Tag: IPR

Troglodyte: How farmers were punished for using a shovel

“Whether or not the cases had any actual merit, the farmers could not afford lawyers. They always caved in and paid a “licensing fee” of $10-$100 (real money in 1875).”

The purpose of Project Troglodyte is to hunt for bad patents and to show what went wrong. For more information, please see the web page.

HOW FARMERS WERE PUNISHED FOR USING A SHOVEL

[Edited Appendix 2 on 30.8.2012 to suggest a more realistic cost estimate.]

The dystopia described in Trolling on the human rights  is no dystopia. I suggested there that patent trolls (companies owning essentially worthless patents for the sole purpose of extracting licensing fees) could start demanding such “license fees” for basic human rights such as clean water or education.

It turns out this has happened. It happened in the 1870’s, but similar patent mechanics apply today. Weaknesses in 1870’s patent law allowed ruthless operators to collect “license fees” from ordinary farmers who happened to be using shovels. The case is described by Gerard Magliocca (Blackberries and barnyards: Patent trolls and the perils of Innovation, Notre Dame Law Review, June 2007). [See Appendix 1 for more details].

HOW DID THE 1870s SHARKS OPERATE? 

The 1870 Patent Act loosened the criteria for filing patents. Pure design elements could now be patented, rather than functional elements. In other words, tiny (even ornamental) changes to basic designs could be patented and the patents enforced, and it was extremely difficult to know if a given product actually infringed the patent. Magliocca summarized the problem as being that “almost any farm tool could be classified as a design”.

This was quickly abused by patent sharks (as they were called then). By patenting tiny changes to essential equipment such as shovels, they could demand royalties, targeting individual farmers. Whether or not the cases had any actual merit, the farmers could not afford lawyers. They always caved in and paid a “licensing fee” of $10-$100 (real money in 1875). According to this site, ten dollars would have been a week’s salary for an urban fireman. In a  rural economy, this would have been a proportionately much larger sum of money.  Painful but not ruinous.

(I want to make a personal comment here. I do not consider patents as such to be the evil issue here. If someone uses significant money to develop, say, a truly new composite-material shovel that weighs a fraction of current shovels, they are entitled to protect it. It may not sound ethically nice, but at least it is not gaming the system, in the way that trolling is).

According to Magliocca, USPTO practices were changed during the late 1880’s so that pure design elements could no longer be patented. Shark activity was thus no longer profitable.

WHAT ALLOWS TROLLS TO THRIVE?

Magliocca sees direct parallels to today’s trolling situation, especially in software and business patents. He suggests three criteria that breed trolling behavior.

1. Substitution effect. It must be extremely difficult to find a substituting solution, either by bypassing the patents or by using a competing technology. Currently, software is dependent on multiple interacting modules, and redesigning one module can be too difficult to be realistic. On the other hand, in the 1870s, “there are only so many ways to design a shovel”. Once a patent had been granted, much anything could be alleged to infringe it. Since farmers needed shovels, they were open to attack.

2. Marginal improvements. When almost all patents look almost the same, it is difficult to know whether one is infringing or not. This is true of today’s software patents; it was true of design elements for shovels. When one has no prior way of actually knowing whether an infringement has taken place, going to court is a huge risk.

3. Cheap technology. Trolling only makes sense if it is very cheap to file and maintain patents, and owning just one critical patent can bring the targeted system to a halt. In the 1870’s the problems were due to the loose standards for patenting. Today, systems are highly integrated, and just one patent can block an entire system.  In both cases, a strong “portfolio” could be created by just owning one single patent.

Cheapness is also related to the ability to hold on to patents for a long time. In the 1870s, “inventors” could patent small design elements, and then allow the patents to stay inactive until they saw them actually being used.  Currently, this practice is discouraged by making maintaining a patent more expensive over time. However, Magliocca doubts whether the cost currently rises sharply enough.  See Appendix 2 for details.

COULD 1875 BE REPEATED IN 2015?

Patent weirdness today get the most press in areas which are, in my opinion, socially irrelevant. We could survive without pinch-and-zoom user interfaces on touchscreens. We could not survive without water. Could trolls start to interfere with, say, access to water?

I will focus on sensor systems needed to monitor and optimize irrigation. Such ensors are a crucial part of controlling irrigation and conserving water.  I will focus concretely on a patent which I have analyzed already (see Troglodyte: Cleantech 2). That patent is only one specific sample; there could be significantly worse ones.

1. Substitution effect. This might not seem like a severe risk, as a variety of sensor technologies that can be used.  However, patents in the core of data transmission protocols are difficult to bypass because of their very generality, and because a single patent on a small detail can block an entire complex system.  The Cleantech 2 patent certainly is in the category.

2. Marginal improvements. To exaggerate a little, all patents these days look alike. A small company won’t have the time or competence to estimate whether a case is valid. (Bizarrely, trying to do so could actually make things worse. If an infringement is judged to be “willful”, courts may triple the damages. In other words, if a company does try defend itself, in principle it risks being punished three times more severely.  It is a Catch-22). An average company confronted with the Cleantech 2 patent probably would have no idea what to do.

3. Cheap technology. Patenting is cheap compared to the possible profits (see Appendix 2). And the USPTO is in serious trouble with spurious patents. Companies can now file spurious patents in critical areas, and keep them quietly hidden away. The Cleantech 2 patent is a good example. It may (at least partly) be in force for the next twenty years. If someone during that time develops a good real-time system for optimizing irrigation using rain sensors, the patent could come to haunt them.

I truly don’t know if we could see a repeat of 1875. Magliocca’s criteria do seem to be satisfied. The magnitude of the risk is completely impossible to predict. It could lead to severe disruptions in the development of irrigation technologies; it could be a minor irritant that slightly raises licensing costs; or, nothing at all might happen.

However, the right time to start preparing for potential attacks is now, before litigation (or threat of litigation) has even begun. Whether anything can actually be done I do not know; but being unprepared is the worst possible option.

 

——————————————————————————————————-

APPENDIX 1: STATISTICS

It appears that Magliocca’s paper is the only major study of that case, and the subjective description is largely based on one historical paper from the 1940’s (however, the paper is backed by extensive legal references).  For the sake of general skepticism, I decided to see whether there are other sources that would support that description.

I made a Google Patents search for patent applications with the term “shovel” between 1860 and 1895 (Figure 1). There is indeed a dramatic peak after 1870, decreasing in the 1880’s. (I have no explanation for the secondary peak before 1890).

It is necessary to consider whether the growth could be due to general trends in patenting after 1875, rather than the specific shark effect. Figure 2 shows the number of patent applications, from USPTO statistics. There is more or less consistent growth throughout the same period. The peak in “shovel” applications is not related to any general growth of patent applications. The statistics are consistent with the shark hypothesis.

Figure 1: Number of patent applications with keyword “shovel”



Figure 2: Overall number of patent applications

 

——————————————————————————————————————


APPENDIX 2: HOW CHEAP IS PATENTING, ACTUALLY?

[Edit 30.8.2012: It was pointed out by an experienced reader that a more realistic cost for getting and maintaining a patent for 20 years is closer to 75 kUSD than 15 kUSD, if done properly.  I accept that the estimate below is unrealistically small. However, if a higher cost estimate is used, then part of my point is made stronger: doubling the lifetime of the patent only adds some 5-10% to the overall cost].

From the USPTO’s current fees, filing a patent costs in the ballpark of 1500 USD. If the patent is granted, an issue fee of about 1700 USD must be paid. There can be various hard-to-predict fees which may raise the cost considerably.

In order to maintain the patent, maintenance fees must be paid: 1100 USD at 4 years, 2900 USD at 8 years, and 4700 USD at 12 years. The patent is then valid for 20 years. (The prices can be halved for small entities such as individual inventors). The absolute minimum cost to maintain a patent for 20 years is in the ballpark of 12,000 USD. A practical estimate is at least 15,000 USD, including patent attorney fees.

Magliocca notes that the purpose of the maintenance fees is to make it sharply more expensive to maintain patents for long periods. However, he suggests the rise is not sharp enough. Indeed, given the the initial filing phase also includes requires the patent application to be written by a patent attorney (not cheap), a good ballpark estimate is that the patent has already cost at least 6000 USD by the time of the first renewal, and there are no significant attorney fees after that. A large part of the money has thus already been spent up front.

In practice, maintaining a patent for eleven years easily costs about 10,000 USD, while maintaining it for the whole twenty years costs only 5,000 USD more. This does seem like a no-brainer: if there is any potential, one might as well go the full twenty years.

Troglodyte Driverless vehicles 5

 

SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PREDICTING BEHAVIORS OF DETECTED OBJECTS

“Majority of the description text could be condensed to: autonomous vehicles should mimic the behavior of human drivers.”

The purpose of Project Troglodyte is to hunt for bad patents and to show what went wrong. For more information, please see the web page.

This patent is the fifth in a series of Google autonomous vehicle patents/applications analysed to get an understanding of the level of their inventions and the state of the autonomous car project.

 

Figure 1.

 

TIER 1: SUMMARY

It appears that the main purpose of the application is to expose a lot of prior art in one document, to make sure that it is easily found and public. This conclusion is made as there are about 12 000 words in the description but the claims only touch a very small part of it and much of the description text is obviously obvious to anyone skilled in the art, or misquoting from the application: “…understood by those of ordinary skill…“.

The actual idea that protection is sought for is changing how the vehicle is controlled based on detecting an object, classifying the object and based on the classification predicting the behavior of the object. And as Google is involved, creating a massive cloud based database of said behavioral data and sharing it around.

Majority of the description text could be condensed to: autonomous vehicles should mimic the behavior of human drivers. The description explains that processing of the object related information can be done at a location external to the car, this is also mentioned to be possible for the processing related to vehicle control decisions. This might open an interpretation that any controlling of traffic based on information originating in behavior prediction of single vehicles would fall under the protection of this patent. It would mean that any system arbitrating route decisions between vehicles to lessen traffic jams might need to license this.

Being able to predict behavior of nearby objects based on common experience is a valuable feature and will make traffic flow faster and safer. It isn’t mandatory for every autonomous vehicle though and thus wouldn’t likely block competitors from entering the field.

 

TIER 2: AVOIDING LICENSING

It seems that the possibility of using predictions of object behavior of nearby objects observed by other vehicles (or systems) is not mentioned. This would be useful in case large objects create shadows preventing direct observation. Using direct or network based vehicle to vehicle communication might be bandwidth limited in transferring the whole awareness of another vehicle. It would also be wasteful in use of processor resources as the same data would have to be analysed several times, so it would be prudent to  transfer only information deemed important for other vehicles.

If the classification scheme is left out it makes it possible to implement simpler threat prediction based on observed speed and direction. It would still be possible to use context dependent database to predict that for example vehicles in the left lane are more likely to transfer to the right lane during a certain time window at a certain time. This would likely be good enough for autonomous vehicles, but it would be less optimal as the classification scheme will lower the number of times the vehicle needs to alter it course to accommodate other vehicles. Vehicle without the classification ability would likely appear more selfish but if all vehicles are eventually  automated this would have less of an impact as it would now when all the drivers are humans.

 

TIER 3: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

As stated above, major part of the description just portrays how humans approach driving. Context sensitive behavior prediction of classified objects is what humans are good at. But sharing the accumulated experience between humans is cumbersome. With this invention autonomous vehicles could share automatically on a massive scale. The invention here is not mind boggling, but they usually aren’t. I didn’t do a proper prior art search so it could already be out there, but generally this type of thing (essentially an optimization of a more general approach) is less likely to pop up in science fiction than most of the other stuff in the description.

The description is mostly useless. If the patent system worked, most of the stuff would have to be cut. If there is need to create prior art to stop trolls, write a white paper and publish it somewhere. For the price of a patent attorney it is probably possible to buy enough space in some regional newspaper to show the whole 12 kwords. On the other hand the description of the invention itself is very shallow in detail. Much more should have been given regarding possible ways to implement it, how to handle false identifications, how to handle different sensing abilities, who is responsible if bad data leads to accidents etc. Of course if the patent office doesn’t require this then it would be foolish for anyone to give it. Writing it down might have given a good patent engineer the chance to claim more and could have made this patent more valuable.

The claims only use a small portion of the text but cover that part fairly well. They are almost understandable, although the last one is complex enough that reading it requires more uninterrupted concentration than is usually available when the kids are around.

Troglodyte: Driverless vehicles 4

 

“The idea is perhaps geared a bit too much around the concept of a “driver” and the thinking that she is actively following what the car does.”

The purpose of Project Troglodyte is to hunt for bad patents and to show what went wrong. For more information, see the  web page.

 

Zone Driving

This analysis is part of a series of Google driverless car related patents and applications. This application can be found here.

When reading the analysis it might be interesting to keep in mind that Google possibly uses this idea in their test cars all the time. It would be interesting to know how much the test drives are affected by it. If driverless car development wasn’t a sideshow for Google this could even have an impact on its market value as it could conceal the technology readiness level.

Figure 1.

TIER 1: SUMMARY

This application describes a way of generating, sharing and using information about areas where the driver might want to take control of an autonomous vehicle. These areas are called zones in the text. The idea is perhaps geared a bit too much around the concept of a “driver” and the thinking that they are actively following what the car does. I for one think the exact opposite is the reason to buy an autonomous vehicle in the first place.

My real problem with this idea is the wordplay; a zone is defined as a place where the autonomous vehicle is not that autonomous or where there is a risk that it can’t cope with the environment. If a company wants to come to market before it can handle every aspect of the traffic environment it need this sort of approach. For example the vehicle avoids certain types of intersections or areas of intense pedestrian traffic where it might not be able to move as the pedestrians would be very close. One might be able to argue that a system driving solely on highways needing the driver to take control when exiting the highway is using this system if it automatically recognizes the upcoming exit and gives a warning. This in turn is pretty much a must, as highways sometimes morph to regular roads. Defining the points where control is needed as zones makes it sound like this would be something completely new.

While I don’t know how novel this idea is (I didn’t do a prior art search) it is certainly a powerful way of categorising this information. After realising what is meant by a zone the rest of the related ideas kind of flow naturally.

I would imagine that this is something the development team stumbled into as they wanted to try the car before the algorithms were able to control it in all circumstances. The difficulty of environments likely varies greatly, so it is prudent to start with the easier ones to get some experience. Come to think of it, it is possible that the first autonomous cars will be limited in their ability to navigate completely independently as they probably will be developed from cars that have some of the required features but not all, for example from cars that will be able to drive in light traffic on divided highways.

One important aspect might also be the reluctance of drivers to leave all control to the computer, this fear would likely be alleviated if there was a possibility to set parameters that trigger a notification about difficult spots. As one of the main reasons to get an autonomous car is to be able to do something else when travelling, this sort of warning/notification feature might be a must for all early models.

I noted in some of the other driverless car analysis that they are transition period ideas, that is also true in this case. The proposed feature would get most use when the roads are not built for autonomous vehicles and people are not used to the new technology. After the transition period it might get very little use as it would be required only in exceptional circumstances.

 

TIER 2: AVOIDING LICENSING

The zone concept could be further developed by adding some parameters such as time of day, day of week, temperature, forecasted low friction, local rush hour etc. Pop-up zones could be created if a school bus is detected or a driver indicates that one is close by, this sort of zone could expire for example in 15 minutes. The computer could automatically generate zones if it needs to use unexpected deceleration or manoeuvre violently to avoid impact.

Further there could be a voting scheme to establish and remove a zone. For example if one driver indicates a zone is needed those approaching immediately behind would get a zone warning, but if none of them takes control of their autonomous vehicle the zone would not be established.

Two obvious methods of bypassing exist, the driver follows the situation closely or the car really is autonomous. Neither is good for the business of selling autonomous cars. One possibility might be to analyze map data constantly to identify spots where the computer might need help. Roadworks are often indicated by signs which can be recognized by cameras. Some places could be indicated by a special sign which might have an RF transmitter to make them detectable beyond visible range and add some determinism. These however do not quite reach the dynamic nature of the zone idea (its best contribution I think) which could prove to be quite difficult to bypass if this application is granted in its present form.

 

TIER 3: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

The word vehicle is used throughout the text, by definition it includes things such as aircraft and helicopters. Autopilots have been in use in those for some time, devices such as autothrottle seem similar to the description of taking over part of the control from the computer. Aircraft autopilots also disengage if they lose control and naturally give a warning. Almost certainly modern autopilots can be engaged for a part of the planned route and be configured to give a warning before that part ends. For example an autopilot would be used through cruise and a warning would be given when the planned descent point is reached. If the descent point is called a zone, it is at a waypoint and the waypoint information can be found on a map which is downloaded from a server the similarities a quite noticeable.

Without the zone system drivers of early autonomous vehicles may feel the need to continuously monitor the performance of the car. With it they may first set a very strict warning level and include a lot of zones and after they feel more comfortable they can let the car do more and more of the driving by itself. Because the zones are proposed to be in a map, any route can be designed so that the number of zones on the route are as few as practicable. If the driver feels tired she can select a route that is a bit longer but has less zones in it and use the time to rest.

In the description it is noted that it is not sufficient for the vehicle to be close to the zone to trigger action, the vehicle also needs to be affected the by the zone in the future. For example if the vehicle is driving on a lane that is on top of the zone on a bridge, no action is required. This is important for the functioning of the zone concept as false positives could degrade user confidence in the system. To be able to solve this problem one needs understanding of the map side of the equation: when the route is planned and then followed, the computer knows which lane it is likely going to be on when the vehicle is close to the zone. The description of this is rather sketchy and actually making a system that does this requires some knowledge of an art that is not that closely related to the zone concept.

The claims are related to the description. As mentioned above some part of the idea may have novelty issues and this of course reflects on the claims that cover that part of the description.

Troglodyte: Cleantech 2

“As inventors ourselves, we think this was already trivial somewhere around the year 1900 (the invention of radio).”

The purpose of Project Troglodyte is to hunt for bad patents and to show what went wrong. For more information, please see the web page.

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR REMOTE IRRIGATION CONTROL

[Writers: Jakke Mäkelä and Niko Porjo]

On June 5, 2012, a patent was granted (US8193930) named  “Systems and methods for remote irrigation control”.  The patent holder can now claim to own the following invention: someone has a rain sensor standing in a field; that rain sensor sends rain data to someone over a wireless network; and that information is used to control water sprinklers.

If we were to summarize our understanding of the patent, we would say it consists of saying in a complex way: “Remove the wire and insert equipment to make a wireless connection”. As inventors ourselves, we think this was already trivial somewhere around the year 1900 (the invention of radio). In the Appendix, we try to show this in much more detail.

We take a clinically analytical perspective here. We might not personally like this patent, and we see potential risks in it, but it is entirely up to the patent owner what happens with it. As we pointed out in The Trolling Triad, not everything is a patent troll that is called a patent troll.

Disclaimer: we are NOT talking about legal issues. In the patent world, it is the claims that are argued about in court. We are interested in the technical descriptions, that is, the new information that society gained by granting the patent. After all, that is the whole tradeoff behind the patent system; in exchange for a temporary monopoly to the patent holder, society gets full disclosure of what was invented.

We see nothing new here, hence no benefit to society.

The main risk we see with this patent is the precedent. In the wrong hands, this patent is broad enough to cause problems to anyone dependent on irrigation.  The main group at risk are small US companies who design or manufacture systems for irrigation control. A Google search with “irrigation control company” quickly brings up such a list.

This patent is spurious enough that it really is difficult to work around.  There are two ways to achieve such a blanket: by being very good, or by being very vague.  The patent certainly does not fall into the category of “very good”.

The deadening effect of spurious patents on the software industry is well known (see EFF). If such practices start to flow into industries that deal with crucial services, such as irrigation or food production, it is a bad precedent.  Innovation in this area will slow, and prices will rise due to the additional licensing costs. This can have a high societal impact in the long run.

 

 

TECHNICAL APPENDIX: IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF THE DESCRIPTION

The patent description is written around the figures and the dissection below follows this partition and may thus handle several paragraphs in one go. There is a short plain text summary of the patent text related to each figure, given in italics and followed by our comment. Each figure and its description will be analyzed and it will be shown that the description of the invention offers nothing new, in fact in terms of technology most of the content is positively ancient. It should be noted that many of the examples given as prior art fit more than one part of the description.
The technical field is described as follows “…remotely operated systems, and more particularly to a computerized system for monitoring, reporting on, and controlling remote systems by transferring information signals through a wide area network (WAN) and using software applications hosted on a connected server to appropriately process the information.”
Fig 1. Describes shortcomings of prior systems, the main message is that  wires are required to connect sensor actuators to controllers and further to more remote computers or humans running decision making algorithms and finally to power sources. —–   For example this Skylab Saturn IB Flight Manual describes how a range safety officer could use a wireless connection to trigger destruction of the vehicle based on part on telemetry readings received from the vehicle. Tracking stations forming a wireless network around the world were used to send and receive telemetry data.  —–  Radioisotope thermoelectric generators have been used to power both lighthouses and monitoring equipment on earth. In a less extreme example mobile phones have always been battery powered and since they include a microphone (sensor) and an actuator  (vibrating alert) they can be called a sensor actuator. Thus the problem of wired connections for data and power for remote units has been solved a long time ago by using wireless radio technologies.
Fig 2. According to the text fairly complex network can be constructed with wireless transceivers connecting the sensor actuators through local controllers to a network. Specific software can be run on different nodes, connections can be one way, wireless communications can be established through several nodes if they are in range and data can be gathered by and commands can be sent from computers on the network.  —–  Two abbreviations: GSM and SMS. A GSM network consists of back end infrastructure (computers, wires…) connected to base stations through either wired or in some cases wireless two way data network. Mobile devices are connected to the base stations by a radio frequency link. While in a digital system all information is transferred as digital data, the Short Message System offers an example where the originating data is something else than audio.   —–    Handheld radio transceivers or walkie-talkies have been around since at least WWII, the technical task of integrating one of these with a mobile phone and others with sensors to create a sub network of sensors is straightforward.  —– As mentioned in the description each node of a network can and usually does host application specific software, for example mobile devices with the “Nokia OS” have been sold in their billions.
Fig 3A. Describes for example a subset of functions of a mobile phone.  —– But very superficially.
Fig 3B. Describes for example a more restricted subset of functions of a mobile phone and mentions the emergency call function. —– But very superficially.
Fig 3C. Compared to 3A and 3B an actuator is added.  —– Using a radio transmitter such as a mobile phone or a walkie talkie to control an actuator is a trivial exercise and has been around since the 1960s in the form of RC toys.
Fig 3D. Describes how predetermined codes are coupled with sensor outputs and transmitted to appropriate network nodes.  —– This is a simplified example where a lookup table has only four alternate states. A vocoder offers the same function, information from the sensor (microphone) is coded to relatively few states that then sent over the network.
Fig 3E. Adds a GPS receiver.  —– Mobile phones have included GPS receivers since about 1999 but as will be discussed below aircraft altitude information has been transmitted in wireless networks long before that, replacing the altitude information source with a 3D location source is not inventive.
Fig 4. Describes a generic data processing unit with data connectivity and ability to take actions based on the data it receives. —– It is very generic and could for example represent a computer in a mobile base station.
Fig 5. Similarly to Fig 4 a very generic description of a Wide Area Network is given and it is mentioned that one of the local controllers can be attached to a WAN.  —–  A mobile base station might have a WAN connection and in many cases has a wired connection either over an IP network or for example a telephone network.
Fig 6. Is an application of some of the preceding ideas to a “utility meter monitoring system”.  —– It fails to include the idea of being able to cut the supply in case the bills are not paid. As general technologies for creating exactly this type of networks have been shown above to have existed for a long time this application is not new.
Fig 7. Is an application of the preceding description to automotive fault code transmission. A car with On Board Diagnostics connected to a transceiver for communication.  —– This is again a variation of telemetry. In Formula One these systems apparently surfaced in the early 1990s. As an example 2-way telemetry is mentioned casually in this June 1993 issue of Popular Mechanics. Data transmission from a pit computer through a telephone network using a modem would have been a trivial exercise.
Fig 8. Is an application of the preceding description to an irrigation system. —– It’s a wirelessly transmitting weather station and a remote controlled actuator in the same box while the decision algorithm runs on a remote computer.
Fig 9. As Fig 8 but applied to a parking facility. —– It’s a parking facility with wires replaced by wireless connections.
Fig 10. Introduces a system that monitors and controls all of the applications of Figs 7 through 9, instead of a dedicated monitor / controller for each system. It also says that some of the hardware of co located applications may be shared. —– A network server may be in connection with several mobile phones each connected to a different computer through a BT connection acting as a modem, each of those computers may in turn be controlling a  Mars rover through the Deep Space Network while simultaneously communicating with a different server running World of Warcraft.  ———   On a more serious note, a system or computer receiving interrogation information from several air traffic control radars is monitoring several networks of transponders simultaneously. The basic technology has been around since WWII as can be seen for example from this 1965 issue of Popular Science; for obvious reasons it is wireless. Further as several radars can see the same transponders, several monitoring systems can receive information from the same radars (i.e. civil and military controllers) and the radars can belong to different networks (i.e. be part of networks in different countries) equipment reuse on several levels has also been around for some time.
Fig 11. Describes a message data structure with error indication. —–  See this document for a short description of how morse code messages are formatted. This book gives more general data structures for communication. A short introduction to error correction can be seen here.
Fig 12. Shows several examples of the message structure and explains how the devices can be pinged to check their and the networks health.  —–  Ping has been around since 1983. Almost any digital network requires a message structure to be able to route messages to correct destinations (IP).
Fig 13. Describes a data translator that converts signals in a legacy system to function codes. These codes can then be transmitted through transceiver(s) until they reach a WAN.  —– This is the same as attaching a wireless telemetry module to an existing wired network.
Fig 14. Describes how one of the sensor actuators having a transceiver may be integrated to a ship, plane, car etc. And how this unit can then be used to collect information.  —– Again the reader is encouraged to see Skylab Saturn IB Flight Manual for a description of how telemetry is used in rocketry. For a more recent system see patent 5,890,079.
 

Troglodyte: The trolling triad

“So is Sipco a patent troll? I follow the old adage: ‘If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it probably is a duck.’ Sipco even smells like a duck. You decide.”

The purpose of Project Troglodyte is to hunt for bad patents and to show what went wrong. For more information, please see the web page.

SIPCO LLC

What makes a patent troll truly venomous? In a previous posting I analyzed a spurious patent owned by Sipco LLC. I will now analyze Sipco itself. I use Sipco as a concrete example because it sticks out so nicely. It is also involved in technology areas with a high human and environmental impact. That worries me (see Trolling on the human rights;  The kiss of death of IPR;  Another view; Humanitarian Patent Pool).

The Wikipedia article on patent trolls has a  perfect definition: “Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company who enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered aggressive or opportunistic with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.”

The difficult part is the term “considered”.  Bad press by itself means nothing. In my decade of IPR experience I have really learned only one useful thing: trust no one. The press could be wrong, or biased, or even bought off. And blogs… forget it.

Sipco certainly has gotten very bad press. See SmartGridToday,  Green Patent Blog, CleanTech Blog. There’s no doubt that Sipco is litigating aggressively, and doing it proudly and openly (The SmartGridToday article in particular is fascinating, as it describes the company owner’s worldviews in his own words). But that’s not good enough. I believe it’s crucial to be as coldly objective as possible.

The trolling triad

I believe that there are three characteristics that a company needs to have to be considered a truly dangerous troll. The company has a provable history of aggressive litigation; the company doesn’t actually produce anything itself; and the company’s patent portfolio consists of spurious and overly vague patents.  I call this the “trolling triad”.

Two out of three can make a company a nuisance, but I believe that all three are needed  for a company to become the equivalent of a loose cannon.

Flag 1: Aggressive litigation

If a company is heavily involved in litigation, it may be a red flag.  It is not automatic proof of anything. If someone genuinely invests money and time into development, and then finds that someone else is making huge profits on the invention having copied it, the inventor does have a case (legal, and perhaps even moral) for suing the copycat. It’s necessary to look at the context.

(Personal sidenote: I can actually empathize with inventors who go berserk when their ideas are stolen, and go on a litigation rampage. If an inventor spends years of his life working on something, it gets personal.  If he further sacrifices his money, friends, health, and family for the invention, it gets deeply personal).

Sipco’s case is quite clear though. The references above make it amply clear that Sipco is in the business of aggressive litigation, and is proud to be so. Sipco’s own press release in PRNewswire also shows that its main business is licensing. One red flag.

Flag 2: Lack of own production

From Wikipedia again: “The non-manufacturing status of a patent troll has a strategic advantage, in that the target infringer cannot counter-sue for infringement.” When two companies both actually produce something, there is a balance of terror. If one sues the other and tries to halt production, the other can sue back and try to halt production. Many of the highest-profile patent litigation cases, for example in the telecommunications industry, are of this type.

I will now say something that may come back to haunt me: I feel that when two equally big players fight each other, society really doesn’t suffer. If one of the players loses, then the other one will just keep manufacturing and developing the products that were argued about.  For us in the audience, it really is mostly just a game.

However, if one of the participants is actually producing nothing, it can turn deadly serious. The non-practicing entity (NPE), to use the polite term for a troll, cannot be countersued. If the NPE wins, at minimum the cost of the product will rise due to the extra licensing costs. At worst, the NPE can actually prevent the product from even being produced, and can certainly drop further development dead in its tracks.

However much I search, I can’t find anything that Sipco would actually have produced. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and if I run into some actual Sipco product, I will consider retracting the flag. But for now: second flag, bright red.

Flag 3: The patent portfolio

The truly lethal trolls are ones that have overly broad and vague patents in their arsenal. As long as the patents are specific enough, only a limited number of companies can be attacked. But if the patents are too spurious and vague, almost anyone can be attacked on almost any grounds.

(See the EFF’s Patent Busting site for examples. My personal favorite is the patent on taking and scoring educational tests online. It takes real chutzpah to demand royalties on something like that).

Trying to evaluate the “quality” of a patent is difficult and subjective, but I have so far analyzed Sipco’s patent US7739378 on pollution monitoring. I considered it essentially spurious, and it should not have been granted. So far, I’m not aware of litigation over that patent though.  GreenTechGrid discusses several other Sipco patents in the smart grid technology area, which Sipco is in fact litigating on.  Based on a quick look, I am highly skeptical whether those patents have much merit, but I need to analyze them more closely. Somewhat tentatively, a third red flag.

So is Sipco a patent troll? I follow the old adage: “If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it probably is a duck.” Sipco even smells like a duck. You decide.

 

Translate »