Tag: Patents

SMOS: Humanitarian Patent Pool

What would it take take to actually, truly start  a “Humanitarian Patent Pool” like Timo Tokkonen suggested in a posting last week? The idea being to collect certain patents in a non-profit “pool” to keep patent trolls away from ruining humanitarian efforts.  The question was inspired by humanitarian catastrophe communications (see SMOS web page). But there could be other areas.

Is HPP even vaguely realistic? Patents are powerful, but not all-powerful: the Doha Declaration allows developing countries to bypass existing patents for medicines when public health is threatened. A concept similar to HPP, defensive patent aggregation, exists in the commercial world, but to my knowledge not in a non-profit setting.

Here are some back-of-the-envelope estimates on how the HPP might work.  Bear with me if there are ludicrous errors, and please propose improvements.

The core purpose of the HPP must be to eradicate patent trolls in humanitarian areas. The purpose is not to hinder legitimate players. (This is immediately a controversial goal. Idealists will want to eliminate patents from the humanitarian field altogether. I feel it is sufficient to eliminate just the rabid dogs, and let the healthy ones thrive).

The HPP needs to be a non-profit foundation. It should be international in scope, but it might be sufficient to restrict it to the USA because that is the home of the patent trolls.

The key function of the HPP is to collect ownership of “bad” patents. By “bad” I mean something that is not being used to create anything, but can be used by a troll to stop development. A much more refined definition is obviously needed.

The main category of “bad” patent is one which is too broad and should never have been granted in the first place. Another category are patents for a technical solution which has become obsolete, but which a lawyer can stretch to cover some other technology. Such patents are lethal weapons in the hands of a troll. But they could also be lethal weapons in the hands of the HPP.

There are two key strategies.

  1. Containment and decay. Collect patents that are allowed to expire as soon as possible. The purpose here is to prevent trolls from making claims, and to create strong prior art against future spurious patents. These patents should for the most part be collected through donations.
  2. Active deterrence. Patents that can and will be used in litigation against trolls. In some cases, the HPP might consider paying for these. The cost of filing a patent is > 10 kEUR, so the HPP might be willing to consider buying them at cost.

The HPP should be aggressive, not defensive. Unless the HPP is willing and happy to go to court against trolls, it will have no deterrence effect.

Since the USA already has a well-oiled machine in the Electronic Frontier Foundation, it would make sense to tie the HPP in very tightly with the EFF, especially its Patent Busting Project.  On the other hands, in terms of funding, the HPP could have wider appeal and hence be independent.

The working principle needs to be absolute transparency. For strategic reasons, if preparing for an attack, the HPP may require secrecy. But even there things need become public when fight is over. As far as I can see, the HPP cannot ever accept secret agreements or settlements.

The focus areas for active deterrence must be chosen very tightly. They should be restricted to those areas in which humanitarian damage can be massive, and in which trolling activity seems to be particularly easy. Catastrophe communications would certainly be one such area.

The budget of the HPP simply cannot be kept small. Even if using only donated patents, there are legal costs associated, even if the patents are allowed to expire immediately. A reasonable minimum estimate is 1 kEUR per patent. Since there must be hundreds to thousands of patents in the pool, this easily results in a budget of hundreds of kEUR per year.

If some key patents are bought with hard money (though at cost), the cost per patent could be 10 kEUR. The number of truly crucial patents will be small — court cases are typically litigated over just a handful of patents — but knowing which ones a critical requires buying more.

The cost of stockpiling and maintaining the patents will easily climb to a million EUR per year. Unlike projects like the EFF’s patent-busting project, there is no meaningful way to crowdsource the idea. It needs hard money.

If the HPP goes to court, the legal costs are unpredictable, but the HPP must be able to handle them. This is where my reasoning becomes completely fuzzy. Could this work on a pro bono principle? If courts find trolls’ patents spurious, might they willing to force the trolls to pay costs? I find this highly problematic.

Is there any way for the HPP to make some profit to recoup all its losses? In principle, yes, by licensing to legitimate businesses. However, trying to make a distinction between non-legitimate and illegitimate players would add costs and make enforcement difficult.

And, more crushingly, the HPP would risk turning into a patent troll of its own. (“He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster”). It is difficult to see any way to make the HPP self-sufficient.

So where would the funding come from, then? I have no real idea. This was as far as I was able to get in one sitting.

So is the HPP idea even vaguely realistic? If not, would be worth developing from some other angle? If not, do we just have to adapt to life with the trolls?

 

SMOS: The Kiss of Death of IPR

For once I will be blunt: I now feel that with crisis communications hardware, the first whiff of IPR (patent) issues will cause the effort to crash and burn.  My opinion on this was certainly different before we started the SMOS project (see SMOS web page).

The idea of combining humanitarian technology and intellectual property sounds uncomfortable. After all, humanitarian activities are supposed to be humanitarian. Nevertheless, there were perfectly valid reasons to consider IPR issues with SMOS.
1. Protect the idea in order to make at least a minimal living from it.
2. Prevent others from destroying or profiting extortionately from the idea.
3. Improving interoperability with telecommunications providers by playing with the same rules (rather than adopting a “hacker mentality”).

I am a deep skeptic about IPR, but do not consider it fundamentally “evil” — it may have its place.  However, I am coming  to the conclusion that for the specific case of crisis communications, IPR is the kiss of death.

The numbers

Since we pursued the possibility of patenting quite heavily, I learned some ballpark figures.

  • To file and get a Finnish patent: 6000-8000 EUR. Most of this goes to the patent agency handling the application. There is no practical way to survive without a patent agency.
  • In Finland, a decision is usually rendered within a year. There may be interim decisions which require using a patent attorney, pushing up the price.
  • After being granted, the annual cost of maintaining a patent is small for the first three years, but starts rising rapidly after that.
  • To file and get a European patent, the cost is approximately twice of a Finnish patent. Maintenance costs are also roughly double.
  • A US patent requires using a patent attorney in the US. Overall cost is comparable to a European patent. In the US, a decision can take 5-10 years.
  • I have no idea what the costs would be in countries such as China or India.
  • A figure of 20,000 USD (or EUR) per patent is often used a lifetime cost, at least within a single country. However, for a catastrophe communications system, protection would be needed in multiple countries, some without an advanced IPR culture.
  • → If I had to give a single number, it would be 50,000 EUR per patent.

Realize, however, that a single patent has no practical value. To protect an idea in any significant sense, a dozen or more patents may be needed. If the IPR route is chosen, a cost of half a million just to file patents is realistic.

Note also that filing patents does not in itself guarantee anything. Anyone can infringe on a patent, and it is up to the patent owner to sue. Even minor court cases can eat up six-digit sums of money, and can be decided on the basis of a comma in the wrong place, even if the most expensive lawyers are used. Going the litigation route means risking millions on what is in effect a roll of the dice.

Even worse, in this particular case litigation is a no-win situation. If the other side is a local company in a developing country, it can (and most likely will, and perhaps should) take the role of a victim being bullied by large Western IPR interests and inhibited from trying to save lives. There is no real way to protect one’s public integrity in such a case.

We had one major rationale for the IPR route: we felt that by making hardware along commercial lines, it would be easier to arrange interoperability with operators. I am now highly skeptical about this. Interoperability would simply cause operators to view SMOS as a potential competition. It would take a major player 15 minutes to dig up enough patents from its patent thicket to make our life impossible. Whether those patents are relevant is completely irrelevant. The threat is enough.

The implications

I draw a harsh conclusion: any whiff of IPR will cause a humanitarian crisis communications project to crash and burn.

On the other hand, proceeding without a thought for IPR is troublesome for funding, since venture capitalists want to recoup their investments within a few years. Without IPR, there is less to recoup.

In the traditional way of thinking, having no IPR protection would be unthinkable because of the competitive issues. However, I believe I have demonstrated above that IPR does not actually give any benefit in this specific technology case.

What to do about this then? I am certainly not saying that crisis communications hardware projects are hopeless. However, it would be wise to pursue such projects with the (perhaps unwritten) attitude that IPR is the enemy.

An open-source approach seems appealing, and has been done successfully with software (for example Sahana). But hardware?  It is only possible to go so far with a “hacker mentality”; if there is a desire to use cellular telecom interfaces, then there is a need to cooperate with commercial providers as a commercial entity.

One of the few ways to actively defend a project of this type against patent trolls is to have a strategy of defensive publishing. In other words, publish all ideas as soon as someone blurts them out, ideally in the form of a permanent Creative Commons-licensed blog. This means that the blog becomes prior art, and the ideas can no longer be patented by anyone.

Other than that? Perhaps the best advice I can give is to look at the material on the SMOS project page, study what we tried to do in SMOS, and then try to not do that.

Examiner of Silly Patents, Part 1: Subliminal eyeglasses

Jakke Mäkelä

Every now and then I will take a silly patent and pretend it’s not silly. I will analyze and defend it in all faux-seriousness (see disclaimer at the end).  Usually I cannot defend it, but learn something in the process anyways. [Suomeksi/Finnish: Patenttimörökölli, osa 1]

One excellent resource for crazy patents is here.  Some of them would not make sense even in a parallel universe, but some of them can be explained. Up to a point.  I will start with one that I find endearing:  US 5,175,571 from 1992: “Glasses with subliminal message”. The idea, in short, is to project subliminal messages onto the glasses of the user (for more information on subliminal stimuli, see here).

The patent mentions (without citing sources) that subliminal messaging has been used successfully in the form of audio tapes and “can have significant results in producing character and behaviour improvement …. [and] are also said to produce greater success in business or in personal relationships or in sports”.

The novelty of the invention is that “similar if not better results can be obtained from subliminal-type suggestion, to which the subject is exposed more or less on a continuous basis even while he is engaged in other activities.”  The subconscious images can be either printed onto the glass, or removable disks can be used. The messages can be words, or “for persons with a personality problem such as an inferiority complex or a persecution complex, the graphics might simply be a single face, with a happy smile”.

Indeed. Nevertheless this is a credible patent! Even if subliminal messaging has not been proven to work, it is not physically impossible. (Physically impossible ideas, such as perpetual motion machines, cannot be patented even in the United States).The patent has been cited in later patents, including a design patent for pet sunglasses. There is nothing technically wrong with it.

The minor catch? Subliminal messaging  does not work.

However, I see a way to extend the idea. There are very narrow cases  where subliminal messages affect behavior. A weak effect was seen when a thirsty user had to choose between two equivalent  types of soft drink. Subliminal messages at the exact right moment can influence the choice of brand.  The effect is probably very small, but for a manufacturer even a tiny effect might be worthwhile, since in general advertising is not very effective.

What is needed to make US 5,175,571 work? The application needs to focus on advertising rather than psychological well-being. Take soft drinks. A manufacturer could purchase “space” on the glasses. The glasses need to be context-aware, to know when the user is near the soft-drinks section of a store. This is challenging but doable, for example by including a tiny camera within the glass frame and analyzing any bar codes that the camera manages to catch, or perhaps by using an RFID reader.

There are even more possibilities if the stores collaborate. Put a  Bluetooth receiver in the glasses, and Bluetooth transmitters in the store that identify the aisle. When the glasses detect that the user is at the soft-drink aisle, the subliminal ad is projected to the lenses. Thus the user gets the subliminal message at the only time when it can make a difference: at the exact moment of choice.

Even this version of the patent is silly, of course. Technically speaking, subliminal advertising is illegal in many countries. Even if the legal issues can be ignored: why on earth would anyone agree to wear such glasses?

In principle my attempt is a failure: I simply replaced one silly patent with another silly patent. But still I believe that the exercise was interesting. Things are not always what they seem to be.

Full set of Examinations of Silly Patents: click here.

Disclaimer: these analyses have very little to do with anything, and in particular have nothing to do with legal issues. Most of the patents cited are expired (or should be). I do not touch the “claims” section, which is the legally relevant part. These blogs constitute prior art, so that any new any ideas expressed here can no longer be patented.

Translate »