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.