Saturday, December 29, 2012

2012 Innovation Quote #4

Our Favorite Quotes



Innovation is unruly.

- Nathan Myhrvold of Intellectual Ventures and Microsoft Fame





He ought to know.


This year we bring you a compilation of some of our favorite quotes on innovation, innovation, inventors, and patent insanity as part of our year end wrap up.  Send us yours at feedback@waybetterpatents.com.com and we'll publish them and add them to our collection.

Friday, December 28, 2012

2012 Innovation Quote #3

Our Favorite Quotes - 2012




If the inventory of ready-made words in our language determines which concepts you are able to understand, how would you ever learn anything new? 



- Guy Deutscher
Honorary Research Fellow, School of Languages, Linguistics, and Cultures at the University of Manchester.




This year we bring you a compilation of some of our favorite quotes on innovation, innovation, inventors, and patent insanity as part of our year end wrap up.  Send us yours at feedback@waybetterpatents.com and we'll publish them and add them to our collection.

Thursday, December 27, 2012

The Non-Practicing Entity Conundrum University Edition




When is an NPE not a patent troll?


On December 26th, the verdict in a patent infringement lawsuit was announced.  A nine member federal jury ordered Marvell Technology and its US operating subsidiary Marvell Semiconductor Inc. to pay $1.17 billion in damages to Carnegie Mellon University.   The patent infringement lawsuit was brought by Carnegie Mellon University.  The verdict came after a month-long trial in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh, the home of Carnegie Mellon.  The jury decided that the infringement was willful which means that the judge can award triple damages potentially raising the verdict to over $3.6 billion.

Carnegie Mellon University sued Marvell (MRVL: NASDAQ) for infringement of two patents, 6,201,839 issued in 2001 and 6,438,180 granted in 2002.  The patents cover ways to filter out noise and unwanted electrical signals when detecting data stored on a computer hard-disk drive.

Marvell is based in Hamilton, Bermuda. Its U.S. operating unit Marvell Semiconductor Inc is based in Santa Clara, California.  According to Marvell's inventor relations page, Marvell ships over one billion chips a year. Marvell’s expertise in microprocessor architecture and digital signal processing, drives multiple platforms including high volume storage solutions, mobile and wireless, networking, consumer and green products (LED lighting). The firm has 5,700 employees with design centers and research and development operations around the world.  The firm's research and development expenses were $1,014 million, $898 million, and $828 million in fiscal years 2012, 2011, and 2010 respectively.  Marvell Technology is a practicing entity. The firm owns patents and uses patents to protect the product it makes.  Its most recent patent, 8,341,503, "Methods and systems for storing data in memory using zoning" , was granted December 25, 2012.

Marvell Technologies may need to issue shares to cover the judgement according to several financial news reports.

Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) does not manufacture disk drives or semi-conductors (chips.)  It's primary product is education and research.  It doesn't produce products based the technology it invents.  This makes CMU a non-practicing entity,  or, using the pejorative, a patent troll.

The patents involved in the case were granted in 2001 and 2002 respectively, both were based on a provisional patent application filed in May of 1997. Published articles on the invention from the inventors began appearing in 1998. The patents cover technology that is almost 16 years old. Older than most of the patents enforced by non-practicing entities according to the now urban legend patent troll study written by Boston University Law School professors Mike Meurer and Jim Bessen.

K&L Gates, the law firm representing Carnegie Mellon University, claimed that Marvell copied the University’s technology for allowing hard disk drives to read information from high speed magnetic discs.  The expert witnesses in the case claimed that the CMU invention was a foundational piece of technology and that the university had been deprived of the revenue stream from its invention.

The inventors, Aleksandar Kavcic, and Jose M. F. Moura do not own a business that produces the inventions disclosed in the patents. Both are academics and researchers.  The inventors and the resulting patents in the suit benefited from a National Science Foundation under Grant No. ECD-8907068. The inventors and the university had the benefit of taxpayer funded research.

So here we have a patent troll case in which the non-practicing entity is a major research university.  The home town jury in Pittsburgh determined that willful infringement of the home town university's patents took place. The media reports on the case make no mention of the fact that CMU is a non-practicing entity despite the significant drop in the value of the publicly traded company's stock upon announcement of the verdict.  As of this writing there is no, "patent trolls are stifling innovation" rhetoric.  None of the usual suspects are circling the wagons screaming that there are over a gazillion patents that you need to look at when you make a smartphone even though technology made by Marvell Technology is essential to the smartphone, mobile, data storage ecosystem.  No one is preaching the end of an industry because of those pesky patents.

So where does this leave us?

It leaves us with a reality that sometimes someone who owns patents but doesn't make stuff but enforces their patents is doing what is good and right and sometimes someone who owns patents but doesn't make stuff and enforces their patents is an evil doer stifling innovation.  The line is very hazy.  It depends on your vantage point and what side you are on.

The discussion of the monetization of patents and who can legitimately enforce patents without public outrage continues.

About the Reporting on the Verdict:

As of December 27, 2012 only Bloomberg.com included the patent numbers in their article along with a brief description of the invention.

None of the media reports on the case discussed the age of the patents or the technology being enforced.  None of the reporters or bloggers asked why it took so long for CMU to seek to enforce its patents.

The announcement caused a significant drop in the price of Marvell's shares did not cause much in the way of explanation of the patents, or the invention covered by the patents.

2012 Innovation Quote #2


Our Favorite Quotes - 2012



"My view is that people are creative animals and will figure out cleaver ways to use tools that the inventor never imagined." 


- Steve Jobs as quoted in Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson.






A potential explanation on why patents have overly broad language - inventors want their invention to cover all of the cleaver ways to use their invention that they haven't imagined.


This year we bring you a compilation of some of our favorite quotes on innovation, innovation, inventors, and patent insanity as part of our year end wrap up.  Send us yours at feedback@waybetterpatents.com and we'll publish them and add them to our collection.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

2012 Innovation Quotes #1

Our Favorite Quotes - 2012


This year we bring you a compilation of some of our favorite quotes on innovation, innovation, inventors, and patent insanity as part of our year end wrap up.  Send us yours at feedback@waybetterpatents.com and we'll publish them and add them to our collection.


"If I listened to my customers I would have invented a faster horse."

- Henry Ford



Monday, December 24, 2012

Merry Christmas Patent Style


In the spirit of the season we bring you our latest invention, patent argot style.  The prosecution of our claim continues.  Feel free to infringe while we wait for the first Office Action.  Not to worry, the practicing, non-practicing, and patent assertion entities are all in on the fun.
All the Best From the Crew at Way Better Patents.

Holiday Greetings from Frosty the Article Holding Figurine.


We claim a method of communicating holiday greetings comprising a representational snowman like figure offered in combination with a social expression communication associated with an occasion, holiday, or event; delivered via a communication network wherein the communication network comprises a computer connected to a telecommunications device that facilitates exchange of greetings via the Internet through posts on a weblog, a weblog being a web-based journal that contains periodic posts usually in reverse chronological order.

Frosty the Article Holding Figurine with his preferred embodiment article, the jacket, casually thrown over his shoulder and the inscrutable yet determined look on the upper orbital section of the facial structure is no ordinary a snowman shaped object, he is a figurine of action. He strikes a dashing pose with his top hat-like structure affixed to the upper portion of the preferred embodiment snowman-like shape. The representational human visage let's us know this article holding figurine is no victim of the politically correct as represented by the corn-cob pipe like smoking apparatus clinched in dual elliptical indents designed to represent a notional mouth. In the preferred embodiment he is on the way to a festive holiday gathering to join his other patented figurine, ornamental, and decorative cohorts including the snowman shaped Christmas tree, in celebration of the holiday season.
In some preferred embodiments, Frosty, the Article Holding Figurine, an ornamental member in deed, further comprises a variety of features, including, but not limited to, one or more means for attachment to a Christmas Tree.  In the preferred embodiment, the ornaments are provided with hooks whereby our man Frosty may be hung from a Christmas tree. Alternatively, he may be placed on a flat surface, such as a fireplace mantel. where the display is intended as a Christmas display.  In the fireplace mantel embodiment  tunes, preferably  Christmas carols, are provided to enhance the social occasion experience.  Nowhere within the prior art to the best of applicant's knowledge is there found a more sincere wish for a happy and healthy holiday season to all of our friends and colleagues.

Thursday, December 20, 2012

A Reminder of Summer



As we in the Northern Hemisphere move into winter, it can be helpful to consider summer flowers from time to time. An iconic summer flower that we’ve discussed in the past is the sunflower, Helianthus annuus.


Three recent patents from Dow Agrosciences offer innovations in the area of sunflower breeding, combining traditional plant breeding across multiple generations, tissue culture, and transgenic manipulation of the plants’ genome.

The Company


Dow Agrosciences is a subsidiary of Dow Chemicals. Dow Agrosciences, headquartered in Indianapolis, IN, provides diverse insecticide, herbicide, fungicide, fumigant and seed technologies for customers around the world, according to its web page. In order to meet future challenges to food production, the company seeks to increase crop productivity “through higher yields, better varieties, and more targeted pest management.”

The Patents


The Dow Agrosciences sunflower patents presented here are all closely related, and are found in the Way Better Patents Agriculture Index. US 7,923,614, “Inbred sunflower line CN1703,” was granted in April 2011 to Robert Martin Benson (Ellsworth, WI). James Todd Gerdes (Breckenridge, MN) received two patents on the same date in late March 2011: US 7,915,502, “Inbred sunflower line CN1229R,” and US 7,915,501, “Inbred sunflower line CN2343.”

Some Background


We’ll use the ‘614 patent to summarize these inventions, but first, some fast-facts from the patents:

Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) now ranks second among all oilseed crops in the world as a source of edible vegetable oil.

Food uses of sunflower include snack foods, cooking mediums and salad oils. Whole achenes are an important component of bird and other small animal feeds. Sunflower silage has utility as a livestock feed.

Sunflower oil is also used in the manufacture of margarine, soap, pharmaceuticals, shortening, lubricants and as a source for biodiesel fuels.

Sunflower hulls can be pressed into logs for use in the fireplace and cooking stoves.

Sunflower hybrids can be classified into two broad categories: confection (non-oil) and oil types.

Confection sunflower seeds may be further divided into three classes: in-shell, kernel and birdseed. In-shell seed refers to larger sunflower seeds which may be roasted, salted and packaged for human consumption. Kernel seed refers to medium sized seeds which may be dehulled and also packaged for human consumption. Smaller seed may be sold in birdseed markets. Oil-type sunflower seed is richer in oil and therefore better suited to the production of sunflower oil and is used to produce ingredients for animal feed.
Oil sunflower hybrids may be further divided into three classes: linoleic (regular oil type), NuSun (mid-oleic), and high oleic.

A third category of sunflower seed referred to as hybrid seed has attributes of both confection and oil type sunflowers.

Sunflowers have both male and female organs on the same flower; sunflower breeding techniques take advantage of the plant’s ability to be bred by both self-pollination and cross-pollination.

Dow Agrosciences’ patents teach us much about sunflower breeding, improvements, and methods:

Why Breed Plants?


The goal of a sunflower breeder is to improve a sunflower plant’s performance and therefore, its economic value by combining various desirable traits into a single plant. Improved performance is manifested in many ways. Higher yields of sunflower plants contribute to a more abundant food supply, a more profitable agriculture and a lower cost of food products for the consumer. Improved quality makes sunflower kernels more nutritious. Improved plant health increases the yield and quality of the plant and reduces the need for application of protective chemicals. Adapting sunflower plants to a wider range of production areas achieves improved yield and vegetative growth. Improved plant uniformity enhances the farmer’s ability to mechanically harvest sunflower.

A Little Botany


Because sunflower has both male and female organs on the same flower, sunflower breeding techniques take advantage of the plant’s ability to be bred by both self-pollination and cross-pollination. Self-pollination occurs when pollen from the male organ is transferred to a female organ on the same flower on the same plant. Self-incompatability is a form of infertility caused by the failure of sunflower plants with normal pollen and ovules to set seed due to some physiological hindrance that prevents fertilization. Self-incompatability restricts self-pollination and inbreeding and fosters cross-pollination. Cross-pollination occurs when pollen from the male organ on the flower of one plant is transferred to a female organ on the flower on a different plant.

Add Some Genetics


Natural, or open pollination, occurs in sunflower when bees or other insects transfer pollen from the anthers to the elongated stigmas that protrude from the florets and may include both self- and cross-pollination. Such pollination is accomplished almost entirely by the bees or other pollinating insects and accordingly, interplant transfer of pollen by the wind is of little importance. Vigor is restored when two different inbred lines are cross-pollinated to produce the first generation (F1) progeny. A cross between two defined homozygous inbred sunflower plants always produces a uniform population of heterozygous hybrid sunflower plants and such hybrid sunflower plants are capable of being generated indefinitely from the corresponding inbred sunflower seed supply.

When two different, unrelated inbred sunflower parent plants are crossed to produce an F1 hybrid, one inbred parent is designated as the male, or pollen parent, and the other inbred parent is designated as the female, or seed parent. Because sunflower plants are capable of self-pollination, hybrid seed production requires elimination of or inactivation of pollen produced by the female parent to render the female parent plant male sterile. This serves to prevent the inbred sunflower plant designated as the female from self-pollinating. Different options exist for controlling male fertility in sunflower plants such as physical emasculation, genetic male sterility, cytoplasmic male sterility and application of gametocides. Incomplete removal of male parent plants from a hybrid seed production field before harvest provides the potential for unwanted production of self-pollinated or sib-pollinated seed which may be unintentionally harvested and packaged with hybrid seed. [note: A plant is sib-pollinated (a type of cross-pollination) when individuals within the same family or line are used for pollination (i.e. pollen from a family member plant is transferred to the stigmas of another family member plant).

The Process


The development of new inbred sunflower plants and hybrid sunflower plants is a slow, costly interrelated process that requires the expertise of breeders and many other specialists. The development of new hybrid sunflower varieties in a sunflower plant breeding program involves numerous steps, including: (1) selection of parent sunflower plants (germplasm) for initial breeding crosses; (2) inbreeding of the selected plants from the breeding crosses for several generations to produce a series of inbred lines, which individually breed true and are highly uniform; and, (3) crossing a selected inbred line with an unrelated line to produce the F1 hybrid progeny having restored vigor.

The Result


Inbred sunflower plants and other sources of sunflower germplasm are the foundation material for all sunflower breeding programs. Despite the existence and availability of numerous inbred sunflower lines and other source germplasm, a continuing need still exists for the development of improved germplasm because existing inbred parent sunflower lines lose their commercial competitiveness over time. The present invention[s address] this need by providing … novel inbred parent sunflower line[s] … that [contribute] improved seed yield and oil yield per acre to hybrids relative to other similar hybrids in the same maturity groups. To protect and to enhance yield production, trait technologies and seed treatment options provide additional crop plan flexibility and cost effective control against insects, weeds and diseases, thereby further enhancing the potential of hybrids with [these lines as parents].

Details


The ‘614 patent includes seven independent claims, with an additional 53 dependent claims. The preamble of each of the independent claims serves to summarize the overall invention:

A seed of sunflower inbred line …
A method for producing an inbred sunflower plant …
A method of introducing a desired trait into sunflower inbred line …
A method for producing an inbred sunflower plant …
A method for producing a CN1703-derived sunflower plant … [CN1703 is the designation of the specific sunflower line to be produced via this invention]
A method for regenerating a sunflower plant … [using tissue-culturing methods]
A method for developing a sunflower plant in a sunflower plant breeding program

These claims, and their dependents, don’t just apply standard plant breeding and tissue-culturing methods. They also provide for genetic modification of the sunflowers that form this specific line. In particular, transgenic material is introduced that “comprises a gene conferring upon the sunflower plant tolerance to a herbicide” (claim 51) or “comprises a gene conferring upon the sunflower plant insect resistance, disease resistance or virus resistance” (claim 53).

Thus, the sunflower line produced by this invention (and the separate lines produced via the ‘501 and ‘502 patents) is a GMO plant intended to resist herbicides, insects, disease, or plant viruses.

A super-sunflower.