In his Ted Talk "Embrace the remix," Kirby Ferguson claims that our patent system is outdated by not allowing an individual's creativity to catch momentum from other ideas.
Ferguson goes out of his way to compare various songs of Bob Dylan to the original songs from which he borrowed tunes to show that borrowing others' ideas and making them your own through varying interpretation is not always a bad thing.
Steve Jobs' supposedly new technology of "multi-touch" is also considered by Ferguson to be an idea that was not completely brand new but rather bothered and altered to suit a new purpose. Ferguson says that multi-touch had been around for decades before Jobs had patented it. And so, in through producing patent law, the government, in Ferguson's opinion, fails to promote the progress of useful arts.
The original Ted Talk is below:
http://www.ted.com/talks/kirby_ferguson_embrace_the_remix/
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Ted Talk 5_Patents vs Free Flowing Ideas_Insight from the Fashion Industry
Typically, we believe that patents protect most industries by allowing the original creator to safeguard his idea. In her Ted Talk, Johanna Blakley claims that the fashion world's incessant creativity sprouts from its free culture. The fashion industry does not rely on patents to protect clothing ideas and apparel, and Blakley argues that it thrives because of this.
The reason the fashion industry did not have copyright protection is because American courts decided that apparel is far too utilitarian and commonplace to qualify for copyright certification. Without patents, the fashion industry has thrived from being able to bounce ideas from all sources - the person down the street who has great fashion sense to the French designer. Some may have even literally copied each other. Thus, to stay competitive, designers around the world have had to come up with new fashion ideas and trends that would draw in their customers.
Still, Blakley claims that the ability to copy fashion ideas makes clothes available to everyone: those that want Gucci purses but can't pay 2k can afford knockoffs for cheaper prices, while wealthier individuals who care for the genuine name-brand purses will gladly pay $2400 for the Gucci purse in store. And, this is why the high-end fashion industry has been so successful, despite the lack of patents to protect from the production of knockoffs: because their customers base remains wealthy and loyal.
This ability to sell both expensive and lesser versions of original ideas could possibly play out well in the drug industry, which is currently controlled by pharmaceutical companies who can afford R&D to create restrictive patents. This is problematic, as poorer individuals who need the drugs oftentimes can't afford to buy expensive drugs ; they would largely benefit from an increase in generic drugs. In the drug case, the fashion industry practice of having unrestricted production of ideas could save lives by making generic drugs more accessible to those who need them.
The reason the fashion industry did not have copyright protection is because American courts decided that apparel is far too utilitarian and commonplace to qualify for copyright certification. Without patents, the fashion industry has thrived from being able to bounce ideas from all sources - the person down the street who has great fashion sense to the French designer. Some may have even literally copied each other. Thus, to stay competitive, designers around the world have had to come up with new fashion ideas and trends that would draw in their customers.
Still, Blakley claims that the ability to copy fashion ideas makes clothes available to everyone: those that want Gucci purses but can't pay 2k can afford knockoffs for cheaper prices, while wealthier individuals who care for the genuine name-brand purses will gladly pay $2400 for the Gucci purse in store. And, this is why the high-end fashion industry has been so successful, despite the lack of patents to protect from the production of knockoffs: because their customers base remains wealthy and loyal.
This ability to sell both expensive and lesser versions of original ideas could possibly play out well in the drug industry, which is currently controlled by pharmaceutical companies who can afford R&D to create restrictive patents. This is problematic, as poorer individuals who need the drugs oftentimes can't afford to buy expensive drugs ; they would largely benefit from an increase in generic drugs. In the drug case, the fashion industry practice of having unrestricted production of ideas could save lives by making generic drugs more accessible to those who need them.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Ridiculous Patent Part 2: the Cordless Jump Rope
The Cordless Jump Rope was published in 2006 by Lester J. Clancy.
The cordless jump rope simulates the effects of jumping rope without actually utilizing an actual rope. What's cool about this contraption is that is offsets the cons of jumping rope by getting rid of the jump rope: one no longer has to worry about hitting the ceiling with the roof or even tripping over the jump rope because of his lack of coordination, because there's no rope! One could even jump rope while sitting on the couch; the jump rope simulation is great, but how much of an exercise would one actually get out of jumping rope if one did not have the rope?
This invention is non-obvious, as one would not think to take out the rope of the jump rope. It's possible that this patent should be renamed though, as the cordlessness takes out the rope from the jump rope: perhaps cordless stimulus of jump roping would be better.
If you'd like to see the patent for the cordless jump rope, here it is: https://www.google.com/patents/US7037243?dq=jump+no+rope&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dCQrVYq4G4reoASA84GADA&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA
The cordless jump rope simulates the effects of jumping rope without actually utilizing an actual rope. What's cool about this contraption is that is offsets the cons of jumping rope by getting rid of the jump rope: one no longer has to worry about hitting the ceiling with the roof or even tripping over the jump rope because of his lack of coordination, because there's no rope! One could even jump rope while sitting on the couch; the jump rope simulation is great, but how much of an exercise would one actually get out of jumping rope if one did not have the rope?
This invention is non-obvious, as one would not think to take out the rope of the jump rope. It's possible that this patent should be renamed though, as the cordlessness takes out the rope from the jump rope: perhaps cordless stimulus of jump roping would be better.
If you'd like to see the patent for the cordless jump rope, here it is: https://www.google.com/patents/US7037243?dq=jump+no+rope&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dCQrVYq4G4reoASA84GADA&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA
Ridiculous Patent Part 1: Frameless glasses attaching to the body
You read correctly: the USPTO actually allowed this fabulous idea to become an actual patent.
This patent for Frameless glasses attaching to body piercing studs was originally published in 2003 by John Rose.
Here's a picture of the contraption.
In Rose's patent, the frameless glasses can attach to one's face either through eyebrow studs and/or nose bridge studs. This patent seems ridiculously painful to me, as I don't understand why a person would want to have his glasses on all day. Not only would the piercing hurt, but the could potentially become infected, which brings complicated the ordeal of having to wear corrective lenses. Moreover, wearing glasses is an inconvenience when one showers or sleeps.
This patent wouldn't infringe on the grounds of anticipation, as it's not likely that anyone in the field of eyeglasses production would think of that one's potential customers would be actually go along with the idea of having their faces pierces so as to not lose their glasses.
This patent particularly stood out to me because I have lost at least half a dozen of pairs of glasses in my lifetime. Still, I would not resort to having frameless glasses pierced on my face; I'll try to be more responsible instead.
If you'd like to take a look at the actual patent, here's the link: https://www.google.com/patents/US6557994?dq=pierced+glasses&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HR8rVZrbAsXooASywYDIDw&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA
Here's a picture of the contraption.
In Rose's patent, the frameless glasses can attach to one's face either through eyebrow studs and/or nose bridge studs. This patent seems ridiculously painful to me, as I don't understand why a person would want to have his glasses on all day. Not only would the piercing hurt, but the could potentially become infected, which brings complicated the ordeal of having to wear corrective lenses. Moreover, wearing glasses is an inconvenience when one showers or sleeps.
This patent wouldn't infringe on the grounds of anticipation, as it's not likely that anyone in the field of eyeglasses production would think of that one's potential customers would be actually go along with the idea of having their faces pierces so as to not lose their glasses.
This patent particularly stood out to me because I have lost at least half a dozen of pairs of glasses in my lifetime. Still, I would not resort to having frameless glasses pierced on my face; I'll try to be more responsible instead.
If you'd like to take a look at the actual patent, here's the link: https://www.google.com/patents/US6557994?dq=pierced+glasses&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HR8rVZrbAsXooASywYDIDw&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA
Fighting Non-Practicing Entities: the TROL Act
In 2014, the House of Representatives passed a patent reform bill called the Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters Act to deal with the issue of misleading patent demand letters. Unfortunately, non-practicing entities accuse both large and small businesses on the grounds of patent infringement. Although larger businesses can afford to go through related cases, smaller mom and pop stores can't afford to go to cases, so they often give into trolling entities demands for upfront fines.
MPHJ and Innovatio IP Ventures are two different non-practicing entitities that haven taken advantage of their patenting rights to exploit business in their related fields. MPHJ sent over 16,000 letters to small business demanding payment for their use of basic "scan to email" technology. Similarly, Innovatio delivered over 10,000 letters to cafe and hotel businesses to demand payment for providing Wi-Fi from them. Innovatio even went as far as to target millions of devices that were already protected by patent licenses.
These trolling entities waste a lot of businesses' time and money, especially in regards to smaller business who deem these demand letters as high potential risks for their businesses.
Although the TROL Act's drafting shows that Congress somewhat cares about the abuse that NPEs are inflicting on thousands of businesses throughout America, this act does not bear enough teeth to actually stop trolling identities' greedy schemes.
Source: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/when-it-comes-stopping-patent-trolls-trol-act-not-enough
MPHJ and Innovatio IP Ventures are two different non-practicing entitities that haven taken advantage of their patenting rights to exploit business in their related fields. MPHJ sent over 16,000 letters to small business demanding payment for their use of basic "scan to email" technology. Similarly, Innovatio delivered over 10,000 letters to cafe and hotel businesses to demand payment for providing Wi-Fi from them. Innovatio even went as far as to target millions of devices that were already protected by patent licenses.
These trolling entities waste a lot of businesses' time and money, especially in regards to smaller business who deem these demand letters as high potential risks for their businesses.
Although the TROL Act's drafting shows that Congress somewhat cares about the abuse that NPEs are inflicting on thousands of businesses throughout America, this act does not bear enough teeth to actually stop trolling identities' greedy schemes.
Source: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/when-it-comes-stopping-patent-trolls-trol-act-not-enough
NPE Litigation: Wyncomm and HD Radio
Not only going after WiFi-related offenders, Wyncomm LLC has joined forces with Delaware Radio Technologies to sue companies for HD Radio Patent Infringement.
These two firms sued various automobile companies, like Chrysler Group LLC and Porsche Cars North America, for making, using, importing, selling, and/or offering automobiles for sale that are equipped to receive HD radio broadcasting. Various broadcasting companies, such as CBS and Univision, have also been sued, as these firms are infringing Delaware Radio's patent by using HD Radio Transmission. Delaware Radio is the only firm that has a license to the use of this technology.
Unfortunately, Wyncomm and Delaware Radio's attempts to sue these major automobile and broadcasting agencies is frustrating Congress, as it seems quite ridiculous that non-practicing entities are stifling these bigger corporations' operations because they want to collect licensing fees and other financial compensation through these so-called patent infringements. For this reason, Congressmen have introduced the Patent Litigation and Innovation Act of 2013, that will require more stringent proof for patent holding companies to establish a formal lawsuit for potential patent infringement.
It's interesting to note that Wuncomm began suing most of these HD radio-violating firms in November of 2013, which is when its former US Patent expired. One can thus assume that Wyncomm switched to HD Radio infringement because it needed to find a new cause to sue firms.
Source: http://www.ipbrief.net/2013/11/24/wyncomm-llc-sues-113-companies-for-alleged-hd-radio-patent-infringement/
These two firms sued various automobile companies, like Chrysler Group LLC and Porsche Cars North America, for making, using, importing, selling, and/or offering automobiles for sale that are equipped to receive HD radio broadcasting. Various broadcasting companies, such as CBS and Univision, have also been sued, as these firms are infringing Delaware Radio's patent by using HD Radio Transmission. Delaware Radio is the only firm that has a license to the use of this technology.
Unfortunately, Wyncomm and Delaware Radio's attempts to sue these major automobile and broadcasting agencies is frustrating Congress, as it seems quite ridiculous that non-practicing entities are stifling these bigger corporations' operations because they want to collect licensing fees and other financial compensation through these so-called patent infringements. For this reason, Congressmen have introduced the Patent Litigation and Innovation Act of 2013, that will require more stringent proof for patent holding companies to establish a formal lawsuit for potential patent infringement.
It's interesting to note that Wuncomm began suing most of these HD radio-violating firms in November of 2013, which is when its former US Patent expired. One can thus assume that Wyncomm switched to HD Radio infringement because it needed to find a new cause to sue firms.
Source: http://www.ipbrief.net/2013/11/24/wyncomm-llc-sues-113-companies-for-alleged-hd-radio-patent-infringement/
Non-Practicing Entities' WiFi Litigation
There are several NPE's that sue other firms for patent infringement through the usage of WiFi-compliant devices.
Innovatio IP Ventures in one such non-practicing entity who has attacked thousands of businesses, of all sizes, for infringing on WiFi-related patents that were formerly owned by Broadcom.
Another NPE that's also targeting businesses who infringe WiFi-related patents is Wyncomm LLC. Wyncomm has asserted that companies who use WiFi-compliant devices are infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,506,866 - "Side-channel communications in simultaneous voice and data transmission."
Wyncomm claims that entities, such as Acer, Apple, and Casio Computer infringe this patent by importing, making, providing, selling, and/or providing and causing products that use WiFi to be used. Wyncomm filed dozens of suits against various firms in 2013, as this patent was going to expire in November of 2013, and the firm wanted to take advantage of it for as long as possible.
Wyncomm targeted Apple's iPhone and iPad and Casio's GzOne Bouler as devices that allegedly infringe the '866 patent, which transmits data through a WiFi network and converts information that represents analog data into voice or sound.
Innovatio IP Ventures in one such non-practicing entity who has attacked thousands of businesses, of all sizes, for infringing on WiFi-related patents that were formerly owned by Broadcom.
Another NPE that's also targeting businesses who infringe WiFi-related patents is Wyncomm LLC. Wyncomm has asserted that companies who use WiFi-compliant devices are infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,506,866 - "
Wyncomm claims that entities, such as Acer, Apple, and Casio Computer infringe this patent by importing, making, providing, selling, and/or providing and causing products that use WiFi to be used. Wyncomm filed dozens of suits against various firms in 2013, as this patent was going to expire in November of 2013, and the firm wanted to take advantage of it for as long as possible.
Wyncomm targeted Apple's iPhone and iPad and Casio's GzOne Bouler as devices that allegedly infringe the '866 patent, which transmits data through a WiFi network and converts information that represents analog data into voice or sound.
Sources:
http://www.essentialpatentblog.com/2013/04/non-practicing-entity-wyncomm-llc-claims-wifi-devices-infringe-former-att-patent/
http://www.law360.com/articles/432082/apple-asus-targeted-in-wi-fi-patent-blitz
http://www.essentialpatentblog.com/2013/04/non-practicing-entity-wyncomm-llc-claims-wifi-devices-infringe-former-att-patent/
http://www.law360.com/articles/432082/apple-asus-targeted-in-wi-fi-patent-blitz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)