Tag: IPR

Epilogue: Troglodyte is not dead even though it is buried

This is a comment related to Jakke’s post about ramping Troglodyte down as a project.

When I face a mirror, I see the person to blame. My personal input was never on the required level.

I have a lot of started ongoing studies, but it is really tedious work. I believe one shouldn’t report much before knowing the results. It is also a reason why one needs to be fully committed. In spirit I am, but seemingly not in flesh. Not enough.

I have an excuse. That excuse led me to a project with a monthly salary. Hopefully we can build something great there.

Money and salary is the dilemma we have faced several times with Jakke and Niko during the last two years. There is so much work to be done, helpless to help and projects to start. And still we are in a situation where we all have to decide what is important and what is not.

We do it everyday, each of us.

An old car salesman told me 29 years ago that money is such an old innovation that everyone must have it by now. Or by then, since it is almost 30 years later now. There must be even more money to go around.

But in the areas of Humanitarian IPR or Humanitarian Work we don’t see it. Perhaps we need more old car salesmen there.

We and many others are not asking for much or for something impossible. But even that is too much. Big part of it is due to institutional problems (not challenges) buried in the way how they behave. We have touched those in our previous posts.

The system(s) need to see the money coming back and multiplying on its way. Human life is not money, even if it multiplies over time. The systems do not encourage to focus on something that would be important and could be done. They focus on what can be done and what makes money.

Yes, I am whining and am selfish.

I am not desperate enough or driven enough to forget everything else and drive just this one thing. I am in too good a position that food and shelter are not my problems. I too am thinking how to accumulate wealth to get me over the next dry season.

My dry season is related to work with salary, not a physical draught with famine.

I am ashamed, it is only the image in the mirror and the ones near me that I value high enough.

It is not impossible to try and continue to change the status quo. To use effort and money to build something good and humanly valuable. Something that is not valuable only in monetary terms and measured in monetary terms.

Such work takes time.

We, together with APO and humanitarian IPR, are on a path to something we do not know where it leads us. It does not have a name.

We just know we can do more.
And we will.

I am sure we are not alone.

We will continue to change the thinking one sentence and a comment at a time. It just takes longer.

Once in a while we have regular jobs, but the face in the mirror reminds us that we have possibilities to do something good with the tools we have been given and have gathered.

For us it is evolution over revolution, affecting the system with its democratic rules. Respecting our societies and everyone around us.

I don’t think the world is ready yet, we have potential for so much more.
All of us.

What is humanitarian IPR?

 

While looking for a new career path, I am finding that the term “humanitarian IPR” resonates. Why? In part because it is useful to look at things no one else is looking at (Blue Ocean strategy).  In part because it would be nice to apply whatever skills I might have in IPR and innovation to something socially meaningful for a change.

A definition is needed. For lack of a better guideline, I consider the UN Declaration of Human Rights to define the limits of what is acceptable. Any patent that could severely infringe on these rights, especially in the case of highly vulnerable people, would be “humanitarian IPR”.  The term as I use it is in principle value-neutral. Humanitarian IPR can be abused, or it can be used benevolently.

But there the simple part ends.  It is extremely difficult to define what “infringe” means in practice. One really needs to look at the purpose of a patent rather than just its content, which is terrifyingly difficult or impossible.

Should humanitarian IPR be put into a category of its own? Intellectual property is already divided into at least two major segments: patents and copyright. Inventions and works of creative art are so different that it makes no sense to apply the same rules to them. (In this context, it doesn’t matter whether one finds copyright ridiculous or not. They are different, and need different rules). Many countries also have various kinds of petty patents, innovation patents, design patents, and so on the cover cases which do not need the full utility patent arsenal.

A full revamp of the IPR system is probably what is needed, but if that cannot be realistically achieved, could it at least be possible to carve out niches for which the rules are different? Something like this has been hinted by Richard Posner in a blog posting. Most interesting quote:“Although there are some industry-specific differences in patent law, for the most part patents are “one size fits all,” so far as length of protection and criteria and procedures for the grant of a patent are concerned. In contrast, copyright protection tends to vary considerably across different media.”

The huge advantage of a separate niche

Having a well-defined niche for humanitarian IPR could allow new types of funding modes specific for that segment. The Nobelist Joseph Stiglitz has written an article “Prizes, not Patents”, proposing“a medical prize fund that would reward those who discover cures and vaccines. Since governments already pay the cost of much drug research directly or indirectly, through prescription benefits, they could finance the prize fund, which would award the biggest prizes for developers of treatments or preventions for costly diseases affecting hundreds of millions of people.”

Furthermore,“Especially when it comes to diseases in developing countries, it would make sense for some of the prize money to come from foreign assistance budgets, as few contributions could do more to improve the quality of life, and even productivity, than attacking the debilitating diseases that are so prevalent in many developing countries. A scientific panel could establish a set of priorities by assessing the number of people affected and the impact on mortality, morbidity, and productivity. Once the discovery is made, it would be licensed.”

I will later be analyzing cases in which this kind of a system could be useful. A large one-off prize to the patent owner, in exchange for placing the patent in the public domain, could end a lot of the difficulties in one blow.

Reality check

There are two problems here. The first one is acerbically discussed in  “The Case Against Patents” by Boldrin and Levine (summarized in The Atlantic). Whenever there are holes in the patent laws, large companies and their lawyers will gravitate toward those holes. Litigation will change, but its amount will not.

For the humanitarian IPR problem, the hole would be in defining what is humanitarian and what is not, with large players hopping across the boundary in whatever direction best suits them. But even this could be better than the present situation, in which there are no restraints on what can be patented.

Perhaps even more seriously, I see a psychological issue that makes Stiglitz’s argument less convincing. If development aid money is used to give prizes to Western companies rather than developing countries, what kind of psychological effect will that have on the donors? Will they be even less willing to donate the 0.7% of GDP that is now a target but almost never reached?

Or, would a selfish interest (supporting local R&D) actually make them more willing to donate? It could go either way.

There are more open questions than answers in this area. That is why it would be a worthwhile subject to pursue.

 

Rikkidirektiivi ja IPR

Populistisesti sanottuna: me maksamme nyt, mutta meidän teollisuutemme kiskoo rahat lisenssimaksuina takaisin kreikkalaisilta laivanvarustamoilta vuonna 2020.

[Paikallisia aiheita vaihteeksi. Raskaampi IPR-materiaali on jatkossa osoitteessa www.project-trogolodyte.org. // Local news for a change. Heavy IPR material at link above.] 

[English version: here]

Rikkidirektiivi on  hyväksytty EU-parlamentissa. Vuoteen 2015 mennessä Itämerellä kulkevien laivojen polttoaineen rikkipitoisuuden on laskettava nykyisestä yhdestä  prosentista 0,1 prosenttiin.

Kiista on kärjistynyt vahvasti kahteen leiriin: ympäristönsuojelijat (joihin itsekin lukeudun) vastaan teollisuus. Kenenkään ei nyt kannattaisi hehkuttaa ainakaan ylimielisesti; päinvastoin on ymmärrettävä, että vastapuoli ei ole kokonaan väärässä. Ympäristön ja terveyden kannalta direktiivi on positiivinen; Suomen talouden ja työllisyyden kannalta se on negatiivinen.

Kuinka positiivinen tai negatiivinen? Kaikkiin tarkkoihin arvioihin on syytä suhtautua skeptisyydellä, koska kyse on äärimmäisen monimutkaisista asioista, mutta suunnilleen:

  • Direktiivi säästää henkiä. Uskoi luonnonsuojelijoiden tarkkoihin lukuihin tai ei (50,000 ylimääräistä kuolemaa vuodessa), niin jotain terveysvaikutuksia rikki- ja hiukkapäästöillä joka tapauksessa on.
  • Suomi kärsii taloudellisesti. Uskoi teollisuuden tarkkoihin lukuihin tai ei, (600 miljoonaa euroa vuodessa tai 12,000 työpaikkaa), jo terve järki sanoo että laivaliikenteestä riippuvainen Suomi kärsii suhteessa enemmän kuin moni muu Euroopan maa.
  • Kyse ei ole pelkästään EU-päätöksestä, vaan Kansainvälinen merenkulkujärjestö IMO on itse hyväksynyt rajat jo 2008. EU:n direktiivi sinällään tuo vain vähän uutta tähän laivateollisuuden itsensä hyväksymään rajoitukseen. Jos direktiivi tuli täytenä yllätyksenä, joku on nukkunut sikeästi.
  • Raja koskee vuonna 2015 vain SECA-aluetta eli Itämerta, Pohjanmerta, ja Englannin kanaalia sekä USA:n ja Kanadan rannikoita. Muualla maailmassa alempaa raja-arvoa aletaan soveltaa aikaisintaan 2020 ja viimeistään 2025. Tätä voi pitää epäreiluna: niiltä alueilta vaaditaan eniten, jotka jo nyt ovat pääsääntöisesti pyrkineet hoitamaan päästöt asiallisesti.


Suomen hallitus on lupaillut teollisuudelle 30 miljoonan euron tukea rikkipesureiden nopeaan asentamiseen, mutta suora tuki ei luultavasti onnistu EU-kilpailusäännösten takia.

Jos direktiiviin olisi varauduttu ajoissa, olisi voitu menetellä tavalla joka hyödyttäisi kaikkia. Nuo 30 miljoonaa olisi tukiaisten sijaan voitu sijoittaa tuotekehitysohjelmaan, jossa olisi kehitetty aivan uudenlaisia superhalpoja plug-and-play rikkipesureita. Tavoitteena olisi suodatin, joka olisi mahdollista asentaa maailman rähjäisimpiinkin laivoihin.

T&K-tukia eivät samat kilpailusäädökset koske, ja 30 miljoonaa ei näin tärkeässä asiassa olisi suuri panostus valtiolta.

Itse asiassa juuri tuo muulle maailmalle annettu 5-10 vuoden viivästys avaisi mahdollisuuksia. Vuonna 2020 (tai 2025) asia tulee muille (esimerkiksi Välimeren) maille eteen aivan yhtä suurena “yllätyksenä” kuin meille nyt. Varsinkaan laman aikana Välimeren mailla ei ole varaa suuriin  julkisiin T&K-panoksiin, vaikka siellä asiaan herättäisiinkin.

Yksi mahdollisuus tulisi patenttijärjestelmän oikeinkäyttämisestä. Asiaa tuntemattomille ja IPR-skeptikoille (joihin itsekin lukeudun) sana “patentti” kuulostaa helposti möröltä. Mutta juuri tässä patentointi ja innovaatioiden suojaus on paikallaan: mahdollistamaan suuret panostukset nyt, mahdollisuudella saada rahat takaisin lisenssimaksuina. Patentit ovat voimassa 20 vuotta. Näissä T&K-hankkeissa olisi tärkeää patentoida kaikki mikä liikkuu.

Populistisesti sanottuna: me maksamme nyt, mutta meidän teollisuutemme kiskoo rahat lisenssimaksuina takaisin kreikkalaisilta laivanvarustamoilta vuonna 2020.

Ruman ja sydämettömän kuuloista? Onhan se. IPR on rumaa.

Epäeettistä? Ei. Tähän IPR-järjestelmä on juuri tarkoitettu, piti siitä tai ei. Tällä ei myöskään sorreta pieniä keksijöitä, koska ei toimivia pesujärjestelmiä kukaan autotallissaan tee. Kyse on suuren luokan koneista, ja tarpeeksi laaja-alaista osaamista on vain suurilla tekijöillä.

Näkemykseni saattaa kuulostaa epämääräisen vastenmieliseltä kaikkien mielestä. Mutta näin kuitenkin tekisin. Voi olla että nyt on jo myöhäistä, ja se on valitettavaa.  Seuraavaa ympäristönsuojelun “yllätystä” vastaan, mikä se sitten onkaan, voisi sen sijaan alkaa jo nyt valmistautua tällä tavalla.

 Muita ympäristöriitoihin liittyviä kirjoituksia: Vastakkainasettelut.

Pollution week 5: Summary

“So we will continue to plod on. In fact, we will be expanding this activity to a new website soon.After all, what’s the alternative? Maybe if we all close our eyes and ears, all the bad things will go away?”

Written by: Jakke Mäkelä, Timo Tokkonen, and Niko Porjo.

The postings this week have, we think, given an overview of what a project like Troglodyte could hope to achieve against entities like Intellectual Ventures. Not much, but even a tiny bit helps. Especially posting four might give ideas on countermeasures against the worst of the trolls.

The possibilities are quite limited; on the other hand, being prepared is infinitely better than being unprepared.

Continue reading Pollution week 5: Summary

Pollution week 4: Could we do something about Intellectual Ventures?

“But a normal company would never let a poo reference take pride of place on its patent document. For most healthy companies, patents are simply too serious a matter to allow sophomoric poo humor.”

Even if the previous parts of the Pollution week (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3)  left a general sense of bewilderment, they don’t necessarily have to leave a sense of complete hopelessness.  Maybe the phenomena that were noted in Part 3 could be useful. Even if it’s not directly possible to fight trolls, it makes eminent sense to see what vulnerabilities they might have. This information might be useful to someone, somewhere.

The metadata of part 3 suggests that the inventors have been working in a “patent factory” mode, i.e. churning out applications for the purpose of churning out applications. This may have happened during one intense day, or during several workshops, or over a longer period of time.

It so happens that this mode is not completely unfamiliar to me.  This means that I may have insights into the weaknesses of this mode, which might be helpful should anyone ever wish to try to invalidate a patent of this type.

 

Note that these points are not in any way related to this particular ‘002 patent. The same kind of mechanisms seem to be operating in any number of cases, and the ideas here are fully applicable there as well.

The article in bizjournals.com is worth quoting again. “….Several times per year ISF brings together thought leaders across industry and academia for these day long, forward ideation discussions. At times, a specific innovation is created as a result of these sessions. When that happens, it is customary for the individuals who have contributed to the innovation to be credited if a patent application is filed.”“

This may well be “customary” at IV, but I do not believe I have seen such a cavalier attitude expressed elsewhere. The question of “who contributed” is actually a hotly contested issue. (See C.R. Bard v. W.L. Gore & Associates for an 800 million USD case that has lasted 38 years, and is about who should be credited as a co-inventor). Any incorrect names in the inventor list would certainly be interesting in litigation.

Also there seems to have been a long development time for these patents; the ‘002 seems to be a variant/extension of an original idea that was more closely related to personal health monitoring. There are certainly innocent explanations for this in the filing process (applications may have to be rewritten and so on). However, it does leave open the question of just *when* something was invented.

Specific possibilities:

  • Are they sure they have the right inventors? In principle, having even one name included incorrectly, or lacking just one name, could mean the patent (or at least some claims) are invalid. The Bizjournals article suggests that IV has a somewhat cavalier attitude toward this aspect.
  • If these were made at ideation discussions, where and when were they, and who took part? Were minutes taken? Who invented which claim?
  • In general, is all the paperwork in order? Has every inventor signed every piece of paper that needs to be signed? A group filing an application a week is bound to make careless mistakes at some point. Cases can be made or destroyed on small technicalities.
  • Are there any anomalies, such as people being on inventor lists when they did not attend a specific meeting at all?
  • Was everything in these patents really invented during one day long session? If so, why have there been so many additions and amendations throughout the years? Who has made the additions? Where are they documented?
  • If the additions the workshop results were considered just technical steps rather than new inventions, who made that evaluation?
  • Are these applications actually the result of multiple inventions? If so, who made them, and are they documented? What claims are owned by what inventor?

 

——————————-
CODA

The ‘002 patent itself provides a somewhat appropriate note on which to end.  The first reference, in a prominent place, is the following:

Figure 1: First reference in ‘002 patent

 “Buchanan, Matt: “Twitter Toilet Tweets Your Poo”; Gizmodo.com; Bearing a data of May 18, 2009; Printed on Jul. 1, 2009; pp. 1-2; located at http://gizmodo.com/5259381/twitter-toilet-tweets-your-poo”

The reference does not seem to be cited in the actual document. It has a vague connection with the subject matter, but so could any number of articles,  so it is not really clear why it is here in the first place.

It is even less clear why it is here, in first place. The list is in no particular order, and there is for example Agger in the references, so it is not a question of Buchanan being the first in alphabetical order. Someone somewhere wanted a poo reference to be the first thing that hits the reader in the eye.

I would definitely have wanted done something like this in high school. Or university, for that matter. Or, come to think of it, even now. I’m childish. I would love to have to have a poo reference on a serious document like this.

But a normal company would never let a poo reference take pride of place on its patent document. For most healthy companies, patents are simply too serious a matter to allow sophomoric poo humor.

An attitude that is this cavalier toward inventor status and poo humor is a sign that something is just not quite working right. And that makes it increasingly probable that the company will make careless mistakes. A single comma in the wrong place can make all the difference.

What overall conclusions can we now draw from the exercise? (Subject of next posting).

 

Translate »