Patents on Bitcoins

One of the questions that comes up often for IP attorneys is  "who owns Bitcoin'? 

In a sense, no one owns Bitcoin.  It is a distributed peer-to-peer unit of exchange. However this answer rarely satifies people who have come to you for your indepth legal opinion.

It should be noted that the concept of a network wide, anonymous, crypto-currency was only really implemented in 2009 by an individual known as Satoshi Nakamoto. Mr. Nakamoto (we have no way of knowing if that individual was/is a he/she/cybernetic construct from the future) published a paper describing the basic elements of the bitcoin system and released the software that underpins the peer-to-peer networking aspect. This software was released open source, without restriction. As such, no one legally has the right to prevent others from modifying or using the software for their own purposes. Thus while the Nakamoto Hivemind owns the software that bitcoin are mined with, it does not own the underlying conceptual framework.

There is some speculation that a Neil King, et al, listed inventors on US 2010-0042841 A1 (now abandoned for failure to respond to an office action) are the true inventors of bitcoins. Even if true, the patent office found several prior art references. Thus, the attempt to patent the concept appears to have been abandoned.  However, there is a thriving trade in bitcoin patent applications. People can, and do, attempt to file patent applications on the use of bitcoins for all manner of transaction. However, these patents do not reach back to the underlying concept of the Bitcoin and its use as a digital currency.

The actual software implementation of bitcoin generation is somewhat complex, but involves scanning for a value that when hashed twice with SHA-256, begins with a number of zero bits (you don't want me to explain this in more detail that that but ... a hash is an algorithm which takes a arbitrary amount of data and generates a fixed length of data. This is useful when attempting to use encode something for privacy. It is easy to hash something, and it is easy to verify that the data matches the hash, but hard to fake the data if you were up to no good. I am not a cryptanalysis guru and this was all distilled from 3 or 4 really good Wikipedia articles).

This is all a long winded way of saying that the process of generating bitcoins is technically complex and rests on the security and usibility of the SHA-256 Hash Function. However, in one of those ironic twists of fate that only happens in America, the NSA, bane of anonymous privacy advocates everywhere, actually owns the patent on the SHA-256 Hash function.

US Patent 6,829,355 to Lilly, and assigned to the NSA, covers the technical details employed in using the SHA-256 function to authenticate data (e.g. bitcoin transactions). All is not lost, the US has granted the world a royalty-free license to the patent.

However, the terms and conditions of this royalty agreement are murky. The royalty-free notice was filed in 2004. However, there is no easily available record of the exact terms of the grant of a royalty free (i.e. is it irrevocable?).

Thus, the long answer to the question of "who owns anonymous peer to peer government agnostic pro-privacy transaction crypto-currency" might, in fact, be the United States Government.  It is their world, we are just trading digital currency in it.

Jordan Garner
jgarner@leasonellis.com
(c)2013

IP-Data.biz [Scam Alert]

Just a quick note about IP scams. Recently, a client sent me a document which claimed to be from a patent database provider. They were offering to publish the client's PCT application in their publicly accessible database. All they wanted in return was 2600.00 USD.

IP-Data.biz and companies like them make money based on the lack of information surrounding patents, publications and international filings. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) already publishes the applications. It is part of the outrageous fee you paid them about 18 months prior.

Safe to say, the only international authority you should pay (assuming you have filed a PCT application and done so pro-se is the national receiving office of the PCT.  This will be a reputable organization, like the USPTO located in Washington or the EPO located in Brussels. It will not be a nondescript drop box in Bratislava. 

Hopefully, if on one falls for their scams, they will move on to other, less low hanging fruit.

Yuletide Patents: Reconstruction to the Long Depression (1860's to 1900's)

One of the reasons that I find IP Law so fascinating is the depth and breadth history that patent records provide.  Patents provide an alternative, focused history into the mindset of inventors and designers. Problem solvers and money makers have used the patent system for hundreds of years to disclose to the world their version of a better mousetrap. The patent office is a near perfect record of the changes that have taken place in design, manufacturing and technology.

This is the start of a series looking at holiday patents through the years.A trip through the patent office records will find patents on various weapons, vehicles, rocket ships and toys. The diligent observer will also find technologies directed to freeing man from the onerous chores that have plagued the human condition since time immemorial.

Of course, one of the plagues beset  heavily on the shoulders of mankind is Christmas decorations. Untold families have been torn asunder by arguments concerning the de-tangling of lights, proper Christmas tree display orientation angles and proper ornament positioning.

The following patents show that the issues around Christmas, the quest for easier decorations, for simpler trees, for time saving autonomous devices, has changed little in the last 150 years.


The featured patent at the top of the post is the earliest patent I could find which used the term Christmas.  Patent No. 18,238 was filed in 1868; and concerns a design patent on a particular figure for a Christmas tree ornament.

Slightly more recent, from 1881, Patent No. 237,026 describes a paper Christmas Tree decoration. As industry and commerce stalled during the Long Depression, the inventor, Mr. Kanuff probably hoped that his Christmas decorations would help life spirits as well the balance of his bank account.











Of course, nothing goes better with paper draped over a wooden, rapidly drying, vertical piece of kindling than an open flame. This is why Mr. Schroeder's idea, patented in 1903, for a "Candle holders for Christmas Trees" was likely a big hit.
















Possibly as a result of uncontrollable fires resulting from placing candles in Christmas tress, enterprising inventors sought to do away with the tawdry notion of an actual tree. Why fell a potential hazard when you can construct a safe tree with the tools of science. For example patent 255,902 describes an "Imitation Christmas tree"













Of course, no Yuletide celebration would be complete without the accompaniment of music. The modern era is complete with Ipads and Spotifys, belting out the latest Christmas versions of your favorite artists.

 Engineers of the later 19th Century had solved the problem of stored music, a perfect accompaniment to the roaring fire which is quickly engulfing your candle lit Christmas tree.

Reed Organs had been around for some time. However Mr. Metzger found useful improvements in the art of delivering canned Christmas music. All the elements are there of the modern electronic system of music. A recordable medium, a software instruction set, and a hardware amplification device.






Patent Office records provide a wonderful source of inspiration for designers and inventors. The technology illustrated in these patents still exists, only in more refined forms. Anyone who loves graphic or industrial design owes it to themselves to take a trip through the patent office records.

Jordan Garner

Monetization of IP : This bearded, vegetarian hipster made about 600k this year for doing nothing.

This hipster musician, otherwise known as Paul McCartney, makes tons of money every year.  At last count, he makes something like 35 Million dollars a year.

Now, to complicated financial wizards sitting at a prop trading desk, that might not seam like a large sum. However, taken over the course of this Beatles's 4 decade career, it adds up to a net worth somewhere in the 800 million dollar range.

Some portion of that income comes from touring. However, a large portion of his income comes from royalties from his later Beatles, solo endeavors and Wings catalog.   McCartney is one of the most prolific songwriters of his generation, with a number of songs he has written hitting the tops of the Billboard Charts.  One of those songs you might be listing to right now. It is called "Wonderful Christmastime."

Paul is careful to retain rights in all of the work he produces. This is a by-product of being burned by his early record company EMI, which paid the Beatles a penny an album. They still got rich, but nowhere near the level they should have.

To salt the wound, EMI would eventually sell the royalty rights to the Beatles' early hits to a Sony / Michael Jackson joint venture (the catalog included  4000 other songs including hits by Bob Dylan and was bought for 47 Million dollars in the 1980's. - it was sold by Michael Jackson prior to his death for 375 Million). 

This experience, getting sharked by EMI, is probably why when McCartney came up with the idea for "Wonderful Christmastime", he retained both writing and preforming rights. As such, when a royalty check does come in, it goes straight into the no-pig based bank. By current estimates the continuous playing of "Wonderful Christmas Time" nets Paul about 600k a year, every year, since 1979.

Since Copyright in the US is Life plus 70 years, Paul's children will be having a wonderful Christmas time for the remainder of their lives.

Every so often, I meet someone who argues with me about the value of Copyright protection or the necessity to spell out with clarity who owns the rights in a particular literary or artistic endeavor. Usually they argue that the potential benefit is minuscule relative to the cost and expense of hiring someone knowledgeable to handle the matter. Alternatively, people argue that the potential awkwardness of having that conversation with band mates or collaborators is not worth the effort.  99 times out of a hundred, these people are not completely off base. Unfortunately, most copyrighted material is not worth much to anyone other than the creator.
However, it is that one-off, that one in a million occurrence which makes the entire process worth it.

No one wants to be an Ex-Beatle hawking Christmas jingles because they got hosed on their first record deal. Well, no one except Ringo.

IP in the age of self-replication technologies

During a recent business trip to Asia, I had the opportunity to discuss the Bowman case with many colleagues and clients.

For the unaware; in Bowman, the US Supreme Court held that chemical giant Monsanto's patent rights in its Ready Round-Up seeds could not be exhausted through the first sale doctrine. A farmer, Bowman, tried the circumvent the patent license on a genetically modified soybean plant by purchasing the seeds from a plant grown from Round up seeds AS opposed to Monsanto directly.

The Supreme Court held that each time the plant produced a new seed, or that seed grew into a new plant which in turn produced new seeds, that event was a new infringement of the patent. The reasoning was that the plant "manufactured" new seeds. By harvesting the seeds, you were essentially harvesting the seed technology, in violation of the patent.

Many commentators have pointed out that the Court's reasoning was highly specific, only applicable to the particular facts at issue. However, I am not convinced.

A reasonable argument could be made that any self-replicating technology, be it biological, informational or mechanical is the functional equivalent to a seed.

For example, computer viruses have the peculiar nature of replicating themselves. Is a software agent which is able to package a copy of itself into a compressed format for transport (i.e. a seed) any different from a biological entity which is able to produce a small portable package containing its build and execution code base (DNA)?

In both instances, the technology has all the features of a seed; storage, portability and self-replication. A single computer virus is capable of replicating itself infinite times. So are seeds.

This opens the door to all manner of self replicating technologies.  For example, imagine a patentable custom-made virus or bacteria designed to infect a person with the goal of generating a specific medicine to treat a chronic illness. Once in the body the organism replicates and continues to provide live saving medicine. Excellent. However, what if the patient decides he doesn't want the treatment? It is possible that even after a course of antibiotics, or anti-viral, the organisms could continue to live on in the subject.

Is that patient now infringing? If not, why not? How is a patient who schemes to contract this patentable virus from a friend, not the same as Bowman?

Autonomous technology is a fascinating field which holds significant promise to reshape the very basic tenants of society, economics and health.  However, it is too easy to try to fit essentially identical technologies into different classes based on how we intuit them. Seeds are different from computer viruses, which are different from designer organisms. The principals underlying all these technologies are highly correlated. We would all be better off if we formulated a framework now, then doing it piecemeal later.

Twitter:JordangarnerEsq

Turkey Day Inventions [REDUX]

[One of my first blog posts, written in the dark days of 2009, concerned Thanksgiving day inventions. I re-post this here, with minor updates based on dramatic life changes. ]


Necessity, they say, is the mother of invention. This truism is never more clear than in the kitchen. Millions of man hours have been spent hunched over hocks of meat, bowls of flour and piles of vegetables. It makes sense then that the inventions directed to freeing up the cook to cook are some of the oldest patents on record.

I decided to think of some of the kitchen inventions that a Pilgrim would have traded a shipment of Belt-buckle hats for.



A hand cranked apple peeler, corer and slicer patented in 1893 (PN # 508,137) would have saved Pilgrims countless man-hours. Giving them more time during the day to pray, not dance, and contemplate their terrifying existence at the edge of the world.


The mixing stand. (PN #2,390,742) No stranger to the denizens of wedding registries the world over, the mixing stand would have saved "Goody" Housewife countless hours of effort and the associated repetitive strain injuries of mashing all manner of root, tuber and vegetable. First patented in 1939, the mixing stand was licensed to A.F. Dormeyer Mfg Co. under the trade-name "Mix-Rite". This "striking" stand-mixer would have freed up plenty of time for Pilgrims to contemplate the high-rate of  "Consumption" and vitamin-deficiency related illness endemic to the populace.

The Mechanical Refrigerator (PN # 2,089,851). Also patented in the late 1930's, this invention described the use of fluid (namely Freon) expansion to provide the cooling mechanism to preserve foods. Something that would have aided the Pilgrims greatly. Nothing says pointless effort like spending 3 days to prepare a feast and having most of the left-overs spoil in half that time.



Antibiotics (numerous patents). While not necessarily Thanksgiving specific inventions, Pilgrims would have traded all the muskets and bibles they had for a few doses of modern-day broad spectrum anti-biotic.

The accepted statistic is that there were 7 graves dug for every new house built in the early settlement period. Most of these were deaths do to disease and infant mortality, both of which modern medical science has made great strides in minimizing. That is what we should really be thankful for.

[G|A]

Girls be illin?: Don't waste your start-up capital on non-essential legal fights

Story: Goldieblox, a toy company marketing engineering toys to girls, used the Beastie Boys famous / infamous song "Girls" in a parody music video to promote their start-up project. The music video went viral on youtube, spawning mostly ardent praise and affection.

The Cerberus Legal dogs of Universal Music sent Goldieblox a pleasant letter (by Cerberus legal dog standards) asking them to take down the video. The letter claimed that the parody video was outside the scope of the fair use exception to copyright use, and constituted an impermissible use of the underlying work.

The legal counsel for GoldieBlox filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a finding on non-infringement under the parody provision of fair use.  This could be a educational case about how a "letter" is never really a letter, but an invitation to bring a DJ action.

A lot of digital ink has been split regarding the merits of the parties positions. If you are in favor of the permissible parody argument, then the Electronic Frontier Foundation (eff) has a great rundown of the law and their interpretation.

The point being missed here is one of resource allocation. It is argued that any press is good press. If that is true, then this entire episode is a net benefit to Goldieblox and their start-up ambitions.

However, from a business point of view, getting into a law suit with a major entertainment company is a huge hassle. Aside from your own legal costs, which could have been better spent on non-legal blog based marketing, you run the potential risk that you might lose and owe someone, or some mega corporation, lots of money. That outcome is unlikely here (even if GoldieBlox loses, they will likely have minimal damages), but that is besides the point.

A cursory level of diligence would have shown that not only do the Beastie Boys not like "Girls" (they refuse to play it anymore), they are actually quite litigious. As such, perhaps their IP, regardless of your use, was not the best media to use.

For the legal costs involved in filing and arguing a Declaratory judgement action, you could have hired a band or a composer to generate a all new song. The point here isn't that the Beastie Boys are right to argue about fair use, it is that a start up generally should avoid potentially bruising legal fights.  IP counsel should always be mindful of not only the legal arguments, but the overall business position.

Start-up resources should never we wasted on non-essential legal fights. If you need access to a particular piece of technology or code in order for your idea to function, then roll the dice, take the risk. If you want to make a music video parody of a famous song, think about the necessity to the bottom line.

Jordan Garner

No Patents on Perpetual Motion Machines

In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!!!

It is always good to revisit the basic, core concepts to reconfirm that you have a firm grasp of the complex. This is true across endeavors. Great cooks sometimes need to remember how to boil an egg. Likewise, software designers sometimes create simple apps using the bare bones code base.

The same is true for patent law.  Recently on the internet, there was a discussion about a supposed "perpetual motion" machine developed by a German tinkerer. A brief article concerning the inventor is here.  One of the points being bandied about in the discussion of a supposedly limitless energy system was that "because it is not a perpetual motion machine, it can be patented".  This is a misinterpretation of U.S. Patent Law.

U.S. Patent law allows for the patenting of "everything under the sun, made by man".  This restriction means that naturally occurring items, as well as purely theoretical constructs are not patenable. For example E=MC2 is not a patentable formula, since it describes a fundamental property of physics. A practicable application of this equation, say a nuclear reactor, would be patentable.  However, recent US case law has held that any preemption of a natural law  that is, a patent that claims all the applications of E=MC2, is also not patentable.

The point here is that natural laws are not defined by Congress, or the Courts. Furthermore, natural laws and laws of nature are only rough approximations of how we believe the world to work.  These laws might be subject to boundary conditions and localized modifications given the right arrangement of energy inputs and conditions. As such, it is possible that the "laws of nature" that you can't patent today, will be different from the laws of nature you can't patent 100 years from now.

This is all to say that you could get a patent on a perpetual motion machine. Merely calling it a perpetual motion machine is not the problem in getting a patent. There is no rule that says per se perpetual-motion, Faster Than Light and teleportation devices are not patentable.

The difficulty is in demonstrating to the patent office that it works. This is called the enablement requirement. If you show up to the patent office with a patent application that describes the mechanism of action as a perpetual motion machine, then you are going to need some extraordinary evidence to back that claim up. If you show the world a device that apparently accepts no input but continued to do work, then you will get a patent, so long as others can reproduce your results. What you can't do, is claim on paper to have a device that goes against our current understanding of science and expect to be granted a patent.

 In fact that Patent Office does not even require you to advance a theory as to why the device works in the first place in order to get a patent. A patent is simply a contract between an inventor and some territorial organization (e.g. The United States of America or France). This agreement states, explicitly, that as the inventor of  a improvement in a technical field, you are granted a limited monopoly to make, use and sell that improvement. In exchange for this monopoly, granted and enforced by the government, you must disclose the invention to the public (i.e. the world) in sufficient detail such that any one skilled in that technology can make and use the invention without resorting to undue experimentation.

 If you have a perpetual motion machine, and you can satisfy this requirement, then you will get a patent on it. The underling laws of physics that you are bending breaking or modifying are of no consequence.

Swiss-style Basic Income and IP

To the ill-informed, "Basic Income" is a social security system in which the government regularly gives each citizen a sum of money — with no conditions. No questions asked, no obligations. 

There is a referendum in Switzerland, which if passed would give each adult resident the equivalent of 2750.00 dollars a month. You can read the proponents thoughts here.  In short, the theory is, without the necessity to obtain income necessary to live, people could make more resumed choices about their careers. They could made different choices about how they spend their time. As a result, you might have a more efficient economy. 

Obviously, there are people, including economists, who think this is a terrible idea. The argument against Basic Income is that the whole system will collapse in a morass of lack of motivation to actually work. People will move their expenses down to the level of the Basic Income and then forego employment. Opting instead, it is argued, to just sit around all day. 

I take no position on which one of these outcomes is likely (or the likeliness of this idea gaining traction in the US). Wikipedia has a good run-down on the pros and cons.  However, I do take a position on the economic outcome of people sitting around. I tend to lean on the side of "that's great". 

Why? Because people freed from the restraints of taking ANY job to make ends meet, will naturally gravitate towards their hobbies. When people focus a lot on their hobbies, they tend to turn those hobbies into occupations. We see that with the craft "everything" movement. A zest for baking becomes a bake shop, a thirst for brewing your own beer becomes a craft brewery. A love of reading has become self-published media empires (Ed. a bit close to home....).

Freeing everyone from the constraints of occupation would lead to some people just sitting around. It would also lead to an explosion of new businesses financed by the Basic Income. 

Some of these new businesses would create new works of intellectual property. New artistic, musical, literary works; new software platforms; new devices and new methods could all spring from Basic Income. These works could be licensed world-wide; generating taxable revenue to feed back into the Basic Income system. 

Many Venture Capital organizations have an "Entrepreneur in Chief" position - a person paid to basically think stuff up. We are constantly being told that America needs more "innovation" and "entrepreneurship" and that IP is a step in the wrong direction. Basic Income matched with IP might allow the America to realize the dream of being a "Start-up" Nation where everyone is paid to "think stuff up."

Product Design IP in the age of 3D Printers

Dieter Rams designed Coffee Maker

Intellectual property protection for industrial design and industrial designers has always been a fraught process. The nature IP does not lend itself easily to the tasks Industrial Designers might put to them. However, new technology might begin to change how Industrial Designers see Intellectual Property protection.

IP Limits

Conventionally, industrial design is protected through a design patent.  Design patents allows the designer to get protection on their purely ornamental design for 14 years from filing.  Unfortunately, this means that if the product has a functional component (enhanced ergonomics etc.) then the designer relinquishes that functionality, or they are forced to obtain the more expensive and time consuming utility patent. A utility patent covers the function of a device , process, compound or article of manufacturer. For example, a designer could hold a patent on the manufacture of a particular item. While this might successfully deter large scale copying, it does not prevent wide spread dissemination of the construction methods and processes.

Copyright protects artistic and literary works for 70 years, plus the life of the author. Text and audio-visual works are the primary focus of copyright. Once you move beyond the artistic realm into the functional, Courts have held that copyrights no longer apply.  However, the age of 3D printing might be about to change the rules of the game.

Charles Eames Design Patent 

3D Printing

For the uninitiated, a 3D printer is a device that builds an object, usually out of some resin, layers at a time. It is the electronic opposite of a very fine mandolin slicer. MakerBot, and companies like them are pioneering a way to have an "internet of things." The eventual goal would be a repository of templates for the production of all manner of goods, ready to be downloaded and printed, the way one might download a song and burn it to a CD [ed. do kids ever do that any more ?].

 The software used in 3D printers vary from device to device. However, they all use some form of stereolithography file to instruct the device on how to lay down layers of material. Once all the layers have been deposited, you should have a reasonable copy of object described by the file.

It should be apparent that 3D printing allows for the production of many useful things, it also allows for the re-production of industrial design elements without authorization from the original creators. Where 3D printing has created a problem, it might also offer a solution.

IP Incorporation into Designs



Since the procedures for manufacturing the item begins with a digital file. It is possible to encapsulate the design within the boundaries of Copyright law. If the software file, the instruction set for making a particular design is complete (that is, it does not require additional tooling, or minimal machining) then the software encapsulates the design.

It might still hold true that the tangible representation of the software (i.e. a chair or lamp) is not covered by copyright, the software code that executes the 3D printer is a valid piece of IP.  Therefore, the nexus of IP infringement of the design would occur when the digital file is copied (i.e. on a file share network). Thus, developing code for the 3D designs will become as important as the conceptual prototypes. Court are well positioned to hear arguments on the illicit trade and sale of pirated software. This presents an opportunity for Industrial designers and software coders to collaborate on clever implementations of the software to render the designs with minimal post processing. The closer the code is to representing the object, the stronger the case for infringement. Once the code base of a portfolio has been engineered, a simple licensing program [not in bitcoins!!!] (think Itunes) could offer people the world over the chance to download an use a particular firm's designs.

Alternatively, or additionally, a designer could include a structural trademark element. For instance, the design of a chair could,  incorporate a logo. In this instance, merely printing the object does not create a cause of action. However, once an unscrupulous manufacturer attempts to sell the copied design, they are engaged in trademark infringement.

There are likely more elegant solutions than these two for the potential problems posed by 3D printing. However, these solutions show that IP in 3D printing can be maintained and creators can be protected.

Jordan Garner

Why you had a hard time getting an IP job 2009

Not my children, but they raise an interesting point

There was [is] a misconception that "IP" people and especially "Patent" people land on their feet after a traumatic work event.

In most cases these traumatic work events are solitary affairs to be met with stoicism when they arrive, and laughed off once gainful employment is once again obtained.   Job loss, it should be noted,  is not uncommon. It is definitely not uncommon in late 20th / early 21st century America. In general this theory holds true, with a strong caveat concerning Bio-background patent prosecutors (a situation which I have addressed before). Engineering background IP practitioners have generally found it easy to obtain new employment.

However, at the tail end of 2008 and well into 2009 and beyond, there was a uncommon tightness in the IP employment market for all background. This tightness didn't comport with the conventional wisdom about IP.

Conventional wisdom held that IP slightly a-cyclical or even lightly counter-cyclical to the overall business market. If IP was influenced by the broader economy, it was the result of companies exploiting their IP to the full extent possible in a difficult market. This theory held that lots of new applications, litigation and diligence work would be generated in a mild downturn as people companies and organizations attempted to maximize license fees, infringement judgements and acquisitions.  Litigation and diligence can be the topic of a different post.

Here we take a look at the wisdom as applied to applications, and find it lacking.


source: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2013/10/where-americas-inventors-ara/7069/

As evidenced by the chart title, the above graphs the number of application filings by US inventors per year.  Instead of seeing a steady churn in work, we see an inflection point, then a steep and accelerating drop off until 2010.

What this chart shows is that "peak-application" (like peak-oil) hit sometime before anyone was actually aware a problem was brewing. As 2007 transitioned into 2008, the trend accelerated such that applications were approaching free-fall in by the end of 2008.

However, if people remember correctly, the Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy did not hit the news until September of 2008.  So this drop off was not the result of the economic collapse that erupted in the wake of Lehman, but was part of the systemic breakdown which caused it. While everyone was keeping their eyes glued to the "market", IP watchers should have been analyzing the IP "market".

The second chart below breaks this data out to the highest regional markets for patent applications.


As far back as 2005, there was a leveling off in the application filings. This would have been the point to consolidate and solidify staffing levels. Instead, 2007 saw some of the largest summer associate class sizes. New York suffered severely. From a pre-2007 height of  over 1,000,000 applications to a current number of just over 600,000; New York had seen a 50% reduction in filings. By 2011 the IP filing market was only 10-20 % off the lows.

A 50% reduction in patent work in New York means a lot less law firms getting paid, and a lots less associates on the firm's rosters.

What these two charts show is that triggering event for the Great Recession (Lehman Bankruptcy ) was not the triggering event for the decline in patent filings. The gears were already in motion back in 2006.  The reasons for the run up and crash are likely as varied as reasons for the crash in the broader market; over-supply, irrational belief that history always points upward, empire building at the cost of sustainability. Any, and likely all, of these factors played into the massive disruptions that gripped law firms in 2009-2010. (see Towsand, Morgan, Darby et al.)

Firms are not quick to innovate in the best of times. Facing a 50% drop in work load, billings, and profits is not the best of time. All of this conspired to make it difficult to get a job in the IP field in 2009. Thankfully, the broader market is slowly improving.

As the line representing new filings continues on its upward march, we would do well to keep a close eye on the movements and metrics of our own "market" s well as the broader market.

Terrors of the Patent Office [ Halloween Patents]

Nothing gets the inventive process moving like a commercial holiday. Unlike Christmas, Halloween lacks a committed religious lobby arguing that the festival has become too commercialized. Gaelic Druids, engaging in their Samhain Festivities, would probably be in awe of the variety and sophistication of modern creepy faced gourd lanterns. (a particularly creepy turnip Samhain lantern seen at left)

A quick search of the patent office provides several excellent updates of this apparently ancient tradition of making disturbing faces on otherwise inedible tubers. (Yes, I find turnips inedible...)

Everyone likes a menacingly happy Jack-O-Lantern. That's why, in 1907,  JC Tyndall of  St. Louis decided to file and get a patent (No. 848,938 on a "Toy Lantern"). Tyndall realized that the weak point of any Pumpkin light was the cap, and the susceptibility of the entire enterprise ending in a pumpkin scented conflagration. therefore, his pumpkin lantern includes a candle retainer, and an interlocking cap and gimbals mechanism for easy transport. the Specification does not detail why the eyebrows are so disturbingly curved.

In the continued vein of creepy faced pumpkin products, we move onto B. Wilmsen's particularly threatening Jack-O-Lantern patent issued in 1934. (No. 94,935 on a "Pumpkin Lantern").Tyndall had actually technology. Wilmsen make up for his lack of technical sophistication in this design patent with existential pumpkin-faced dread. His products nearly vertical optical orbs scream "infringe me if you dare!"

Lastly, we have an epileptic seizure inducing pumpkin Lantern. The psychedelic 1960's produced some interesting and mind altering experiences.  None of these hold an electronic candle to a double faced Janus-like Pumpkin invented by R.R. Authier of Oaks Bluff Mass and issued as Pat. No. 3,250,910. (Ed: Martha's vineyards for those who don't know).This specialty lantern has dual faces, one scary and one comical. In addition, it contains selectively operated light sources of differing colors. Lastly, these lights can blink or strobe, producing the red flashing eyes of a haunted monstrosity, in pumpkin form.


Always remember to check the patent office for particularly excellent holiday ideas.

Historical Patent Trolls: James Beaumont Neilson Edition

James, massive Troll and Fit model for Scrooge 

It is often argued, with copious amounts of digital ink, that patents are a net drain on innovation and our economy.

I tend to push back against this position, mainly out of enlightened self-interest.  I work in the IP field, if we did away with it at the whim of a subset of libertarian minded technocrats, I would have a hard time finding gainful employment. Or, at least a hard time finding employment which affords me the opportunity to opine on various sundry matters of a historical / philosophical sort. 

However, the impetus to push back against the characterization of this, or any time period, as a particularly unique moment in human history is fueled by those same historical pursuits.

The arguments against non-practicing entities (Trolls) stem from the proponent's perceived enlightened self-interest.  The core position of the patent detractor is a belief that the system as it stands (and has stood for 200 years) benefits the lazy at the expense of the industrious. The arguments are premised on a belief that the worker, the programmer, the system builder is innovating, advancing commerce and technology, creating jobs. In contrast, the dilettante inventor, the thinker, the small time experimenter with her one-off patent, is holding progress hostage to her insatiable appetite for licensing fees and royalty payments. Better, the argument goes, to scrap the patent system than for some to pay for technology which they use but do not place much value upon. 

This argument is usually presented in the context of software, as though the concept of non-practicing entities and expensive legal battles over the scope and value of patent rights came into being with the advent of the internet.

In fact, this exact line of thinking was espoused almost 200 years ago by an association of Iron works industrialists who were desperately seeking a way to avoid paying for technology leashed to "extortion-level" licensing fees.  

A brief aside regarding British ironworks in the 1820's. When one has spent all day acquiring iron ore from the heart of some lonely mountain and that same someone wishes to turn that iron into rail lines, rifles and other fine instruments of the Imperium, one needs to smelt the iron.  Traditionally, that was done by blowing (blast) cold air over coke (a purified form of coal that has been roasted) and iron inserted into this (blast) furnace. 

Enter Mr. James Beaumont Neilson. Neilson, manager and engineer of the Glasgow Gasworks, discovered that if you raise the temperature of the air you are injecting into the furnace ( to around 300F), you need far less coke.  Additionally, and most importantly, depending on the temperatures levels and coal type, you could switch from expensive fancy coke, to the normal everyday-get-a-lump-in-your-stocking coal as your fuel (something of which the British Isles had plenty). 

Neilson proceeded to obtain a series of patents in Great Britain, Scotland, and Ireland in 1828-29 on this hot blast technology.  Neilson then set about licensing this technology. By 1835, hot blast furnace technology was in every ironwork in Scotland, save one. The license fee was set at the low price of 1 pound per ton of iron produced. This licensing scheme was considered by Neilson to be of a low enough price that people would not circumvent the license and become wanton infringers.  

Neilson was wrong. Almost immediately, Scottish Iron Masters formed an association, which bound the members under penalty of 1000 pounds, to resist:

 "by every method which a majority should recommend, any practical acknowledgment of the validity of  Neilson's patent." 

At the same time, several English Ironmasters were making use of the hot blast technology while refusing to take out licenses.  Neilson eventually won judgments against the English Iron Masters, but spent the next 9 years battling the Sottish Association, Harford Coal, Household Coal, and finally Baird Ironworks.  

Baird initially took a license, determined later that it was 'extortion of the highest sort' and ceased payment. The resulting litigation, Neilson v. Baird, turned into a spectacle. The jury trial lasted 9 days, with more than 100 witnesses called. Estimated attorney costs were multiples of the typical costs for patent infringement in the mid-19th century.  The witnesses spanned the range from businessmen to what modern Patent litigators would classify as testifying experts on enablement, inventorship, validity and damages issues.

When the testimony was compiled, the full picture of Neilson's technology and the scope of infringement was painted. In the 10 years that Baird used the hot furnace they has seen an increase in net profits of more than 260,000 pounds  (more than approx 180,000,000 in USD). The jury sided with Neilson and awarded damages of 11,000 pounds, roughly 10 million dollars in modern sums. He had asked for 20,000 pounds). 

According to modern interpretations, Neilson was a troll of the highest order. He never once claimed to be in the business of iron smelting, only in the allied field of gas works. He had a broad based licensing program that went, sometimes aggressively, after an entire industry. Lastly, he was not shy about litigating his patents and seeking damages from those he accused of infringement.

However, Neilson is widely considered a celebrated inventor, the father of the Hot Blast Furnace, and major contributor to the industrial revolution. If one seeks to modify the patent system, one must account for the Neilsons as well as the standard trolls. What separates their actions in the minds of the public? What anti-patent troll statute would have allowed Neilson to prevail, while barring those egregious abusers of the patent system? I am not sure I have seen a good answer. 

Jordan Garner

  

Infringement frequency pushback

As a quick post, the following chart is presented from Google's fantastic Ngram viewer.

First, a bit of information regarding Ngram. The viewer is one of those Google 20% projects (i.e. not a core google product) that came out of the Google's massive data trove generated when it optically scanned libraries worth of print books. This scanning was itself not without controversy. See here.

The viewer allows you to search for the frequency of a word, or phrase, and see how that phrase has changed over time.  This allows for hours spent traveling down the internet time sink looking for interesting word / data combinations.

However, I think (and IP nerds agree) that the interesting output is related to the frequency of IP terms in written english. A look at the graph above demonstrates that for all the recent talk about Patents being a drain on industry, the frequency of discussion has remained relatively flat since the 1800s. Time bias being what it is, you see a peak in the late 1940's (probably a combination of medical advances and post WWII electronic / solid state electronic development.) and then a precipitous drop off to a nadir in the 1970's.  For 30 something developers or businessmen, it looks like there has been a terrible rise in patent usage.  However, even in 2009, with Trolls in full swing, the rate of  the usage of patent terms has yet to return to the nominal historical average.

More interesting, copyrights, long the bane of innovators, has been on a steady historical march, with no signs of slowing.

What is slowing is the march of IP infringement references.
     In the above chart, the concept of a "trade secret" seams to occur far more than any of the traditional Federal IP rights. There appears to be a high burst in the mid-80s to the 2000. (Potentially the rise of Japan and China? Topics for another day).

Patent, copyright and trademark infringement references hit their peak in 2000 and have been decreasing ever since.

It should be noted that these are references to the specific terms in published works. It does not include online media (which might be siphoning off the results post 2000)).  However, it would be odd, and a post in its own right to not have some correlation to the prevalence of a term in print and its prevalence in all media.

Anyone who is selling the concept that IP rights, their enforcement, or position in the mind-space of our society needs to justify those claims in light of the charts above.

Flat Design and the Decline of the GUI Design Patent

 With the advent of IOS7, Apple has joined Microsoft (Metro) and Google (Now) in putting to rest (for the time being) digital skeuomorphic designs. While a good thing for designers who like clean lines, it might complicate future GUI Design Patent Strategies.

A quick primer, digital skeuomorphic design elements are when the interface or the icon is designed such that it looks like the physical world object that it is designed to digitally replicate. For example, the bookshelf in Ibook, is digital skeuomorphic design. There is no reason that a digital container of book files needs to look like a bookshelf; other than to relate to you, the user, what is the purpose of the digital program. Additionally, buttons with dropped shadows, or clever isometric representations of objects within the icon space, are all examples of digital skeuomorphic design.

However, with the advent of flat design across the three major mobile development platforms, things like icons designed to look like bookcases is going to be a thing of the past. Flat design, like its "Modernism" architectural equivalent is premised of reducing the ostentation ornamentation. In the same way that neo-Gothic architecture like this gave way to boxy simplicity of like this, so too does flat design trend to simple geometric forms and a studied lack of ostentation and ornamentation.

Part of this change has been led by a difference in attitudes regarding the purpose of the GUI in the first place.  Digital skeuomorphic designs were originally used to help people with no inherent knowledge of the inner workings of computers to easily map real world actions to digital ones. A digital file was made to look like a physical office file. A digital delete function was made to look like a trash can, etc. Now, with at least two generations of American consumers raised on digital entertainment, there is less of a need to visually explain the functions of each icon. It is simply enough, in most instances, to state its function and designate an area for the user to interact with that function.

lots of rectangles, no shadows 

GUIs, flat or not, can be protected by design patents. In 1996, the USPTO created guidelines for the protection of GUIs based on its decision in Ex Parte Strijland.  GUI design or surface ornamentation is protectable as long as it is shown to be novel, not obvious, and not functional. The claimed design may be presented as a line drawing or a digital image. Color and grayscale are allowed to be presented in the same GUI application, but line drawings and digital images are not. Animated designs are also patentable in the United States, and must show a minimum of two views of the animation. 

This is all a long winded intro into the point. Of the recent victories that Apple has achieved against Samsung, Apple succeeded in proving that Samsung had copied a design patented GUI (seen at left). As you will note,  this Apple design is chock full of skeuomorphic elements. This includes not only the icons themselves, but their placement, the shape of the icons, their slightly beveled appearance etc.

However, by moving to a flat design paradigm, Apple and its competitors are moving into a field whose sole purpose is to simplify the display elements, not add ornamentation. As noted above, design patents mush have a non-functional use, and must be directly related to the ornamentation. If flat design takes hold, it will be increasingly difficult for designers to obtain protection for flat designs as they  essentially become functional identifiers for computer tasks. As a result, we are going to see a lot of convergent design elements that people will accuse other people of stealing, but no one will be able to obtain a patent on.

As a result, it is preferable to augment your GUI design patent strategy with a screen shot copyright strategy. This way, if it is an instance of blatant copying, you are still protected by an enforceable IP right.

Jordan Garner

Scammers Part 3 "Astro Boy" edition

Reporting on scams has become something of a tradition around here. In order to pull off a good con, the scam artist needs to know something about the psychology of its mark.

 It does the con-artist no good to offer to split a giant pile of bacon with a vegan (however delicious that concepts sounds). 
So to, do IP scammers know their audience. 

While not a new scam, the following letter was recently received in our offices: 

From: Osamu Tezuka Makoto [mailto:osatemakoto@gmail.com]

Sent: July 30, 2013 1:11 PM

To: Firm

Subject: Legal Rep

Dear Attorney,

We are a media publishing company in Japan. We have a breach of intellectual property agreement matter in your jurisdiction, we can forward you the agreement and 5195842743_2305>

Yours Sincerely,

Osamu Tezuka Makoto

Tezuka Production Company

4-32-11, Takadanobaba

Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-075

Japan

Tel: +81333716411

Email: osatemakoto@gmail.com

http://tezukaosamu.net/jp

After some further digging the "client" told us that :

"We are  the owner of rights in a collection of animated characters including Astro Boy.  Springer Publishing of New York City failed to make a required payment upon termination of an intellectual property agreement between the us ."  

On its face, it seams like a golden opportunity  You, sitting in your office, business development book out to the "how to attract clients" chapter, gets this e-mail. You think, "sweet!" all that networking is paying off. Not only with new clients, but internationally famous IP clients. You do some due diligence, both the company, the IP and the opposing party seem legit.  Or do they. Why would a production company trading in a famous brand like Astro Boy communicate with a gmail address. Why would they contact you out of the blue, with no preface or introduction. Why call you "attorney"? 

The details of how this scam plays out differ from mark to mark, but the concept is pretty simple. Tezuka and Sterling (even though these are real valid companies) are setups, honey pots. You are supposed to Google them, see they are real, and rub your hands together in expectation of easy and significant billings. 

In reality, the contact info above, and the contact info they give you for the point of contact at "Sterling" are to the same entity. Once you negotiate a settlement, with a hefty retainer for your trouble, the money gets transferred to your firms' bank-account by a very slow validating banking institution. 

Because the client and the opposing counsel are the same entity, they know when the "money" was transferred  You, the successful hard litigating, hard negotiating lawyer, soon gets a call from the grateful client asking you to forward the money, minus your fees, of course. 

Now, some attorneys will wait until the check has fully cleared before sending on the money. Some will resist, until the client mentions that there are other people who owe them money, and they would like to retain you for future matters.  Either way, some lawyers will send a check, secure in the knowledge that the money in is the bank. 

The problem is, that the money isn't in the bank.  That slow moving bank transfer suddenly shows up as a cancelled check. Now the firm is out some hundreds of thousands of dollars. When you call Sterling and Tezuka, neither of them have ever heard of you. They have their own lawyers, who are you? You have to go to the Executive Committee and explain why you gave away the farm for some magic beans.  

You, my friend, have been scammed. Something for nothing is usually that...

Developer's IP checklist

Awhile back I got a call from a video game developer that was about to go live with their product. The lead developer/CEO had just discovered that there was a trademark registered to a major company, that happened to be the same name as their game.

Luckily, we were able to resolve the issue prior to them going live, but it raises an interesting point.

A lot of the discussion relative to IP in the start up / developer space is colored by the larger market discussion on software patents and their role in, or hindrance on, innovation.  This discussion has sucked all the air out of the room as it applies to the multiple forms of IP that are pretty critical to a successful brand.

As such, I figured I would just do a quick check list for all the app/game/social media/ tech start-ups out there that maybe thought that having a position on patents was their sole IP issue.  Here is the quick check list, followed by some in-depth discussion.

1. Do you have Copyright Assignments for Coders, Designers and UI/GFX Modelers
2. Do you have a Trademark on your company / product name. Do you have a domain name on the same?
3. Do you have a firm wide confidentiality policy?

Copyright  Assignment Documents:
 In the U.S. any works of authorship, which includes drawings, character models, wireframes, code, or text, is covered by copyright.  The copyright vests in the creator at the time of creation. So, as soon as your character modeler generates an awesome character for your app, the copyright in that character vests in the creator. Not, I repeat, Not the company who they they are working for.

This is always true, UNLESS, you have an agreement in place that assigns all of that work to the company.

This can be done in two ways. The first is to have everyone that is working on the project sign a document that assigns all of their work to the company.

Second, which is more subject to legal challenge, is a Work For Hire Agreement. A Work For Hire Agreement that states that the works created were done so as a commissioned work of authorship. This is the language you will find in employment contracts for large media companies and software companies alike. The problem is, if you and your buddies are coding the killer app, when did you sign employment agreements? Odds are you didn't Once you are ready to go live, pitch investors, or hit Kickstarters, everyone who has contributed to the project should agree, in writing that they are assigning their rights over to some entity.  However the agreement is made is largely irrelevant, the goal is to get the assets essential to the company under the ownership umbrella of the company.

As a second point, I always suggest filing a few federal copyrights on art assets or screen shots, just to deter scrapers, clones and knockoff artists.

Trademarks:

Trademarks are source designations of origin. They identify the good or service as coming from a particular entity. As I stated at the beginning of this piece, an invaluable use of time is to check the trademark office to see if the name of your game, company, or app is already in use. If so, is it is the same field of use. There is nothing worse then having to go back through code looking for references to a company name that needs to be changed at the last minute. Securing a trademark relative to a patent is a cheap and easy process. Once it is secured it can be used as your brand and the public show case of all your company has to offer.

I always remind clients that Twitter did not Trademark "Tweet", a decision that came back to bite them in terms of money and attorney fees. See here.

Confidentiality

As a rule of thumb, anything that pertains to proprietary technology, that gives you a perceived edge in the market place (google's search algorithms, Coke's formula, Zucherberg's Hoodie), should be kept confidential.  Not only is this just good practice, but it also lays the foundation of a strong Trade Secret Policy.  As I pointed out in an earlier post here, the rules for protecting valuable IP via Trade Secret Laws has been greatly enhanced.

Every Company should take advantage of that, not just vampire squid banks. The best way to do so, is to make sure that everyone has signed confidentiality agreements that lay out their responsibility to keep the companies secrets...secret.

For the large majority of start-ups and developers, this is all the IP you need. In the future, when you begin driving technology, Patents will become a critical component of your IP strategy. However, you will never get there if you don't secure your IP in the beginning.

Jordan Garner

Tax Policy for NPE ('Patent Trolls") [Wonky]

'In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." - Benjamin Franklin (noted scientist, inventor, philanderer  founding father, and fit model for currency).

The current debate around NPE (non-practicing entities, i.e. Patent Trolls) had me thinking about the law of unintended consequences and taxes. (Yes, I know, boring).  

I think everyone can agree that the ultimate goal of the AIA changes to the patent law were driven, in no small measure, by companies wishing to eliminate the threat of Patent Troll suits. For a general counsel with the ear of the legislature, this sounds like a perfectly reasonable use of power and influence. For the solo inventor who honestly believes that MegaCorp has ripped him off, it looks like corruption of the highest order. 

Resolving these two conflicting visions is nearly impossible. For MegaCorp, it honestly believes that Solo inventor is just a crook who is hassling their highly successful venture. For Solo inventor, he has invested time, but more importantly, money in acquiring a patent and MegaCorp is reaping all the benefit.  Furthermore, to Solo, it looks like the law has been changed to favor one party over the other. 

While the AIA might cut down on NPE suits, it will likely have inadvertent effects that we are barely aware. As such, I tend to not agree with wholesale legal changes as a way to eliminate 'bad' actors. When profit is the motive, very bright people will expend effort to find the loophole.  The problem with the AIA is that it targets the result of NPE actions (suits directed against major tech companies) instead of the goal of NPEs (Profit!). 

I would have advocated using tax policy to target the goal, not the result. 

On MegaCorp's side, Tax policy could be changed to make a new taxable income category for reasonable royalties as assessed by a court for infringement of a non-practiced patent.   Currently the tax rate for recovery in settlement and and reasonable royalty recovery by judgement are the same (~35% and taxed as income).  However, a change is the way that the IRS treats recovery from settlement vs recovery from litigation would lead NPE's to maximize their profit through the most efficient way possible.  If the tax rate for reasonable royalty (of a Non-practiced patent were sufficiently high, it would alter the calculus of going after MegaCorp, especially given that attorney fees are not tax deductible. Likewise, tax policy could be used to reduce the windfall that a true NPE could recover based on a past damages.

While this might drive NPE's into settlements instead of broadside litigations (which is what most GC's are really worried about), it would still leave Solo inventor holding the bag on his out of pocket patent fees.  

One way to lesson the impact to Solo is to use tax policy to unburden him of some of the cost in acquiring the patent.  This system would work as thus: The IRS would allow, given the size, income and subject matter, a tax credit for money spent acquiring a patent. This could be as simple as acquiring a tax credit for application fees, or it could be as complex as some formula for a tax credit that takes into account the amount of money that was spent in prosecution. 

These are obviously rough sketches of a goal oriented solution to the NPE problem, while trying to make sure that honest small inventors are not thrown out with the NPE bathwater. 


Jordan Garner 

Letters to the Editor - Things not to do

If you follow patent law, you have no doubt seen the dust-up over the letter a Patent Attorney Andrew Schroeder sent to the Patent Office.

Part Michael Douglas in "Falling Down" part  Beale in "Network", is was mostly an ill-thought out anti-government diatribe that will likely cost him his registration number, a Mal-practice suit from his client, and the unending focus and retention of this poor episode for all time due to the all seeing Google-Cloud bots.

From Patent-ly-o:
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/dont-write-this-letter-to-the-patent-office.html

Andrew Schroeder... filed the following remarks:

REMARKS: Are you drunk? No, seriously…are you drinking scotch and whiskey with a side of crack cocaine while you "examine" patent applications? (Heavy emphasis on the quotes.) Do you just mail merge rejection letters from your home? Is that what taxpayers are getting in exchange for your services? Have you even read the patent application? I'm curious. Because you either haven't read the patent application or are… (I don't want to say the "R" word) "Special."

Numerous examples abound in terms of this particular Examiner not following the law. Clearly, the combination of references would render the final product to be inoperable for its intended use. However, for this Special Needs Examiner, logic just doesn't cut it. It is manifestly clear that this Examiner has a huge financial incentive to reject patent applications so he gets a nice Christmas bonus at the end of the year. When in doubt, reject right?

Since when did the USPTO become a post World War II jobs program? What's the point of hiring 2,000 additional examiners when 2,000 rubber stamps would suffice just fine? So, tell me something Corky…what would it take for a patent application to be approved? Do we have to write patent applications in crayon? Does a patent application have to come with some sort of pop-up book? Do you have to be a family member or some big law firm who incentivizes you with some other special deal? What does it take Corky?

Perhaps you might want to take your job seriously and actually give a sh.t! What's the point in having to deal with you Special Olympics rejects when we should just go straight to Appeals? While you idiots sit around in bathtubs farting and picking your noses, you should know that there are people out here who actually give a sh.t about their careers, their work, and their dreams.

Your job is not a joke, but you are turning it into a regular three ring circus. If you can't motivate yourself to take your job seriously, then you need to quit and let someone else take over what that actually wants to do the job right.

See U.S. Patent Application No. 13/068530 (PAIR).