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...