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