, in response to my question, informed me that I would need to speak with one of the Office attorneys.<br />
<br />
Back in to voice mail perdition.<br />
<br />
Finally, after finishing my cup of tea, a person (attorney??) answered. After succinctly describing the two (2) pieces of information I wanted, I was informed that “We don’t know, we really don’t do anything with that Program. You’ll need to speak with the Office of Patent Legal Administration, they are the ones that handle this.” I really was very kind (really) when I thanked her for her help.<br />
<br />
The source code for the Green Tech Program home page shows the following:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipDX9X4vqwPYc_pZrxik9FREZwo5mJBNQLPx0pqhfcZn0f_TaxwKk6Cej7jry43qvXttQhknKjYzC4rU81G-q8T5_B0nJjIdBqnpiiXcbbrTz8i8FdRBcRw4RGilsicSv0WOeEVKXLxSE/s1600/Green+Tech+closed+source+code+screen.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="125" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipDX9X4vqwPYc_pZrxik9FREZwo5mJBNQLPx0pqhfcZn0f_TaxwKk6Cej7jry43qvXttQhknKjYzC4rU81G-q8T5_B0nJjIdBqnpiiXcbbrTz8i8FdRBcRw4RGilsicSv0WOeEVKXLxSE/s400/Green+Tech+closed+source+code+screen.gif" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
We can therefore assume (and an assumption is all it is, as apparently no one in the known universe, or least the USPTO corner of it, really has the information) that the Green Technology Pilot Program closed on or about February 15, 2012 after receiving 3500 applications. I will have considerably more to say about the Program in the near future.<br />
<br />
Looks like the project ended in a fizzle instead of with a big bang. We'll have to keep an eye on the inventions that come out of the program and see where they take us on our Green, Clean agenda.<br />
<br />
<br />Inventrepreneurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369045448865493879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2617040984593392746.post-70331992731080800942012-01-19T05:22:00.000-05:002012-01-19T05:30:24.228-05:00Take Action!!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQVQiWdBeSFzz0vATtLlIPs7fe47TQIwK6CrwUnXlAOVUxaVqQAWJYVnQ8Pjq3ntZW3jOBemsi9eCUfChwHsTmXKvgK0aXecylkSa-VIlSGBesrE96K_d0Zh_Roy3G8cKN2jk4JYJMzrw/s1600/jefferson.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQVQiWdBeSFzz0vATtLlIPs7fe47TQIwK6CrwUnXlAOVUxaVqQAWJYVnQ8Pjq3ntZW3jOBemsi9eCUfChwHsTmXKvgK0aXecylkSa-VIlSGBesrE96K_d0Zh_Roy3G8cKN2jk4JYJMzrw/s1600/jefferson.gif" /></a></div>
What would Thomas Jefferson say:<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Palatino; font-size: 19px;">"I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man</span>."</span><br />
<br />
Congress wants to control the Internet and commandeer websites. Please sign the petition to stop censorship of the internet and block our access to information and knowledge. Take Action Now!!<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/">https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/</a></span>Inventrepreneurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369045448865493879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2617040984593392746.post-20535796972009322372012-01-12T02:25:00.003-05:002012-01-12T02:25:31.186-05:00Dick Tracy Would be Proud<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnFvZopO_jlZqPW6ltxKpAMlCiksqkPrloNZFb8eOtVjWVKrn7XiY7DMZAwLSN63hVsW6gxCKLD0icCaD45jYeJxneB9cJjQVLhUM2zMF3usfMEwzhs9AvOPZyXY69Lv9_km6WAAfPgLQ/s1600/dick-tracey-cellphone-watch.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnFvZopO_jlZqPW6ltxKpAMlCiksqkPrloNZFb8eOtVjWVKrn7XiY7DMZAwLSN63hVsW6gxCKLD0icCaD45jYeJxneB9cJjQVLhUM2zMF3usfMEwzhs9AvOPZyXY69Lv9_km6WAAfPgLQ/s200/dick-tracey-cellphone-watch.jpg" width="192" /></a></div>
There is kind of a watch-technology thing going on here. One of the technology wizards we work with explained how he finds the people who are going to understand new technology. He starts every meeting by asking the assembled crowd, "Who's wearing a watch?" Once the watch wearing crowd identified itself, he sells to the other guys. I asked him why. The answer was, the watchless crowd uses their phone for everything. They have no preset notion on how things work, what things belong on what device and embrace the new. <br />
<br />
After this week's Consumer Electronic's Show, the watchless are going to be faced with a dilemma. <a href="http://www.imwatch-two.it/us-en/"> I'm Watch - the first Smart Watch</a>. They may have to buy a watch. <br />
<br />
Instead of using your phone for everything you can use your Android <i>I'm Watch</i> for just about everything. They may have solved one of the real problems with phones - leaving them places. With the Smart Watch you phone is on your wrist so you can't leave it in strange places and you won't have that other problem that no one likes to admit to, dropping the phone in the commode - no doubt one of the serious drivers in the sales of insurance on mobile phones. Made in Italy, this device may have finally matched the capabilities of Dick Tracy's radio watch.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/rSRmzVK0L4Y?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<a href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/10/2697043/im-watch-pictures-video-release-date-price">The Verge</a> has a more detailed review and more videos and pictures.<br />
<br />
I think Dick Tracy would be proud.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Inventrepreneurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369045448865493879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2617040984593392746.post-74132789755883364852012-01-05T04:23:00.000-05:002012-01-05T04:23:36.062-05:00Taking A Walk Around Business Methods<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDPubdxfkfCV-5NpLAoAzyUu9kgBhMVKocEj9RkAHtMYVoFcu7H6RKvyvIih0pW1_3HelFcJsjZHqtvXfnJVI1P3Jm62A1tOds3iaC4pscVhXtKV8CAtVattVS5o4zypKwumCIqEGO01E/s1600/pedestrian+sign.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDPubdxfkfCV-5NpLAoAzyUu9kgBhMVKocEj9RkAHtMYVoFcu7H6RKvyvIih0pW1_3HelFcJsjZHqtvXfnJVI1P3Jm62A1tOds3iaC4pscVhXtKV8CAtVattVS5o4zypKwumCIqEGO01E/s200/pedestrian+sign.JPG" width="200" /></a></div>
Navigation, or Business?<br />
<br />
By Michael Bowman<br />
<br />
On January 4, 2012, I read two articles (<a href="http://gizmodo.com/5872915/microsoft-patents-directions-that-help-you-avoid-scary-neighborhoods">here</a> and <a href="http://www.geekwire.com/2012/new-microsoft-patent-walking-directions-that-avoid-bad-neighborhoods">here</a>) about a patent (<a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8,090,532.PN.&OS=PN/8,090,532&RS=PN/8,090,532">8,090,532</a>) for “Pedestrian route production” issued to Microsoft on January 3, 2012. Both articles merely skimmed the surface of the patent. Neither of the articles, nor any of the comments at the time I read them, addressed the real IP issue related to this patent.<br />
<br />
It is misclassified, and neither the inventors, primary or assistant examiners, or patent attorneys searched the appropriate prior art.<br />
<br />
USPTO classified this invention as 340/990, with cross-reference classifications of 340/991 and 340/993. The original classification, which identifies the central inventive idea, covers electrical communications with a map display. The 340/991 cross reference adds the concept of position indication transmitted by the vehicle after receipt of information from a local station. The second cross reference adds position indication transmitted by a local station to a remote location. All three of these concepts fall under 340/988 for vehicle position indication, covering subject matter having the means to indicate the position or location of a vehicle.<br />
<br />
As noted above, the patent title emphasizes that pedestrian routes are the inventive subject. The abstract states that “[a]s a pedestrian travels, various difficulties can be encountered, such as traveling through an unsafe neighborhood or being in an open area that is subject to harsh temperatures. A route can be developed for a person taking into account factors that specifically affect a pedestrian. Moreover, the route can alter as a situation of a user changes; for instance, if a user wants to add a stop along a route.” No mention of vehicles here.<br />
<br />
On to claim 1. For discussion purposes, I give a letter designation for each of the claim’s clauses; these do not appear in the patent. Claim 1 states:<br />
<br />
“a) Computer storage media having embodied thereon computer-useable instructions that, when executed, implement a system, the system comprising:<br />
<br />
b) a search component that locates at least one information source, retains pedestrian history from a plurality of pedestrians and addresses of at least one information source that has a history of providing reliable information, identifies low quality information sources that do not provide information used in route generation, and blocks information obtainment for the low quality information sources;<br />
<br />
c) a gather component that obtains information related to pedestrian travel including security information, weather information, and terrain information, wherein the gather component obtains the information from the at least one located information source;<br />
<br />
d) an artificial intelligence component that makes at least one inference regarding a route based on a previous pedestrian behavior;<br />
<br />
e) a filter component that determines, based on the at least one inference, the information that is likely relevant and deletes information that is commonly of little value in part through examination of previously produced routes;<br />
<br />
f) an analysis component that determines an importance of the information to a user, estimates how likely the information is to change, and chooses if the user should reach a destination through a pedestrian route and/or through a conventional route;<br />
<br />
g) a generation component that obtains the information from the gather component and produces a direction set for use by a pedestrian based at least part upon the obtained information;<br />
<br />
h) and a resolution component that resolves a conflict between an information source with a financial interest and an information source without a financial interest and instructs the generation component to produce the direction set based upon the information source that does not have a financial interest in providing the direction set.”<br />
<br />
Clause a) specifies software — “Computer storage media having embodied thereon computer-useable instructions that, when executed . . .”<br />
<br />
Clause b) discusses pedestrians as the moving objects.<br />
<br />
Clause c) discusses pedestrian travel and adds detail that information on security, weather, and terrain is collected by the software.<br />
<br />
Clause d) adds an artificial intelligence (only a nominal recitation, though) component to the analysis of previous pedestrian route behavior.<br />
<br />
Clause e) adds a filter.<br />
<br />
Clause f) adds an “analysis component that determines an importance of the information to a user, estimates how likely the information is to change, and chooses if the user should reach a destination through a pedestrian route and/or through a conventional route.”<br />
<br />
Clause g) generates a route.<br />
<br />
Clause h) resolves conflicts between information sources used to generate routes with and without financial interests in favor of those without.<br />
<br />
Several key observations may be made on claim 1:<br />
<br />
The claim is solely directed toward pedestrians.<br />
Clause c), by adding security information, should have a cross reference classification of 705/325 for personal security, identity, or safety.<br />
It includes (clause f) an operations research or analysis component (705/7.11-7.42).<br />
It includes a market analysis component (clause h).<br />
Claim 1 should have been classified as 705/7.29 (market data gathering, market analysis or market modeling) according to USPTO’s rules of classification.<br />
Class 340 does not apply here. Further, none of the three classifications listed on the patent can be applied as they all require a vehicle. The original (first-listed) classification must be based on the claimed disclosure.<br />
This is a business methods claim.<br />
<br />
Claims 2-6 are dependents of claim 1. Therefore, again according to USPTO’s own classification rules, they add additional detail to claim 1, and in most cases do not direct the claim to a different classification. Other inventive concepts disclosed in these claims may require or allow additional cross reference classifications.<br />
<br />
Claims 2 and 3 emphasize the pedestrian as the moving object, and don’t provide any additional classifiable detail.<br />
<br />
Claim 4, a dependent of 3, adds metadata, but no new detail.<br />
<br />
Claim 5 “performs a reward operation in relation to information obtainment or direction set production, wherein the reward operation rewards the pedestrian, an advertisement hosting service, a provider, or any combination thereof.” This falls within the 705/14.1 array of the class 705 schedule, for discount or incentive (e.g., coupon, rebate, offer, upsale, etc.). It would fall specifically within 705/14.39 for online discount or incentive, and should be listed as a cross reference classification.<br />
<br />
Claim 6 adds an advertisement, specifically a targeted advertisement, which is 705/14.49, another cross reference.<br />
<br />
Claims 7-12 are methods claims. Claim 7 essentially converts the systems claims 1-6 into a method, and should retain the 705/7.29 classification.<br />
<br />
Claims 13-15 are dependents of claim 1. Claim 13 adds detail on routes of other people. Claim 14 indicates that the user may travel a portion of the route as a passenger, and claim 15 indicates that the user travels on public transportation. These two claims, however, do not add sufficient detail to claim 1 to require a classification in class 340.<br />
<br />
The patent lists the fields of search as 701/200,201,208,211,213 340/991,993,990,995 364/443,444,449. Class 701 is data processing for vehicles, navigation, and relative location. Class 364 has been abolished. Class 705 was not searched.<br />
<br />
Bottom line, this patent is a business method, is completely misclassified, was not searched against the proper prior art, had a five-year prosecution history, and no one involved got it right.<br />Inventrepreneurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369045448865493879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2617040984593392746.post-68630900307199159552012-01-05T04:00:00.000-05:002012-01-05T04:00:08.254-05:00Fantasy Football Insurance<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzWtqrCFLDcrI1PE0QD52hXjQwYfZkIzKcftY5tJILrLBuCIKR_qMLjlzSqCMs1MzZyEHwP2BH0xU8AP3_nRDtm_5Q2LlePavqZp6ShP6WJbgs71a580TxuAwdI38bAbIiNgqm6BewRUM/s1600/Eagles_Football.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzWtqrCFLDcrI1PE0QD52hXjQwYfZkIzKcftY5tJILrLBuCIKR_qMLjlzSqCMs1MzZyEHwP2BH0xU8AP3_nRDtm_5Q2LlePavqZp6ShP6WJbgs71a580TxuAwdI38bAbIiNgqm6BewRUM/s200/Eagles_Football.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<a href="http://www.bakosenterprises.com/">Tom Bakos</a> who publishes the Insurance IP Bulletin and follows activity in US patent class 705/4 where the insurance business methods patents can be found, passed along the <a href="http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=10&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=(705%2F4.CCLS.+AND+%40PD%3E%3D20111101%3C%3D20111231)&OS=ccl/705/4+and+PD/20111101-%3e20111231&RS=(CCL/705/4+AND+PD/20111101-%3e20111231)">latest Fantasy Sports patent application</a> - Fantasy Sports Insurance.<br />
<br />
I've been watching the Fantasy Sports IP space for a while. The seminal Fantasy Sports patent is "Computerized Statistical Football Game" taught in US Patent <a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=SPQbAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false">4,918,603</a>. I wrote a post on the <a href="http://searchthewayyouthink.blogspot.com/2010/09/are-you-ready-for-some-football.html">Fantasy Football patents </a>back in 2010 on the patent and some of the inventors follow on work. There are lots of interesting angles when you look at the evolution of fantasy sports leagues IP. The inventors are local guys. The original patent was filed in 1988 and was one of those patents that a lot of people didn't think covered a patentable subject matter. Then there were the guys who just decided to infringe the patent. And then there are the inventions that followed. The patent application Tom passed along is the latest entry in the continuum. <br />
<br />
The new application, published on December 22 is for "A method of providing insurance to a fantasy sports participant includes receiving a request from the participant for an insurance policy covering an insured risk for an insured amount and providing an insurance policy to the participant covering the insured risk for the insured amount, in exchange for a premium. The participant owns a fantasy team and is in a fantasy league. The insured risk is at least one player on the fantasy team not playing for at least a portion of a fantasy season of the fantasy league. An amount of the premium is dependent on underwriting of the insured risk and the insured amount."<br />
<br />
The majority of claims seem to be missing the standard business methods mumbo jumbo. It shows up in claim 25. <br />
<br />
Here are Claims 1-4:<br />
<br />
1. A method of providing insurance to a fantasy sports participant, comprises: receiving a request from the participant for an insurance policy covering an insured risk for an insured amount; and providing an insurance policy to the participant covering the insured risk for the insured amount, in exchange for a premium; wherein the participant owns a fantasy team, and is in a fantasy league, the insured risk is at least one player on the fantasy team not playing for at least a portion of a fantasy season of the fantasy league, and an amount of the premium is dependent on underwriting of the insured risk and the insured amount.<br /><br />2. The method of claim 1, wherein the fantasy league has a corresponding real sports league.<br /><br />3. The method of claim 2, wherein the real sports league is a professional sports league.<br /><br />4. The method of claim 3, wherein the sport of the real sports league is selected from the group consisting of football, baseball, basketball and hockey.<br />
<br />
Here's Claim 25:<br />
<br />
25. A computer program product comprising software encoded in computer-readable media, for providing insurance to a fantasy sports participant, the software comprising instructions, operable when executed, to: receive a request from the participant for an insurance policy covering an insured risk for an insured amount; and provide an insurance policy to the participant covering the insured risk for the insured amount, in exchange for a premium; wherein the participant owns a fantasy team, and is in a fantasy league, the insured risk is at least one player on the fantasy team not playing for at least a portion of a fantasy season of the fantasy league, and an amount of the premium is dependent on underwriting of the insured risk and the insured amount.<br />
<br />
(Looks like the a patent attorney or the examiner provided guidance here...)<br />
<br />
The patent application is an interesting read. It will be interesting to see what happens to it as it moves along the patent prosecution continuum.<br />
<br />
Thanks again to Tom for passing it along.<br />
<br />
<br />Inventrepreneurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369045448865493879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2617040984593392746.post-45086302978284632952011-12-28T04:30:00.000-05:002011-12-28T04:30:00.153-05:00Twelve Year Old Science & Eight Year Old Patents<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeekWp_hZrCAqWfeFQE0wXxTcPGHGiJcX3vSyV2v6l3bIHaaNigvBj_i3NGoq1ZxcaVT5FKQlvBFdMAcSf2lyehtbEa5VGK6ckCvLuDGzI4ELccFPvEyL5krVsC0eu12wYOe97An2JDn8/s1600/%253F%253F%253F.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeekWp_hZrCAqWfeFQE0wXxTcPGHGiJcX3vSyV2v6l3bIHaaNigvBj_i3NGoq1ZxcaVT5FKQlvBFdMAcSf2lyehtbEa5VGK6ckCvLuDGzI4ELccFPvEyL5krVsC0eu12wYOe97An2JDn8/s1600/%253F%253F%253F.gif" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
There is a meme in the patent world that says, "patent trolls stifle innovation." Just listen to the drum beat of the digital dialog on the subject and you'll hear the patent cognoscenti bemoaning the evils of the NPE. The message is spreading across the patentsphere and is fast becoming urban legend. Trolls hurt innovation so they hurt the economy.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
James Bessen, Jennifer Ford, and Michael J. Meurer of Boston University School of Law published a paper titled, <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1930272" target="_blank">“The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls”</a> on the topic of patent trolls in November 2011. The authors state, “NPE lawsuits are associated with half a trillion dollars of lost wealth to defendants from 1990 through 2010. During the last four years the lost wealth has averaged over $80 billion per year."</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
This piece of information has made its way around the Internet landing at many serious business publications like the Wall Street Journal and lots of influential tech blogs including many that have just recently learned how to spell patent.</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
"The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls" is a good paper with lots of compelling discussion on the negative impact of patent litigation brought by non-practicing entities. The financial arguments are sound, the numbers are good and supportable. Mr. Bessen presented his paper at the USPTO Patent Statistics conference in November, and he makes a very compelling case about the economic and social impact of NPE lawsuits and their impact on the organizations defending themselves against them. (I refuse to use the victim term here. You'll see why below.)</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
There is another important fact buried in the paper. It states:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #b45f06; font-size: large;">"The mean NPE law suit occurs eight years after the patent is granted." </span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br />
Consider what this means. The average patent's pendency runs around 36 months. (It was slightly lower in the timeframe of the author's study but let's use 36 months for illustrative purposes.) There are plenty of patents in NPE litigation that were based on provisional applications so add another 12 months. Twelve years works either way - with or without a provisional when you consider how prior art is looked at. We are up to around four years of application pendency before the patent is granted. Now add eight years before one of the evil trolls takes action. So we now have a patent based on 12 year old science and technology. So, when an NPE litigates, the inventions are 12 years old. More than half way through their patent term.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #b45f06; font-size: large;">NPEs are litigating patents with 12 year old technology.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
The patent has been in the public domain for eight years before the NPE files suit. <u>Eight years.</u> Eight years that it's been on every free patent searching tool, eight years it's been in the tools for the patent cognoscenti, eight years that the patent examiners have had it as a source of prior art and as a consideration on the novelty of new patents that follow it.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #b45f06; font-size: large;">NPEs enforce patents that has been in the public domain for eight years.</span></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
If the inventor decided to file a PCT, the patent application was published internationally, and if it was after 2001, domestically in the US. It may also have been translated into other languages - usually one of the trilateral languages - French, German, Japanese - but there are some in Korean and other languages. The patents litigated by NPEs have been out there in other languages.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #b45f06; font-size: large;">Multiple versions of these patents for the invention have been disclosed for the granted patent used by the patent troll to litigate eight years after the patent grant date.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
What do we learn from this?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
Patent troll is really a pejorative term for guys who really know how to dig through the vast store of patent dreck to find valuable patents. (Investors in non-correlated assets take note.)</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
Patent trolls watch the market and find patents that are enforceable and that were largely ignored by their product producing business counterpart, the practicing entity because they have been making products covered by the patents. (Note to self, do freedom to operate search before finalizing the product.)</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
When the big voices of science and technology and their proxies start whining about how patent trolls are stifling innovation, what they are really saying is patent trolls do better research and have better tactics for finding valuable patents where the practicing entity has either decided not to get a license before building products or have decided to not to look at all.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #b45f06; font-size: large;">How are patent trolls stifling innovation when they are dealing with 12 year old technology that has been public for around 8 years?</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #76a5af; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #e69138;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Please advise</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #a2c4c9;"><br /></span></div>
Inventrepreneurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369045448865493879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2617040984593392746.post-71206892409116767962011-12-26T04:00:00.000-05:002011-12-27T10:17:58.458-05:00USPTO Algoritm Challenge<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkmAlP_034ERXpXTMtgUYmpawOF0hvBtQnTZ7SSHb1KRkjvUCMDeSWcG47Sr6YoplRv4HOFhyphenhyphen4AXSXXy36qBJKlBZjmbziQrpM_6TpsVn-1lkK6OBKVI2nHpJewKGeb_ncG_Bf0Hw8rQ0/s1600/scream.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkmAlP_034ERXpXTMtgUYmpawOF0hvBtQnTZ7SSHb1KRkjvUCMDeSWcG47Sr6YoplRv4HOFhyphenhyphen4AXSXXy36qBJKlBZjmbziQrpM_6TpsVn-1lkK6OBKVI2nHpJewKGeb_ncG_Bf0Hw8rQ0/s1600/scream.jpg" /></a></div>
<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/12/16/new-center-excellence-fuels-prize-help-modernize-tools-patent-examination">The USPTO Innovation Challenge</a> is off and running. The world's leading intellectual property office has issued a challenge for top coders to solve one of their big examiner challenges - matching the drawings that are part of a patent application with the text within the body of the patent's specification so that they can be displayed an analyzed side by side (or some other preferred embodiment thereof.) This helps the examiner review the patent application in light of the drawings and vice versa.<br />
<br />
Aside from the strange set of rules about who can play - among them that coders work in teams of two and may be assigned to work together rather than letting teams of folks who know each other (or know patents) work together, the contest has some <a href="http://community.topcoder.com/ntl/?page_id=544">very strange rules </a>with respect to intellectual property.<br />
<br />
This group of coders is being encouraged to build a new algorithm. Did USPTO chose the term algorithm to try to get around patentability issues by letting them claim that this is an algorithm not subject to patentability? Have they decided to enter into the software patent conundrum? Did they do any of that pesky freedom to operate stuff when they created their contest? <br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #b45f06;">"The Contest is designed to encourage the <u>development of software </u>(“Algorithm”) that solves the stated computational problem, and also to study the effectiveness of teams in solving algorithmic problems. In this contest all participants will compete in teams of two working together over the course of one month to develop their solutions and deliver an algorithm that can automatically identify and locate specific elements within patent documents drawings pages. Code submissions will automatically be scored based on their accuracy in solving the problem based on manually labeled test data. This experimental contest format is part of TopCoder’s ongoing partnership with the Harvard-NASA Tournament lab to better understand how tournaments contests can be used to solve complex computational problems."</span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #76a5af;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
But when USPTO and/or the winner of the challenge try to actually implement the software on a computer with non-transitory storage where there is definitely going to be a transformation between the submitted drawings and the new presentation they will be in the infringement ball park big time. <br />
<br />
A cursory look at patents in this area resulted in a starter list of over 16,000 enforceable patents that deal with image extraction, content interpretation, compression/decompression, text matching, entity relationship matching, etc. (By the way we are experts in digital imaging, database, text processing, OCR, entity extraction and the image based workflow software arena and have done plenty of work with patents in this domain - so we know where to look for this stuff.) Did they consider the potential for infringement on the part of the unsuspecting coders? Did they even both to look at US patents to see if the technology to do this exists? (It does.)<br />
<br />
This ought to be very interesting. I'm sure some of the top patent assertion entities will be standing by to assist the inventors and patent holders whose patents are being infringed in getting a swift resolution to the matter.<br />
<br />
Refresher...<br />
<br />
As a refresher, let us consider the rules in the Manual of Patent Examination Procedures regarding patent infringement. Clearly USPTO understands infringement of a patent.But for those of you who need a refresher, here you go.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="font: 16.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px;">
<b><i>5 U.S.C. 271 Infringement of patent.</i></b></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 19.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 20.0px;">
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever<span style="text-decoration: underline;"> without authority makes, uses,</span> offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.</div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 20.0px;">
(b) Whoever <span style="text-decoration: underline;">actively induces infringement of a patent </span>shall be liable as an infringer.</div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 20.0px;">
(c) Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination, or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer.</div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 20.0px;">
(d) No patent owner otherwise entitled to relief for infringement or contributory infringement of a patent shall be denied relief or deemed guilty of misuse or illegal extension of the patent right by reason of his having done one or more of the following: (1) derived revenue from acts which if performed by another without his consent would constitute contributory infringement of the patent; (2) licensed or authorized another to perform acts which if performed without his consent would constitute contributory infringement of the patent; (3) sought to enforce his patent rights against infringement or contributory infringement; (4) refused to license or use any rights to the patent; or (5) conditioned the license of any rights to the patent or the sale of the patented product on the acquisition of a license to rights in another patent or purchase of a separate product, unless, in view of the circumstances, the patent owner has market power in the relevant market for the patent or patented product on which the license or sale is conditioned.</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>Inventrepreneurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369045448865493879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2617040984593392746.post-521497006070788442011-12-25T00:30:00.000-05:002011-12-25T00:30:01.289-05:00Merry Christmas Redux<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivyKlA9O1op4xet_E0V-7WzFt7UnuEipWAjau9aeQJE7-KHDDr8nRDaOV4XQ7zYhH9LwsnvNOCHBgAAt7fUg67oPU3yVOWQYt_ah2TcZrmb5rpB5bQxc-OgyqZCuo7Dr5y2tmX4O9Vvug/s1600/Frosty.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivyKlA9O1op4xet_E0V-7WzFt7UnuEipWAjau9aeQJE7-KHDDr8nRDaOV4XQ7zYhH9LwsnvNOCHBgAAt7fUg67oPU3yVOWQYt_ah2TcZrmb5rpB5bQxc-OgyqZCuo7Dr5y2tmX4O9Vvug/s1600/Frosty.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-215845818503616757" style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; line-height: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-215845818503616757" style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; line-height: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
In the spirit of the season we send holiday greetings to all of our friends and colleagues. The prosecution of last year's claim continues. Feel free to infringe.</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-215845818503616757" style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; line-height: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
Holiday Greetings from Frosty the <a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=ne1uAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=D157235&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false" style="color: #5588aa; text-decoration: none;">Article Holding Figurine</a>.<br />
<br />
We claim a method of communicating holiday greetings comprising a representational snowman like figure offered in combination with a social expression communication associated with an occasion, holiday, or event; delivered via a communication network wherein the communication network comprises a computer connected to a telecommunications device that facilitates exchange of greetings via the Internet through posts on a weblog, a weblog being a web-based journal that contains periodic posts usually in reverse chronological order.<br />
<br />
Frosty the Article Holding Figurine with his preferred embodiment article, the jacket, casually thrown over his shoulder and the inscrutable yet determined look on the upper orbital section of the facial structure is no ordinary a snowman shaped object, he is a figurine of action. He strikes a dashing pose with his top hat-like structure affixed to the upper portion of the preferred embodiment snowman-like shape. The representational human visage let's us know this article holding figurine is no victim of the politically correct as represented by the corn-cob pipe like smoking apparatus clinched in dual elliptical indents designed to represent a notional mouth. In the preferred embodiment he is on the way to a festive holiday gathering to join his other patented figurine, ornamental, and decorative cohorts including the snowman shaped Christmas tree, in celebration of the holiday season.<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif5cJMLQ5k0u3GCGFIsr9FUPATFE-s__MjanLGgIrsbJ9fH6bBYpkoTVKpCOe3BEVYdZz3YEs5sgQLyWCnNlktiOq3zV7CH32ayWiJbkN2JPIyAmPmrgFKm5vt7RufiP9VCaX5_GIn198/s1600/SnowmanTree.jpg" style="color: #5588aa; text-decoration: none;"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5551670311024872530" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif5cJMLQ5k0u3GCGFIsr9FUPATFE-s__MjanLGgIrsbJ9fH6bBYpkoTVKpCOe3BEVYdZz3YEs5sgQLyWCnNlktiOq3zV7CH32ayWiJbkN2JPIyAmPmrgFKm5vt7RufiP9VCaX5_GIn198/s200/SnowmanTree.jpg" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; border-left-width: 1px; border-right-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-right-style: solid; border-right-width: 1px; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-top-style: solid; border-top-width: 1px; float: right; height: 200px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; padding-bottom: 4px; padding-left: 4px; padding-right: 4px; padding-top: 4px; width: 129px;" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
In the preferred embodiment, all of us at Coronado Group wish you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a bright and shiny holiday season.<br />
<div style="clear: both; font-size: 13px;">
</div>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="post-footer" style="color: #999999; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; font: normal normal normal 78%/normal 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Arial, Verdana, sans-serif; letter-spacing: 0.1em; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 0.75em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.75em; text-transform: uppercase;">
</div>
Inventrepreneurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369045448865493879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2617040984593392746.post-61681354327813376852011-12-24T05:00:00.000-05:002011-12-24T05:00:00.941-05:00Christmas Quotes No. 12 - The End!!<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkmAlP_034ERXpXTMtgUYmpawOF0hvBtQnTZ7SSHb1KRkjvUCMDeSWcG47Sr6YoplRv4HOFhyphenhyphen4AXSXXy36qBJKlBZjmbziQrpM_6TpsVn-1lkK6OBKVI2nHpJewKGeb_ncG_Bf0Hw8rQ0/s1600/scream.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkmAlP_034ERXpXTMtgUYmpawOF0hvBtQnTZ7SSHb1KRkjvUCMDeSWcG47Sr6YoplRv4HOFhyphenhyphen4AXSXXy36qBJKlBZjmbziQrpM_6TpsVn-1lkK6OBKVI2nHpJewKGeb_ncG_Bf0Hw8rQ0/s1600/scream.jpg" /></a>On Trade Secrets:<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666; font-size: large;">"It doesn’t count as a trade secret if it’s left out in the open. The law would say one cannot put the burden on someone who happens on the information inadvertently ... You can’t sue someone for overhearing what you say in a crowded elevator."</span><br />
<br />
Susan J. Kohlmann, Partner at Jenner & Block LLP, NYTimes October 23, 2011.Inventrepreneurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369045448865493879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2617040984593392746.post-90573961643666680902011-12-23T04:30:00.000-05:002011-12-23T04:30:00.775-05:00On Innovation - Quote No. 11<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYmEhJJY6HKg3_ijxaUj9crqwFVHssaY1fYxFKCVJZDQZN2jTMpwOTg2mK09y1cGe5fswnk6l7-oMhL4yPsDXLqyakwyFJKtfHAV9krRdfYlr_r2Aory3-Thctfxof9OHzqhnDUIztPPk/s1600/iStock_000000687213Small.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="107" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYmEhJJY6HKg3_ijxaUj9crqwFVHssaY1fYxFKCVJZDQZN2jTMpwOTg2mK09y1cGe5fswnk6l7-oMhL4yPsDXLqyakwyFJKtfHAV9krRdfYlr_r2Aory3-Thctfxof9OHzqhnDUIztPPk/s200/iStock_000000687213Small.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666; font-size: large;">"Innovation--the essence of innovation--is you don't know what you're going to build, what it's going to be called, how much it's going to cost."</span><br />
<br />
Michael Bloomberg, August 2011, Fast Company MagazineInventrepreneurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369045448865493879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2617040984593392746.post-15094007029338730542011-12-22T05:00:00.000-05:002011-12-22T05:00:08.907-05:00On Innovation - Quote No. 10<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdVbO0mt9yDHYo7ASniIy78fn8xDhfheaZMLtBmb0304MokOhil0Zu5MgJNC3I8O-daT3ymyJMXHF9BAP0tZEG5PNYi68hDQ7jpk7R_ldNi0LoI1XXmMsFusGVEHiBxLdlWr8ferOqSDY/s1600/ford-logo2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdVbO0mt9yDHYo7ASniIy78fn8xDhfheaZMLtBmb0304MokOhil0Zu5MgJNC3I8O-daT3ymyJMXHF9BAP0tZEG5PNYi68hDQ7jpk7R_ldNi0LoI1XXmMsFusGVEHiBxLdlWr8ferOqSDY/s200/ford-logo2.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666; font-size: large;">"If I listened to my customers I would have invented a faster horse."</span><br />
<br />
Henry FordInventrepreneurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369045448865493879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2617040984593392746.post-56436951707896327722011-12-21T04:30:00.000-05:002011-12-21T09:45:04.484-05:00Christmas Quotes No. 9<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666; font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUcs36KWPWamwLiRRE7NN7BgyzXMDfFVwve7E2lRK0zMe8-bmwPhJyWK56yk0pCZAiJ1siGZwTYKI-8LVIkxGz9h6HwOzJUMADmJL5sngknr5s6RMDUGVeu9gKi6yQ3hWBUKSExBxJFqk/s1600/wafer_silicon.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUcs36KWPWamwLiRRE7NN7BgyzXMDfFVwve7E2lRK0zMe8-bmwPhJyWK56yk0pCZAiJ1siGZwTYKI-8LVIkxGz9h6HwOzJUMADmJL5sngknr5s6RMDUGVeu9gKi6yQ3hWBUKSExBxJFqk/s1600/wafer_silicon.gif" /></a></span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666; font-size: large;">"Knowledge processes information to produce ideas, analysis, and skills that ideally should contribute to human progress and civilization."</span><br />
<br />
Ahmed Abdel LatifInventrepreneurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369045448865493879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2617040984593392746.post-64181433983473288042011-12-20T04:00:00.000-05:002011-12-20T08:44:05.317-05:00Quote No. 8<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxrbvy1YU_VFg9XX7Ycq-dYFA4FURodHvI-ggfJtUPJCLVhpgnjSrrglkQ76E9cK0JHDfJXq9BNuWsbZu-PtXkT4UmkDLIf6O8cY4JQLadt5PuO0ULynXR8Qdj2rl56ZnqRq25EfGGIDM/s1600/gears_blue.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxrbvy1YU_VFg9XX7Ycq-dYFA4FURodHvI-ggfJtUPJCLVhpgnjSrrglkQ76E9cK0JHDfJXq9BNuWsbZu-PtXkT4UmkDLIf6O8cY4JQLadt5PuO0ULynXR8Qdj2rl56ZnqRq25EfGGIDM/s200/gears_blue.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666; font-size: large;">“Those who take the informational turn see information as the basic ingredient in building a mind.”</span><br />
<br />
<br />
Frederick Adams<br />
<div>
<br /></div>Inventrepreneurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369045448865493879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2617040984593392746.post-45782328461957406882011-12-19T05:00:00.000-05:002011-12-19T05:00:09.966-05:00On Information - Quote No. 7<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwxINQIPUPHkjoCYOPUYwwWf9BOdyjCrFFUxlltlzGN1YDI_DruIOP1XMjfXNb03JPQV0Cz639h_Bl6WnL5eumb9x8u2prC9aKZnEa5hipkkwB-ciX_fup0N6NBp1nOpz3cKkELDTz7uw/s1600/foldingphone.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwxINQIPUPHkjoCYOPUYwwWf9BOdyjCrFFUxlltlzGN1YDI_DruIOP1XMjfXNb03JPQV0Cz639h_Bl6WnL5eumb9x8u2prC9aKZnEa5hipkkwB-ciX_fup0N6NBp1nOpz3cKkELDTz7uw/s320/foldingphone.JPG" width="216" /></a></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666; font-size: large;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666; font-size: large;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666; font-size: large;">“As commonly used, …information is a very elastic term. It is the stuff of communication.”</span><br />
<br />
From Information is a Very Elastic Term, by R.V. L. Hartley, Transmission of Information, Bell Systems Technical Journal, July 1928.Inventrepreneurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369045448865493879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2617040984593392746.post-74704051042672172642011-12-18T07:57:00.000-05:002011-12-18T07:57:00.205-05:00Christmas Quotes No. 6<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitiiweh6rMqtV33eB3vG8Qqr2vTpbRqmSTBHTu4KW3sEYnnXqQ_oBeDeKxjV6j7kylbrdUpVK8Njvv0ewJDGuihHtWu8cTzWE53d5jAMK5xFAMtjX8jyON8eeTpMeSXO6XLjdVJZ4cs8k/s1600/SFDC_logo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="156" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitiiweh6rMqtV33eB3vG8Qqr2vTpbRqmSTBHTu4KW3sEYnnXqQ_oBeDeKxjV6j7kylbrdUpVK8Njvv0ewJDGuihHtWu8cTzWE53d5jAMK5xFAMtjX8jyON8eeTpMeSXO6XLjdVJZ4cs8k/s200/SFDC_logo.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666; font-size: large;">"...The past is never the future. But it’s easy to get caught up in the continuum."</span><br />
<br />
Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce.com on innovation. August 8, 2011 ForbesInventrepreneurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369045448865493879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2617040984593392746.post-15853787272798823192011-12-17T05:00:00.000-05:002011-12-17T05:58:02.851-05:00The Quotes Continue - No. 5<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3ApFvB3EURzKE2bihXwO1u7gCLuAfUiqZVJLSht16WmGPyiScv0TZppKr1vvN4ieY1hZGsMr4Wa4I15zqXTLRsAaqmqRAPp_EaX6QUshN27Gqq0AzclIG87JiNBzMnJTgK6S0hx47RkU/s1600/iStock_000002941805XSmall.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="148" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3ApFvB3EURzKE2bihXwO1u7gCLuAfUiqZVJLSht16WmGPyiScv0TZppKr1vvN4ieY1hZGsMr4Wa4I15zqXTLRsAaqmqRAPp_EaX6QUshN27Gqq0AzclIG87JiNBzMnJTgK6S0hx47RkU/s200/iStock_000002941805XSmall.jpg" width="200" /></a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=wayfidigit-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0375423729" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666; font-size: large;">
.... the scientists complained of “what seems to us a rather chaotic growth in technical vocabulary.”</span><br />
<br />
In a Letter to Nature, Spring 1953 as quoted by James Gleick in The Information<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />Inventrepreneurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369045448865493879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2617040984593392746.post-30341538119347795382011-12-16T05:00:00.000-05:002011-12-16T05:00:05.041-05:00Quotes for Christmas No. 4<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8xf93Akc3mbvYHDYh7571TpVEG8zDwZ1x1stRYjDQhNq_vqisq_vB9LNwU-ahVfaaGK6wMr5n4U2L8QvHu1PWWSbYcC1a3tt86S2XNiKZCPCGclQKPYWw1NkdGhutQqucDBU5OCmGy18/s1600/iStock_000006252964XSmall.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8xf93Akc3mbvYHDYh7571TpVEG8zDwZ1x1stRYjDQhNq_vqisq_vB9LNwU-ahVfaaGK6wMr5n4U2L8QvHu1PWWSbYcC1a3tt86S2XNiKZCPCGclQKPYWw1NkdGhutQqucDBU5OCmGy18/s200/iStock_000006252964XSmall.jpg" width="200" /></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666; font-size: large;">"In 1910 a Danish botanist, Wilhelm Johannsen, self-consciously invented the word gene. He was at pains to correct the common mythology and thought a word might help."</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #666666; font-size: large;"><br /></span><br />
<br />
By James Gleick, The Information.<br />
<br />
As of today a search on the word "gene" in Google Patents yields 40,700 results. It looks like the word stuck. I'm sure there will be more later on Tuesday.Inventrepreneurhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10369045448865493879noreply@blogger.com0