you know it has to be good. This time it is the Patent Prospector blasting away at the "over-credentialed chowderheads" who have been huffing and puffing about the havoc patents are inflicting on the economy and innovation.
Lots of good quotes (a couple of which are a bit too risque for PHOSITA), but my favorite:
Jamming what fits into a theoretical construct, leaving as offal inconvenient contrary facts.
Use of "offal" and Alfred E. Neuman in a patent blog post - I am in awe.
]]>
If you were wondering what this is about - have a read over at Politico for the full angst, political intrique, a bank heist, and patent rhetoric.
]]>United States Patent 6,933,851
Hahne, et al. August 23, 2005Air travel security method, system and device
A method of providing air travel security for passengers traveling via an
aircraft comprises situating a remotely activatable electric shock device on each of the passengers in position to deliver a disabling electrical shock when activated; and arming the electric shock devices for subsequent selective activation by a selectively operable remote control disposed within the aircraft. The remotely activatable electric shock devices each have activation circuitry responsive to the activating signal transmitted from the selectively operable remote control means. The activated electric shock device is operable to deliver the disabling electrical shock to that passenger.
I just want to know who gets to us the “selectively operable remote control” – it may be a new revenue generator for the airlines. And while the initial drawings show it being worn on the wrist, the inventors have not limited it to such a configuration – for those of you looking for a nice choker necklace, they haven’t left you out in the cold.
I would be willing to spend up to $100 in order to be able to shock the SOB who decides to slam his seat back into my knees over and over… or… or…
Hmm – perhaps turning each flight into a lord of the flies situation isn’t such a good idea afterall.
I did breathe a sigh of relief, however – it doesn’t appear that the patent has been assigned to any airline. Whew…
[Via Sore Eyes, via Bruce Schneier, via Techdirt]
UPDATE: Well, it seems that while the airlines themselves do not appear to be interested in the device – there is a company developing the technology into an actual product – Lamperd Less Lethal. They have even put up a YouTube showing the benefits of the technology and how it can be used – complete with scary/serious voice over (warning, scenes of 9/11 shown):
And it appears that the Department of Homeland Security has “some interest” (entire PDF of letter (378 KB)):
In discussion with my colleagues and immediate superior, we find your ideas have merit and believe it would be of great help on the borders and indeed for anywhere else, for which the temporarily restraint of large numbers of individuals in open area environments by a small number of agents or Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs). We see the potential uses to include prisoner transportation, detainee control and the military security forces might have some interest. In addition, it is conceivable to envision a use to improve air security, on passenger planes.
So – you never know. In the near future, you could be wearing a choker and being tasered by some unknown “keeper of the device”.
]]>
Seventeen year old British college student Rachel Gilbert has reached the final of a national competition, the Ideas Igloo Roadshow, with her design for feline false teeth.
They look a little ghoulish, but have a noble purpose: "When animals suffer broken or rotten teeth, they have had to be removed," Rachel told her local newspaper, The Sheffield Star. "The gum can become infected and they find it difficult to chew food. We aim to reduce animals' suffering and improve their quality of life." Local vets are already on board with the design, which was created after taking a mold from a cat with damaged teeth. This revolution in animal dentistry could also be extended to dogs and sheep.
Rachel and her team of eight now have two minutes to pitch their idea to a panel of American Inventor-style entrepreneurs for a chance to win £2000 (around $4000) to help launch their business.
Good luck Rachel! Just watch out so that you don't become the "crazy cat lady" who lives at the end of everyone's block.
]]>Some students at a British high-school wanted to wear colored nail
polish, but their school prohibited any kind of make up. They found the ban to be unfair so they came up with a novel approach that would keep them out of detention, but allow them to wear their blood-red fingertips.
They invented nail polish that disappears when its not in the sun.
Presented with a problem, these students came up with a solution. I hope that their science teacher gives them an A. Better yet, one of the chemical power house colleges should recruit them and provide them with full scholarships.
Very amazing. Now if we could only put it on some eggs and hide them around the house….. I wonder if the eggs would disappear. Have a good weekend everyone! ]]>It may be an interesting coincidence, but I dare you to read the linked article from the NY Times about the Supreme Court and its seemingly pro-business rulings of late, and substitute the word “patent” for “business” ….
Though the current Supreme Court has a well-earned reputation for divisiveness, it has been surprisingly united in cases affecting [business] Patent interests. Of the 30 [business] Patent cases last term, 22 were decided unanimously, or with only one or two dissenting votes.
In opinions last term, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and David Souter each went out of his or her way to question the use of lawsuits to challenge corporate wrongdoing — a strategy championed by progressive groups like Public Citizen but routinely denounced by conservatives as “regulation by litigation.” Conrad reeled off some of her favorite moments: “Justice Ginsburg talked about how ‘[private-securities fraud actions] Patent Litigation, if not adequately contained, can be employed abusively.’ Justice Breyer had a wonderful quote about how Congress was trying to ‘weed out unmeritorious [securities lawsuits] Patents.’ Justice Souter talked about how the threat of litigation ‘will push cost-conscious defendants to settle.’ ”
Is it just me?
]]>As GC for Sun, Mike’s daily routine must entail a significant amount of attention to intellectual property issues and his blog plows a lot of ground concerning this topic. The posts are informative – albeit they have a “big corporate shine” to them, much to the dismay of a lot of “anonymous commenters”. If you read many patent blogs, you can probably guess the identities of many of these “anonymous commenters” – but they do make for an interesting peek at the more reactionary component of our niche of the legal world.
That is a lot of setup for a recent post of Mike’s dealing with how Sun defends against patent “troll” lawsuits – namely, a good offense.
I recently shared dinner with a few other GCs of local technology companies. It was a nice evening in which we were able to relax and share insights (and commiserate) about topics of common interest. During the course of our meal while we were discussing rising legal costs, one of my table mates made a statement that I found somewhat bothersome. He said that when faced with patent "troll" litigation, he knows he is going to pay something to get rid of the lawsuit and so he economizes on the use of defense counsel. After all, the thinking goes, if your intent is to settle a case, why spend money on a strong defense?
His view is completely contrary to how we think about this problem at Sun. It's also symptomatic of the way many companies view this issue as a quarterly "cost of doing business" without considering the long term consequences of settlement both for individual companies and our industry.
Before going further, let me state that we respect the intellectual rights of third parties. When a third party claim has been clear and the terms reasonable, we have entered into licenses. However, those situations are easily distinguished from the cases that make up almost all of our present docket of patent litigation. These lawsuits have usually been filed with no advance notice, by plaintiffs that don't commercialize their patents (i.e. create and sell products) and in venues considered favorable to them. It's also almost always the case that these plaintiffs have done little or no investigation to ascertain whether our products infringe prior to filing their lawsuit.
I think the approach that Mike outlines is a good example of how to frame decisions when confronted with a freedom to operate issue – whether the FTO issue is brought to your attention through an offer to license, or a cease and desist, or a patent search, or even when you have been served with a complaint — i.e., “How do we play offense in this particular case or instance?”
As Mike mentions, oftentimes it makes sense strategically and economically to simply license the patent – especially if the license allows you to preclude other competitors in the marketplace.
On the other hand, a careful analysis may lead to a determination that a license is unworkable – e.g., that the patent is invalid or because the license fee does not make economic sense. In such a circumstance, a zealous defense against an accusation of infringement may be in order – including the invalidation of the asserted claims.
In either case – taking a license or defending zealously – the accused infringer is approaching the case in an active/offensive manner and judging each case on its relative merits. Defaulting into paying to settle every case is no better than defaulting into aggresively defending every case.
The best defense to a patent infringement lawsuit?
Early analysis of the case and its relative merits (including the type of entity bringing the lawsuit). As each case and situation is unique, arbitrary “blanket rules” – while being easy to implement – don’t necessarily increase value to the corporation. Licensing everything or defending against everything is not a strategy – it is simply an invitation for disaster.
In any event, go on over and read Mike’s blog – I can guarantee that you will learn something.
The best offense...is a good defense.: the legal thing... by Mike Dillon.
]]>Did Konami Inspire Gibson's Patent Suit? | Kotaku Australia
Prank Makes Music Downloaders Wet Pants
WIPO and Kellogg School of Management Offer IP Management Program
As a response to the growing demand from the business community for executive programs on Intellectual Property (IP) management, the WIPO Worldwide Academy and the Kellogg School of Management - a leading business school - have teamed up for the second year running to offer the 2008 executive program on "Strategies for Management of Intellectual Property".
A press release by WIPO stated that this year’s program will be held at the Kellogg Campus in Chicago from June 9 to 12, 2008. The course will offer an opportunity to gain a practical understanding of the various strategies and approaches to enable effective development and optimization of a company’s intellectual property assets, to formulate effective IP-focused business strategies and to successfully negotiate IP licensing agreements with business partners.Universities in India May Soon Own Patent Rights
Companies see red over rights to the color magenta or use of stripes - International Herald Tribune
Patent filing shows DVR for Apple TV - The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)
Patent Infringement Claim Directed at iTunes, iPod by Zapmedia
Spitzer Call Girl Claims MySpace Photos Published in Violation of Copyright
The Visible Hand: Why India needs to possess- Hindustan Times
Patent Baristas » Patent Office Will Now Require Biological Deposits Before Publication
(1) that any deposit of biological material be made before publication of a patent application; and
(2) that all restrictions on access to the deposited material imposed by the depositor be removed upon publication.
Namely, all three of us will be speaking (along with a host of other great IP panelists) at Dunes’ “Patent Drafting & Prosecution” CLE that is happening on April 11th, 2008 in shiny Las Vegas, Nevada.
The title of my sesion is “Current Issues in U.S. and Foreign Patent Prosecution” – specifically, I will be addressing:
As the world continues to become flatter, patent professionals in the United States are receiving increasingly complex requests from clients as to the patent procedures found in many foreign jurisdictions. As such, the U.S. patent professional must be able to quickly identify foreign patenting issues early and implement U.S. and foreign patenting activities in a coordinated manner. In Current Issues in U.S. and Foreign Patent Prosecution, Mr. Sorocco will discuss newly implemented U.S. and foreign jurisdiction rules and regulations that may impact U.S. based practitioners and the clients they serve. Representative topics include the current status of rule changes at the USPTO, the Hague Agreement on Industrial Designs, the London Protocol Agreement and the possibility of a European Community Patent.
I always appreciate the tips, tricks and insight that come from PHOSITA readers – so, feel free to send them my way.
]]>
