Tag: IPR

Plumpy’Nut, part 3: What could a truly evil company do?

The hard facts of Case Plumpy’Nut have been given in Part 1 and Part 2. Now is the time to speculate. If someone wanted to be truly evil with this patent, could they start a “Kill the Children” campaign, as I have outlined in Trolling on the Human Rights?

This is clearly a patent that has the potential to be truly dangerous in the wrong hands. However, whatever bad press Nutriset has gotten, it is not causing the maximal damage that such a patent would allow.

Nor is it the only player on this field;  even a very quick Google search brings up patents and applications which on the face of it don’t seem to differ that much from the Plumpy’Nut. (See for example 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,…). All of these products are however slightly inferior to Plumpy’Nut in some way, so that Plumpy’Nut is optimized for famine relief.

Consider now a different scenario. Suppose Nutriset was not producing Plumpy’Nut anymore, but instead had sold the patent to a non-practicing entity X.  (Non-practicing entity NPE is a polite term for “patent troll”)

Continue reading Plumpy’Nut, part 3: What could a truly evil company do?

Plumpy’Nut, part 2: The ethics

The basic facts of the Plumpy’Nut case were shown in the previous part.  It sounds controversial, but what is intriguing about this case is that things could be significantly worse. Compared to the extremes that the law would allow it to do, Nutriset is behaving somewhat decently.

Continue reading Plumpy’Nut, part 2: The ethics

Plumpy’Nut, Part 1: The basic facts

Can something as trivial as peanut butter be patented, and the patent used to hinder famine relief efforts? Yes.

I have been updating some IPR-related post of mine from way back in 2012 to see whether anything has changed. Not much, it seems. IPR is an obscure and ethically complex area, but in some cases fascinating in a fairly perverse way.

I find that Plumpy’Nut is the most fascinating of them all. It sounds like a case of a evil guy profiting from starving people… yet in fact it is not so simple at all. This is a series in multiple parts, and each part goes deeper and deeper into the technical details — and also bewilderment.  In the end, I have no idea what the ethics of the Plumpy’Nut case are.

Continue reading Plumpy’Nut, Part 1: The basic facts

Are Patent Trolls the next China?

“Just like during the last 20 years it has been wise to move all the production to China, right now it is wise to sell IPs to NPEs. One day the threat will be reality and there are no other options available any more.”

Without any doubt there has been a lot of discussion related to NPEs or patent trolls. Their positive role in patenting has also been mentioned in some articles. After all they are one of the very few entities who are willing to buy patents that may be interesting in the future but only in the future.

But who are the organizations selling their patents and why are they doing so?

That is not hard to answer, there are several institutions who are willing to do so. And for a good reason. This may not be the case globally, but enough to be a fact over large geographical and cultural areas.

Take Finland as an example. It has been stated that granted patents are a good thing and an excellent measure among others how research institutions and universities are performing. Patents can also be listed in CVs and are merit to its inventor. It is especially very tempting when an individual does not have to pay the filing costs. In the long run very few patents actually generate any money for the institutions owning them. The overall costs for filing and holding a patent just in Finland for 20 years costs currently 8650 euros plus fees and patent drafting costs. Single patent easily costs 15 000 euros in minimum for its holder.

And a single patent is no merit for a respectable research institution who would like to enter licensing business in a significant manner. Some patent families may enable that but most not. Once we start talking about patent families in several countries, the costs are easily in the hundreds of thousands of euros or dollars per year. Which would indicate that the income should be higher, hopefully in the millions per year. Which usually is not the case.

In these examples I am leaving out the need and the burden to be able to defend one’s patents against infringement if under attack. Which adds to the costs – I’ve heard that lawyers usually get paid for their work. And that universities and research institutions are not in the litigation business. At least in Finland. They admit that openly as it is not part of research nor teaching that still (barely) is in their main focus.

We also have a lot of startups and small businesses who are trying to push their technologies and products forward. They especially need to have their work protected through patents. If for nothing else, to be investable for the investors. And if the business does not grow fast/big enough, there’s always the option to minimize the losses by selling the patents.

So when someone tries to sell a patent or a patent portfolio, NPEs are a good or perhaps the only option.

Sometimes they are used as  a strategic option as it is possible to build bigger patent portfolios and lessen the chance of an attack against a single, vulnerable company. We have seen a lot of evidence about such strategies when large corporations sell or out-license major parts of their patent portfolios to a newly formed or an existing company. Whose only task is to take care, license and defend those patents.
So it is good that there is someone out there willing to buy all these patents nobody finds valuable short term. Or is it?

Currently US patent office grants roughly 500 000 patents every year. I have not checked the latest numbers, but it is easy to guesstimate that in minimum NPEs acquire thousands to tens of thousands of patents per year. Even individual deals have included thousands of patents. NPEs also generate their own patents as we have shown in previous blogs.

After a (long) while they end up owning a lot of patents, more than today. I.e. there are entities out there who own patents that are just waiting to be able to cash their investments in a way or another. And they are not doing it just for fun, they are doing it for the business that other businesses fund directly or indirectly.

Some of such ways may be less worrying than making humanitarian help impossible, harder or just cost more, but it still begs to ask and answer if the whole patenting model overall is sustainable.

What comes out of the equation when everyone has the incentive to sell to patent trolls?

Is it like with China’s factories that everyone sees them as the best or the only option to do any production at all? After a while there is nobody else capable of producing anything or with limited capacity at best. Will it be the same for the patents that some NPEs end up owning most of the patents and actually control the markets through a common “nuclear threat”. Either you belong to one of the (future’s) major patent camps or pay dearly. If you belong to a group, you just pay a little less.

There are a lot of examples in the history that have resulted in such polarized systems. Soon to be ex music-mega-mogul-industry being one of them. The big ones control the rules and the prices.

Will it be the same for patents within the next 10-20+ years? I hope not, but I am afraid it will be the case. Unless the system is changed in a way or another when patents are once again more about inventions and building a better future. Producing exciting things than just plain business and maximizing profits.

Wishful thinking.

Before we stopped actively working on the Project Troglodyte, we found out there is not enough interest about the topic (or threat seen big enough) in Finland nor in Europe. It seems that in the US the view is changing and counter measures are planned. Very similar to what we have discussed in Troglodyte and Zygomatica during the last two years. Luckily some of the US projects and instances get the resourcing we never had.

In today’s Finland too many companies and institutions are focusing on cutting costs and turning (especially IT) experts with ideas into couch potatoes. Which seems to be a governmental goal, planned or unplanned.

If there is no interest, there are no resources. In the current economy everyone in Finland is just trying to cope and don’t need new ideas that cannot be built. Also in this scenario NPEs are a good thing and they are entering Finland that was seen improbable just a year or two ago.

Just like during the last 20 years it has been wise to move all the production to China, right now it is wise to sell IPs to NPEs.

One day the threat will be reality and there are no other options available any more.

Learn to live with the trolls or change the thinking where greed is not the only good. Perhaps it just needs a fancy name and big headlines?

Biochar 1: Background

 

“Biochar is not the miracle cure-for-all that some advocates claim. However, we still consider it a critical technology to be researched for poor countries.”

Authors: Jakke Mäkelä, Kalle Pietilä, and Viv Collins. [Originally published in www.project-troglodyte.org

The production of biochar is being advertised as one of the most important low-cost high-impact technologies. See, for example, Open Source Ecology. The premise is relatively simple: biomaterial such as wood (or, ideally, wood waste) is heated in a kiln which does not let in oxygen.

The wood then breaks down into three components, with ratios depending on the temperature: charcoal, oils, and volatile gases. The gases can be fed into the heater, meaning that the process can keep itself running once it has been started. The oils can be used as clean fuel sources. Overall, the process can thus enable far more energy production than is needed to run it.

Most of the carbon is thus sequestered into the charcoal, with little carbon dioxide emitted. The CO2 that was taken up by the plants is thus fixed in the charcoal, which can for example be buried, never releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere. This can thus be a low-tech solution for carbon sequestration.

The “bio” part of the term comes from the possibility of combining the charcoal with nitrogen-based fertilizers, resulting in a very effective yet stable fertilizer. The theory is that the charcoal binds the fertilizer, preventing it from being leached too quickly by rain. This benefit has so far not been proven adequately, but at worst the charcoal should be a neutral element in the soil even if it does not give additional benefit.

We are doubtful of some of the most wide-eyed claims being made about it, and there are very strong skeptics of the process, especially at larger scales (see e.g. Climate Justice Now). The downsides are fairly obvious: the charcoal production will release particulate pollutants as well as possibly other toxins, unless it is done very efficiently. Also, at extremely large volumes the process would stop making ecological sense, as large plantations would have to be grown just for this purpose. At some size scale, the process would become ecologically completely counterproductive.

However, at smaller size scales the technology could have local health benefits, by providing a cleaner-burning fuel. The burning of unclean wood products in poorly designed kilns produces high indoor pollution levels and can be a health risk (FAO; this article however considers better stove design to be the key, and remains neutral about any relative health benefits given by charcoal).  Others (World Bank) consider that moving to cleaner and inexpensive charcoal would have clear health benefits.

Biochar is not the miracle cure-for-all that some advocates claim. However, we still consider it a critical technology to be researched for poor countries.  Whatever the actual value of the technology is, it would be pointless to allow spurious IPR to slow the progress.


Figure 1. Basics of biochar. Source: http://www.biochar-international.org/technology

Technology

The EFA article above describes a combination of a kiln that carbonizes agricultural waste into biochar, and an energy efficient briquetting machine that makes charcoal briquettes that can burn in ordinary stoves. Some of the biochar is used to make fertilizer and some to make briquettes.

For more on biochar, see International Biochar Initiative.  The current state of the art is described in the IBI production web page. The size scales can vary by a huge amount, from industrial-scale installations producing 1 ton per hour to small installations producing 500 kg a day or less.

The technology is described in the IBI technology web pages. The most critical general comment is this:  “But biochar technology is more than just the equipment needed to produce biochar. Biochar technology necessarily includes entire integrated systems that can contain various components that may or may not be part of any particular system.”

This is something to worry about. From the humanitarian IPR point of view, there is one crucial question: could spurious IPR be used to block development of large-scale biochar burning? In particular, could it block development of such technologies aimed at developing countries?

The IBI technology page mentions five specific goals for future R&D:

  1. Continuous feed pyrolyzers to improve energy efficiency and reduce pollution emissions associated with batch kilns.
  2. Exothermic operation without air infiltration to improve energy efficiency and biochar yields.
  3. Recovery of co-products to reduce pollution emissions and improve process economics.
  4. Control of operating conditions to improve biochar properties and allow changes in co-product yields.
  5. Feedstock flexibility allowing both woody and herbaceous biomass (like crop residues or grasses) to be converted to biochar.

It is #4 that we should be most worried about. There should be easy work-arounds and multiple technologies for the other areas (in which patents can be found just by searching for “biochar”). It is in practice not possible to block the development of new kiln types because alternative designs can always be used. A single troll patent for #4 could, however, stop the whole system. We will be analyzing this area in future postings.

 

Translate »