Let it snow! Burton Patents

To say that the winter of 2014 as been harsh would be an understatement. In the North-East and West, snow totals are approaching historic levels. Even as I type, another monster storm is gathering to dump feet of snow on an area stretching from upstate NY to Maine.

If there are any winners in intense snowy winter, it is ski resorts. Resorts, it is obvious to state, can't function without skiers and snowboarders.  One of the premier outfits in snowboarding Burton is, aside from a trendsetter in slope apparel and design, a prolific patentee.

According to the patent databases, Burton has more than 100 issued patents and pending application in the US.  An appreciable number of these patents are directed to function features, such as the spring leaf modified glide board design seen above.  Other patents address the continuous problem of lacing your boots. For example patent 8418381, describes a lacing system for boots.

One of the features that drives sales in the apparel / sporting goods space is the relentless need to innovate and produce new and improved models. In that respect, the Tech space and the sports retail space are not significantly different.   The ability to patent these advancements, however incremental, mean increased sales and wide recognition as an innovator.

Not every patenable idea is a commercial success, nor should it. A large purpose behind the patent system is to allow companies and individuals to iterate over known ideas to get new ideas. Sometime, the iteration is not worth the added expense. Sometimes the iteration was the last piece of some overall systems puzzle that advances the art, and becomes the basis of new paradigm in the industry.

Burton made a large push for the integrated boot binding combination. Had it taken off, it would have changed the technological direction of the industry. At the end of the day, in 2014 at least, that technology is a side show to the more simplistic boot binding system employed by Burton and other board manufacturers.

The point is that you never know which ideas might strike and catch fire, and which ideas whither on the vine. If you wait until you are successful to patent those ideas, it is already too late.


Jordan Garner

The Case for a Financial Engineering Art Unit at The PTO

If you understand the formula to the left, then congratulations, you are probably a financial engineer.

Financial engineering is a multidisciplinary approach to finance that uses mathematical modeling, computer algorithms, and economic principals to develop various sophisticated financial instruments. The goal, as with every alchemist, it is generate something of immense value from something of very little value.

Where the end product of financial engineering intersects with IP law is the notion of the "business method patent".  Most of the concern regarding Non-Practicing entities (Patent Trolls), are focused squarely on the validity of patents relating to financial engineering implementations.

 The U.S. Supreme Court has recently granted Cert. in CLS Bank v. Alice Corporation. The internet is full of blogs explaining the merits of each parties' position, and i have nothing useful to add to that conversation.

What I do add is this: The general disposition of people opposed to business method patents is that the concepts are abstract, and do not do anything new with old concepts. Unfortunately, that opinion confuses the prohibition on non-patentable subject matter (Sec. 101) and novelty (Sec 102).

If the argument is that a financial engineering concept, like the 3rd party escrow arrangement in ALS, were abstract, then why are we arguing about it? Clearly someone implemented the idea, hence making it tangible. Once something can be made tangible, it is no longer abstract.  Really, most positions on business method patents collapse into a novelty argument.

The patent office was issuing loads of patents on financial concepts tied to various computer implementations. When these patents are challenged, the argument is always that the patentee is merely applying the concept with a computer. The parties could point to the prior art, but they usually find it lacking. Thus, they settle into a long patent-eligible subject matter argument instead of a novelty, obvious argument.

The result is that Congress, the President and various industry groups are attempting to change the law to suit the goal of eliminating harmful business method patents.

A better way to solve the problem is to move the issue back into the patent office. It is my theory that one of the reasons that business method patents get through the patent office is that most of the Examiners in the art unit have a computer science background and not a financial engineering background. If the PTO actively recruited a financial engineering unit, and stationed them in a Manhattan Satellite Office, they would have the synergy of a examiner corp that is familiar with high-end financial concepts, and a store of knowledge as to what constitutes prior art.

Why Manhattan? Proximity  to Wall Street; home to several leading financial engineering graduate programs. Supply of former and current financial industry employees who can transition into the examiner role.

Before we close off an entire field of patentable subject matter, we should at least try to diligently examine them.

Jordan Garner