IPZine.blogspot.com has moved. MOVED...
Please find it .... ... www.IntellZine.com
.... MOVED ... www.IntellZine.com
Tuesday, March 24, 2020
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
The End of a Patent Dynasty, IBM has been Dethroned
IBM is no longer King of the Patent World!
Samsung now reigns supreme.
US Patents for 2016 by Fortune by IFI Claims Patent Services. IBM #1 with 8,052 patents issued. Samsung Electronics Co Lmt with 5,518. But, a better measure would have IBM coming in second in 2016, and even in 2015!...
The other approach that consolidates related companies here, or more directly from Sqoop here. IBM #2 when Samsung has more patents collectively with 8,551 issued in 2016.
In terms of patent applications,
In terms of patent applications, Samsung really beats out IBM:
- Samsung -- 10,695
- International Business Machines Corporation -- 8,800
Samsung is way ahead of #2 Microsoft in Design Patents with ~1,500 vs. ~500. IBM is not in to the top 40 in terms of US design patents (as would be expected for the type of products (services, really) that they produce.
Wow, no 25 year run for IBM. A questionable 24 year run through 2016. And arguably, not even a 23 year.
Monday, April 3, 2017
Tech Startup IPOs Better with Big Blue Patents
The Strategic Business Planning Company has long championed an aggressive approach by startup companies that centers on obtaining a patent(s) on a new product/service at or near the time of market entry to offer unique value and competitive protection. Very young companies need funding. Venture capitalists are a
major source of funding and, according to a study by the University of
California Berkeley Law School, “many investors place a premium on patents when
making investment decisions. In fact,
67% of firms surveyed indicated that the existence of patents were an important
factor in their investment decisions… proving that it doesn’t matter what
industry you are in a significant percentage of VCs place a premium of patents
when making investment decisions.” (“Why
Patents Matter for Job Creation and Economic Growth,” Gene Quinn, IP Watchdog)
[For additional confirmation, see Shark Tank]
IBM has been the leader in annual patent procurement for years and years. But, even in Big Blue, not all patents can be commercialized and many other patents are not consistent with its marketing strategies. For these reasons and, it turns out, for tax benefits, the company puts many patents on the market to supplement its licensing royalties.
There
are other compelling reasons why patents are important. A paper entitled “The
Bright Side of Patents” sites the economic benefits that patents bring to start-up
businesses. Joan Farre-Mensa
of Harvard, Alexander Liunggvist and Deepak Hedge of
NYU studied all first-time patent applications filed at the US Patent and
Trademark Office (USPRO) by start-ups from 2001- 2013, 45,819 in total. They concluded that patent approvals help
startups create jobs and succeed. Key points from the research:
- The first patent application
increases a company’s employment growth over the next five years by 36%. The effect on sales growth – a 51%
increase – is even larger.
- Approval of a patent
application increases a start-up’s probability of securing VC funding by 53% over companies without patents.
- Patents more than double the
likelihood that a start-up is eventually listed on a stock exchange.
IBM has been the leader in annual patent procurement for years and years. But, even in Big Blue, not all patents can be commercialized and many other patents are not consistent with its marketing strategies. For these reasons and, it turns out, for tax benefits, the company puts many patents on the market to supplement its licensing royalties.
When your IP gets the boot, AAPL boots IMG
WoW.
Imagination Technologies (IMG) dropped about 70% over the last day or so as Apple says that they will no use IMG's graphics processing (GPU) technology much longer. The stock dropped from a high of about $300 US to a low of $76. It dropped $180 in today's trading, stabilizing at about $90. You might have an issue when the largest company in the world says they don't intent to buy your products much longer, especially if they are your largest customer.
Read about it here.
Apple says that they will take other approached to get their graphics. IMG says that will be hard to do with their intellectual property protection.
IMG is very similar to ARM Holding who makes the technology, not the products. But last year ARM got gobbled up by SoftBank (which owns Sprint), so Great Britain is becoming even less great the day or so after BrExit (wondering if any relation there). IPZine blogged about ARM holdings not holding out here.
Yes, intellectual property will be an interesting problem for the UK as they work out the divorce agreement(s) with the EU.
Imagination Technologies (IMG) dropped about 70% over the last day or so as Apple says that they will no use IMG's graphics processing (GPU) technology much longer. The stock dropped from a high of about $300 US to a low of $76. It dropped $180 in today's trading, stabilizing at about $90. You might have an issue when the largest company in the world says they don't intent to buy your products much longer, especially if they are your largest customer.
Read about it here.
Apple says that they will take other approached to get their graphics. IMG says that will be hard to do with their intellectual property protection.
IMG is very similar to ARM Holding who makes the technology, not the products. But last year ARM got gobbled up by SoftBank (which owns Sprint), so Great Britain is becoming even less great the day or so after BrExit (wondering if any relation there). IPZine blogged about ARM holdings not holding out here.
Yes, intellectual property will be an interesting problem for the UK as they work out the divorce agreement(s) with the EU.
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
Happy Days are near, but yet so far away, for Generic Viagra
The discussion on when pharma patents expire is often long and tortuous.
The the ED world of Viagra and Cialis we discuss the 2017 patent cliff here.
True, Cialis patent(s) expire in 2017, so it is reasonable to expect the influx of generics soon... Here's a list of patents related to Cialis. Note that there are a lot of patents listed that go all the way to 2020.
Here is a great discussion about the expiration of Phara patents related to Viagra. One of the main patents in viagra falls into the 1995 rule where the expiration date is computed based on the longer of the old method (17 years from issue) and the new method (20 years from first filing date). The 20 years method would be long gone. It probably took Pfizer some very fancy footwork to delay issue of the Viagra patent for almost 10 years from first filing, so the 17 years method computes longest and works best for Viagra. Plus, they got a term extension, so the patent doesn't expire until April of 2020.
But generic Viagra. A settlement with the giant of generics, Teva, allows Teva to sell a generic version of Viagra starting in December of 2017. But Teva must pay royalties to Pfizer. Pfizer recently raised prices, presumably to game this whole competition thing ensuing in 2017.
Levitra faces expiration of patents in 2018.
Great discussion on all these ED drugs is here at AccessRX.
Of course you could use another drug that is "a rose by another name": Revatio. Consumer Reports on Revatiois not in the business of making medical advised, but they suggest the the Revatio blood pressure drug might possibly work in the same way as Viagra since is contains the same active ingredient (sildenafil).
There is also a move to try to make the ED drugs an over-the-counter thing. Hmmm.
The the ED world of Viagra and Cialis we discuss the 2017 patent cliff here.
True, Cialis patent(s) expire in 2017, so it is reasonable to expect the influx of generics soon... Here's a list of patents related to Cialis. Note that there are a lot of patents listed that go all the way to 2020.
Here is a great discussion about the expiration of Phara patents related to Viagra. One of the main patents in viagra falls into the 1995 rule where the expiration date is computed based on the longer of the old method (17 years from issue) and the new method (20 years from first filing date). The 20 years method would be long gone. It probably took Pfizer some very fancy footwork to delay issue of the Viagra patent for almost 10 years from first filing, so the 17 years method computes longest and works best for Viagra. Plus, they got a term extension, so the patent doesn't expire until April of 2020.
But generic Viagra. A settlement with the giant of generics, Teva, allows Teva to sell a generic version of Viagra starting in December of 2017. But Teva must pay royalties to Pfizer. Pfizer recently raised prices, presumably to game this whole competition thing ensuing in 2017.
Levitra faces expiration of patents in 2018.
Great discussion on all these ED drugs is here at AccessRX.
Of course you could use another drug that is "a rose by another name": Revatio. Consumer Reports on Revatiois not in the business of making medical advised, but they suggest the the Revatio blood pressure drug might possibly work in the same way as Viagra since is contains the same active ingredient (sildenafil).
There is also a move to try to make the ED drugs an over-the-counter thing. Hmmm.
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
A Good News Story from an Unexpected Source
Here at IAM-Media is an example of using patents to secure products in a global market.
Its full strategic management of its 200 patents included creating barriers to entry and to transform the antenna industry. This approach does not take place overnight, more than a decade. The company began initially with patent protected product sales which was quite successful. Well into the market adoption, Fractus concluded that licensing for royalties was the best option for the future. It resulted in over $100m in royalties.
Fractus also dealt with infringements by major companies and had to be helped by the Spanish courts. Overall, a good news story about the patent commercialization success of a small company.
Its full strategic management of its 200 patents included creating barriers to entry and to transform the antenna industry. This approach does not take place overnight, more than a decade. The company began initially with patent protected product sales which was quite successful. Well into the market adoption, Fractus concluded that licensing for royalties was the best option for the future. It resulted in over $100m in royalties.
Fractus also dealt with infringements by major companies and had to be helped by the Spanish courts. Overall, a good news story about the patent commercialization success of a small company.
Wednesday, March 8, 2017
Scenarios Now and the Genius (hidden) within Crowd via ScenarioPlans.com
On a sister site, there is a discussion by DelphiMan about the state of scenario planning today, and some new research on ways to squeeze out the genius among laypeople crowds: Scenarios Now and the Genius (hidden) within Crowd,
Check it out here on ScenarioPlans.com (or DelphiPlan.com).
First, a McKinsey study showed that CEOs really wished that they had done more scenario planning after the great recession. Before, really. But, now with almost 10 years in the rear-view mirror, it seems likely the idea of such vigilant planning for a flexible future has waned.
In the meanwhile, the genius of crowds can still be used very effectively using a Delphi Method approach to capture the expertise of experts (or informed people).
A very interesting new study used a crowd of laypeople. Even when the crowd is, on average, misinformed, it is possible to identify those people who are really informed and correctly assess the truth.
This reminds me, but in reverse, of a Lee Iacocca story when he was at Ford (prior to the turn-around at Chrysler). They surveyed people in upscale communities to see if they would like to buy the new Ford sports kind of car being developed including a convertible version. The answer was, unequivocally, NO!. Lee sent his team back into the suburbs to ask again. But this time the question was two part: "Would you buy this car?" NO. Would your neighbor buy this car?" Absolutely YES!
The Ford Mustang took the market by stampede!....
"We are continually faced by great opportunities brilliantly disguised as insoluble problems."
Lee Iacocca ... from BrainyQuote.com
Friday, January 20, 2017
XGame Innovation in Carbon Capture
Look at the great innovations up in Canada in the CCS xGames.
Checkout the blog at SustainZine related to this very cool competition: http://sustainzine.blogspot.com/2017/01/co2-xgame-winners-in-canada-losers-in.html
Here's some info on this big competition in Canada: CBC News discusses competition sponsored by Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance and U.S. company NRG.
Normally you think of Carbon Capture & Sequester as a dead cost. Take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere (maybe at a smoke stack where it is highly concentrated, and pump it down into caverns, maybe where the coal or oil came from. But CO2 is a valuable and sell-able byproduct. Think about the fizz in your pop.
Maybe innovation like this Carbon XGame contestants have demonstrated, might allow us to burn all the oil and coal in the world without impunity. Maybe if we all hold our breath (one way to reduce CO2), the impact of our non-sustainable ways will not come back to bite us in the proverbial butt.
SustainZine said: "That means the the job of the CCS might turn out to be far, far bigger in the future, as we try to burn up the last century or so of fossil fuels over the next hundred years.
We here at SustainZine consider "conservative" this way: The bestest, cheapest, cleanest gallon of gas is the one never extracted, never processed and never burned. The bestest, cheapest, cleanest tonne of coal is the one never extracted, never processed, and never burned (scrubbing or no scrubbing)."
Checkout the blog at SustainZine related to this very cool competition: http://sustainzine.blogspot.com/2017/01/co2-xgame-winners-in-canada-losers-in.html
Here's some info on this big competition in Canada: CBC News discusses competition sponsored by Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance and U.S. company NRG.
Normally you think of Carbon Capture & Sequester as a dead cost. Take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere (maybe at a smoke stack where it is highly concentrated, and pump it down into caverns, maybe where the coal or oil came from. But CO2 is a valuable and sell-able byproduct. Think about the fizz in your pop.
Maybe innovation like this Carbon XGame contestants have demonstrated, might allow us to burn all the oil and coal in the world without impunity. Maybe if we all hold our breath (one way to reduce CO2), the impact of our non-sustainable ways will not come back to bite us in the proverbial butt.
SustainZine said: "That means the the job of the CCS might turn out to be far, far bigger in the future, as we try to burn up the last century or so of fossil fuels over the next hundred years.
We here at SustainZine consider "conservative" this way: The bestest, cheapest, cleanest gallon of gas is the one never extracted, never processed and never burned. The bestest, cheapest, cleanest tonne of coal is the one never extracted, never processed, and never burned (scrubbing or no scrubbing)."
In the meanwhile, innovation is the engine that will keep providing options, long after the most obvious alternatives have been exhausted.
Wednesday, December 28, 2016
Long-term good for R&D, Patents and Profits
A recent study shows how long-term focus pays off. This study concentrated on switching the CEO compensation to longer-term. From that point forward, what happened, on average to several things related to the performance over time.
Great study was by Flammer and Bansal (2016) and summarized in the WSJ, CEOs should focus on the long term, a study says. Although the study is coming out soon in the Strategic Management Journal, you can find it here.
The researchers selected companies that were long-term focused based on those companies that had a long-term compensation package presented to the board that was narrowly approved. The narrowly approved implies that this was a bit of a surprise to the executives resulting, potentially, in a paradigm shift toward longer-term focus. The board voting was reviewed from 2005 through 2012 so that there would be room for performance analysis.
There are many positives related to long-term focus all around. Companies with a long-term focus do better all around (profits, net profit margin, sales, stock price, etc.). Those long-term focus had a statistically significant improvement over the longer term (2 years and longer). Interestingly, they had a small dip insignificant dip in the short term.
Longer term companies spend more money on R&D, got more patents, had more patents that "flopped" and had more patents that were "hits". Flops and hits were based on the citations of their issued patents. Lots of citations means hit, not very many means flop. That has issues, but seems acceptable (unless you want to do a market analysis of the patented technologies).
They also did a analysis of exploratory vs. exploitive. This was based on 80% vs 20% of the patents citations being internal to the company. So if lots of citations in my current patent refer to my own prior technology then it is a incremental, exploitive patent. They used a log scale on the number of patents, so a 0.568 correlation could be extrapolated on a logarithmic scale! A 57% correlation meaning that the decision to go long-term-centric resulted in a 57% positive change in the patents. Because they argue a cause-and-effect, they are an argument for causal correlation.
Hits and flops of patents is interesting. First, the patent needs to be more disruptive (exploratory) and new to the company. Then the number of references to the patent were reviewed to see if it gets an abnormal amount of citation activity citing it. Flops would be exploratory that get very low citations. They first combined both hits and flops and indicate that total as a share of all (exploratory?) patents. This is statistically correlated at R-squared of 0.571. Trying a lot results in lots of failures and hits.
Note that the number of flops and the number of hits were statistically correlated: 0.457 and 0.427. This is very interesting, if you aren't trying, then you aren't innovating. In this case, long-term focus means that you are trying and getting a good splattering of both. (They use the methodology here of Azoulay et al., 2011)
Verdict. Boards should focus on long-term for compensation. This means that they have to be willing to take lesser profits in the short term.
There are also very strong correlations to the KLD factors, collectively and all four components: employees, environment, consumers and society.
Verdict. Corporations should focus on sustainable, long-term targets for goals and for compensation.
They have some limitations to this study, but they also combine it with good literature support for long-term-centric management practices. And minimizing the principle-agent problem common to executive compensation.
We want everyone highly motivated by the long-term, sustainable success of businesses (& not-for-profits & Gov)...
Anything else is, well, short-sighted!
References
Azoulay P, Graff Zivin JS, Manso G (2011). Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences. RAND Journal of Economics 42(3): 527–554.
Great study was by Flammer and Bansal (2016) and summarized in the WSJ, CEOs should focus on the long term, a study says. Although the study is coming out soon in the Strategic Management Journal, you can find it here.
The researchers selected companies that were long-term focused based on those companies that had a long-term compensation package presented to the board that was narrowly approved. The narrowly approved implies that this was a bit of a surprise to the executives resulting, potentially, in a paradigm shift toward longer-term focus. The board voting was reviewed from 2005 through 2012 so that there would be room for performance analysis.
There are many positives related to long-term focus all around. Companies with a long-term focus do better all around (profits, net profit margin, sales, stock price, etc.). Those long-term focus had a statistically significant improvement over the longer term (2 years and longer). Interestingly, they had a small dip insignificant dip in the short term.
Longer term companies spend more money on R&D, got more patents, had more patents that "flopped" and had more patents that were "hits". Flops and hits were based on the citations of their issued patents. Lots of citations means hit, not very many means flop. That has issues, but seems acceptable (unless you want to do a market analysis of the patented technologies).
They also did a analysis of exploratory vs. exploitive. This was based on 80% vs 20% of the patents citations being internal to the company. So if lots of citations in my current patent refer to my own prior technology then it is a incremental, exploitive patent. They used a log scale on the number of patents, so a 0.568 correlation could be extrapolated on a logarithmic scale! A 57% correlation meaning that the decision to go long-term-centric resulted in a 57% positive change in the patents. Because they argue a cause-and-effect, they are an argument for causal correlation.
Hits and flops of patents is interesting. First, the patent needs to be more disruptive (exploratory) and new to the company. Then the number of references to the patent were reviewed to see if it gets an abnormal amount of citation activity citing it. Flops would be exploratory that get very low citations. They first combined both hits and flops and indicate that total as a share of all (exploratory?) patents. This is statistically correlated at R-squared of 0.571. Trying a lot results in lots of failures and hits.
Note that the number of flops and the number of hits were statistically correlated: 0.457 and 0.427. This is very interesting, if you aren't trying, then you aren't innovating. In this case, long-term focus means that you are trying and getting a good splattering of both. (They use the methodology here of Azoulay et al., 2011)
Verdict. Boards should focus on long-term for compensation. This means that they have to be willing to take lesser profits in the short term.
There are also very strong correlations to the KLD factors, collectively and all four components: employees, environment, consumers and society.
Verdict. Corporations should focus on sustainable, long-term targets for goals and for compensation.
They have some limitations to this study, but they also combine it with good literature support for long-term-centric management practices. And minimizing the principle-agent problem common to executive compensation.
We want everyone highly motivated by the long-term, sustainable success of businesses (& not-for-profits & Gov)...
Anything else is, well, short-sighted!
References
Azoulay P, Graff Zivin JS, Manso G (2011). Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences. RAND Journal of Economics 42(3): 527–554.
Flammer, C., & Bansal, P. (2016). Does a long-term
orientation create value? Evidence from a regression discontinuity. Strategic
Management Journal. doi:10.1002/smj.2629
Monday, December 5, 2016
Prize of $24M to 12 scientists WSJ
Breakthrough Prize awards $24 million to 12 scientific researchers.
This is in the WSJ article ... via @WSJ ... By GEORGIA WELLS
Updated Dec. 4, 2016 8:11 p.m. ET
Categories from Genetics to Black holes. Big players from FB to Alphabet/GOOG were on site to promote these awards and recognition.
Very cool.
It is unclear if these prizes are attached to business engines or incubators. However, with that level of notoriety, and the prize money, these winners should be able to move forward with inventions that hold promise of commercialization.
Congrats to all winners.
This is in the WSJ article ... via @WSJ ... By GEORGIA WELLS
Updated Dec. 4, 2016 8:11 p.m. ET
Categories from Genetics to Black holes. Big players from FB to Alphabet/GOOG were on site to promote these awards and recognition.
Very cool.
It is unclear if these prizes are attached to business engines or incubators. However, with that level of notoriety, and the prize money, these winners should be able to move forward with inventions that hold promise of commercialization.
Congrats to all winners.
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
China’s Patent-Lawsuit Profile Grows - Troll Tolls Too - WSJ
China’s Patent-Lawsuit Profile Grows - WSJ:
China as a focal point of Intellectual Property, in the patent office and in the courts.
This law suit by WiLAN is interesting to see how the "assertion" of patents can move and shift.
Here's a little background on WiLAN from Wikipedia.
As you can see the company originally developed stuff so it would not be categorized as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), or Patent Troll in the ungracious term that is sometimes more appropriate for NPEs. WiLAN seems to be moving more steadily into the troll category.
Now with a war chest of some 3,000 patents+pendings, WiLAN is a strong international force.
In 2013 Daniel Fisher describes the Texas case where WiLAN had its core patents to the suit invalidated in "how to bag a patent troll". The stock (on the Toronto exchange) fell 33% to $3.25. In 2014, Apple won again in California.
Apple has won several law suits against WiLAN including a 2016 verdict. Look at the 6mo & 10yr stock chart on Yahoo, where it dropped from $3.40 to $2.30 in a few days at the end of July 2016. It now trades at $1.80.
The Investor profile is not so good, even with the Samsung licensing deal last year.
WiLAN continues to build its patent portfolio.
One of the things that a Patent Troll never wants to do, is actually go to court. Patents can be invalidated, remedies can be diminished, and the golden goose can give up the ghost.
Gotta love the trading symbol that starts with WIN (WIN.to).
There are several things that WiLAN could do to make it a much more legitimate player, and less of a troll. But those involve capital investments in R&D to invent, manufacturing to produce, sales and marketing to sell. That's a different business model. As long as investors are happy with investing in trolls, the trolls will rein supreme within their little serfdom of bridges.
'via Blog this'
China as a focal point of Intellectual Property, in the patent office and in the courts.
This law suit by WiLAN is interesting to see how the "assertion" of patents can move and shift.
Here's a little background on WiLAN from Wikipedia.
As you can see the company originally developed stuff so it would not be categorized as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), or Patent Troll in the ungracious term that is sometimes more appropriate for NPEs. WiLAN seems to be moving more steadily into the troll category.
Now with a war chest of some 3,000 patents+pendings, WiLAN is a strong international force.
In 2013 Daniel Fisher describes the Texas case where WiLAN had its core patents to the suit invalidated in "how to bag a patent troll". The stock (on the Toronto exchange) fell 33% to $3.25. In 2014, Apple won again in California.
Apple has won several law suits against WiLAN including a 2016 verdict. Look at the 6mo & 10yr stock chart on Yahoo, where it dropped from $3.40 to $2.30 in a few days at the end of July 2016. It now trades at $1.80.
The Investor profile is not so good, even with the Samsung licensing deal last year.
WiLAN continues to build its patent portfolio.
One of the things that a Patent Troll never wants to do, is actually go to court. Patents can be invalidated, remedies can be diminished, and the golden goose can give up the ghost.
Gotta love the trading symbol that starts with WIN (WIN.to).
There are several things that WiLAN could do to make it a much more legitimate player, and less of a troll. But those involve capital investments in R&D to invent, manufacturing to produce, sales and marketing to sell. That's a different business model. As long as investors are happy with investing in trolls, the trolls will rein supreme within their little serfdom of bridges.
'via Blog this'
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
Toll of the Patent Troll
The Wall Street Journal has a great article about Patent Trolls and the Toll the cost on an innocent economy. Here's the excellent WSJ Article: America’s Biggest Filer of Patent Suits Wants You to Know It Invented Shipping Notification, By RUTH SIMON and
LORETTA CHAO, Updated Oct. 27, 2016 1:11 p.m. ET.
Small(er) companies are targeted by a non-practicing entity (NPE), sometimes ungraciously referred to as a Patent Troll. IPZine previously discussed Patent Trolls in their various forms. Efforts to kill the trolls, or at least send them back under the bridge
have moved forward with mixed success. In the US, the court costs have been
paid by both parties historically, so winning in court, might still be losing. It
might be better to simply pay the fees that would go to lawyers and be 100%
certain of the outcome. A court ruling in 2014 has shifted this court cost dilemma.
(See Wikipedia article on Patent
Trolls.)
Imagine a portfolio of patents related to predictive arrival. That is, when will a product, person or thing arrive. The patent portfolio has 60 some patents with about half still active. That affects almost every business concept from shipping, manufacturing, service and more. It certainly hits on most of the activities that occur on the internet as well. Airlines, shippers, buses, and school buses -- government and private -- have fallen prey to the transit NPE.
So a small(er) business, attempting to do business, gets suddenly clobbered by legal notices and maybe even law suits. WHAT!!!??? The company probably has no patent attorney, so they scramble to find one. The patent attorney advises, at say $500 per hour, on the options and the potential costs. Litigation will cost $250,000, unless you lose; then it gets expensive!.
So, what's a small firm to do? This fight is like taking a pocket knife to a gun fight. Might be better to pay some fee, say $25,000-$50,000 and possibly a licensing fee (say a small % of sales), then to risk the bankrupting if the business.
All agreements are confidential, so it is hard to see who paid what licensing fees, and how much. The big shippers of FedEx and UPS have, apparently, full licensing for them and their clients. So a small company that uses their services, and only their services (of shipping and notification), might be in the clear.
The big NPE in this Simon & Chao article is Shipping & Transit LLC. About 10 years ago, the company tried to do a product for buses and shipping (Bus Stop and ArrivalStar). But neither worked out. So now Shipping and Transit sit around suing companies.
Not a single law suit has gone the distance. Consequently, none of the patents have been really tested. This is interesting since many of the patent claims are rather obvious and arrival/queuing goes back 50-100 years.
It seems like some type of a class action suit would be possible and force the issue against the NPE. The secret to the success of the Patent Troll, however, is to pick off the prey a few small targets at a time. Then, those victims who survive, are signed into an iron-clad agreement that cannot be breached under penalty of death. The airlines, FedEx and UPS are not talking, but what an interesting conversation that would be.
The
Jones gang of Shipping & Transit, way back in the day (circa Y2K) of
ArrivalStar were ruthless. Doesn’t seem like much has changed…
Keywords: NPE, Patent Troll, licensing, PLA, patent licensing agreement, economic development,
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
Readying a Patent Portfolio for Sale
In years gone by, companies with extensive patent
portfolios were loathe to sell these assets, strongly preferring to license
them. These Patent Licensing Agreements
(PLA) came in several flavors, most had some form of royalty payments for the
licensor and the fundamental was that ownership of the patents remained with
the original owner, i.e., the company granted the patent(s).
While not totally different today, much has changed
in the disposition of thousands of US patents.
Patents are now sold in much greater numbers than in decades past. Some of the reasons for this are:
·
Corporate decision to shut down or sell
of an operating division
·
Near term need to financially rescue
another part of the corporation
·
Shift in corporate direction/strategy
·
Pay a court imposed penalty
Patent sales are now so commonplace that online IP
reporter sites like www.IAM.com
recently devoted a webinar
to the patent selling process. This
process, as one can see, includes seven steps.
The assumption here is that the seller completed a validity check to the
extent possible on each patent offered for sale.
It is noteworthy under Step 6 that the biggest
buyers of patents review around 1,000 seller packages per year. This clearly puts the onus on the seller to
develop a first class patent package. It
also suggests that this is a buyers’ market putting more of a burden on the
seller to find ways to get the most value for its assets.
Keywords: patent, patent portfolio, licensing, PLA,
Patent Licensing Agreement, commercialization.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Maria Pallante out of Copyright. Unified IP?
Maria Pallante: out of Copyright Office
Great article by Dennis Crouch over at Patently-O. (But then aren't they all great over there.)
Apparently Pallante is out as Chief of the Copyright office. And the clamor is up as to why we don't have a unified IP at the patent and trademark office, kind of a US PTOC. (I guess that would be pronounced Pea-Talk, or PeeTalk, if you wanted to talk dirty.)
Back in 2012, Crouch recommended creating an integrated US Intellectual Property Organization, or USIPO (you sip oh) akin to WIPO for the world of IP.
The argument for an integrated IP approach "... is that many operating businesses relying upon intellectual property (IP) rights typically do not focus on a single form of IP rights but instead take a layered approach that includes some combination of patent, trademark, copyright, contractual, employment, trade secret, and design rights, for instance."
With all the changes happening, or potentially happening, in the IP world this integration seems like a great idea when the time has come.
Let's go with USIPO, not PTOC, on this one.
'via Blog this'
Great article by Dennis Crouch over at Patently-O. (But then aren't they all great over there.)
Apparently Pallante is out as Chief of the Copyright office. And the clamor is up as to why we don't have a unified IP at the patent and trademark office, kind of a US PTOC. (I guess that would be pronounced Pea-Talk, or PeeTalk, if you wanted to talk dirty.)
Back in 2012, Crouch recommended creating an integrated US Intellectual Property Organization, or USIPO (you sip oh) akin to WIPO for the world of IP.
The argument for an integrated IP approach "... is that many operating businesses relying upon intellectual property (IP) rights typically do not focus on a single form of IP rights but instead take a layered approach that includes some combination of patent, trademark, copyright, contractual, employment, trade secret, and design rights, for instance."
With all the changes happening, or potentially happening, in the IP world this integration seems like a great idea when the time has come.
Let's go with USIPO, not PTOC, on this one.
'via Blog this'
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Photographer Files $1 Billion Suit Against Getty for Licensing Her Public Domain Images
Photographer Files $1 Billion Suit Against Getty for Licensing Her Public Domain Images [UPDATED] - Hyperallergic:
Wow. Getty was selling public domain photos to everyone, including the photog herself.
Getty was notifying people with the images that they must pay money to keep using them (on their own web sites, etc.). So the copyright owner, Carol Highsmith, gets a $120 bill for using her own picture on her own web site.
Highsmith had donated the pictures to the library of congress for use by the general public at no charge.
Getty says, no, we were simply providing a service by selling these photos to people.
You say "potato", I say "Stolen Tomato".
Oh, by the way,
Highsmith is a really, really good photographer.
'via Blog this'
Wow. Getty was selling public domain photos to everyone, including the photog herself.
Getty was notifying people with the images that they must pay money to keep using them (on their own web sites, etc.). So the copyright owner, Carol Highsmith, gets a $120 bill for using her own picture on her own web site.
Highsmith had donated the pictures to the library of congress for use by the general public at no charge.
Getty says, no, we were simply providing a service by selling these photos to people.
You say "potato", I say "Stolen Tomato".
Oh, by the way,
Highsmith is a really, really good photographer.
'via Blog this'
Sunday, October 2, 2016
Olivier Scalabre: The next manufacturing revolution is here | TED Talk | TED.com
Olivier Scalabre: The next manufacturing revolution is here | TED Talk | TED.com:
Yes. It is here. The next generation of manufacturing.This is an absolutely spot on TED talk related to the world of manufacturing.
Everyone in the USA wines and complains about the flight of manufacturing from the USA. We don't make anything any more. That's not really true. We still make a lot of stuff, but the percentage of the workforce that makes stuff is a much, much lower percentage.
After 3 major industrial "revolutions" that have lasted 50-60 years each, we are due for another breakthrough technology/process/approach. It has now been about 50 years of slowing productivity. And the next revolution is already here.
Monsieur Olivier has very profound arguments for manufacturing to return onshore. One of his arguments is mass customization that is best done near to market (onshore), especially with the latest technologies.
There's another massive argument that pertains to the US, and not Europe (France). With new technologies of fracking & horizontal drilling, the US is swimming in cheap oil and (nat)gas. A huge proportion of manufacturing has to do with the cost of electricity -- cheap and clean(er) now with the major switches away from coal (toward NatGas and renewables). Transportation is cheap and more efficient. Plus, almost everything manufactured uses oil, particulates and natural gas. All plastics can, and should be manufactured at home.
We have been flaring about half of the NatGas in the US. All we have to do is set up an electric plant (run electric transmission lines) and/or a plastics factory next to the oil fields to capture some of this free energy.
Also, in 2015 and 2016, renewable energy has broken through that foggy glass floor. Without considering any of the externalities of coal, wind and solar are now cheaper for electricity. If the true costs of coal, considering all externalities are 2 to 3 times the price at the meter, then cheaper, better and cleaner energy is available at home. Far better in all respects than any factory in China or India.
Watch the assumptions and assertions in Olivier's presentation and see how much and how quickly it all comes to pass.
'via Blog this'
Yes. It is here. The next generation of manufacturing.This is an absolutely spot on TED talk related to the world of manufacturing.
Everyone in the USA wines and complains about the flight of manufacturing from the USA. We don't make anything any more. That's not really true. We still make a lot of stuff, but the percentage of the workforce that makes stuff is a much, much lower percentage.
After 3 major industrial "revolutions" that have lasted 50-60 years each, we are due for another breakthrough technology/process/approach. It has now been about 50 years of slowing productivity. And the next revolution is already here.
Monsieur Olivier has very profound arguments for manufacturing to return onshore. One of his arguments is mass customization that is best done near to market (onshore), especially with the latest technologies.
There's another massive argument that pertains to the US, and not Europe (France). With new technologies of fracking & horizontal drilling, the US is swimming in cheap oil and (nat)gas. A huge proportion of manufacturing has to do with the cost of electricity -- cheap and clean(er) now with the major switches away from coal (toward NatGas and renewables). Transportation is cheap and more efficient. Plus, almost everything manufactured uses oil, particulates and natural gas. All plastics can, and should be manufactured at home.
We have been flaring about half of the NatGas in the US. All we have to do is set up an electric plant (run electric transmission lines) and/or a plastics factory next to the oil fields to capture some of this free energy.
Also, in 2015 and 2016, renewable energy has broken through that foggy glass floor. Without considering any of the externalities of coal, wind and solar are now cheaper for electricity. If the true costs of coal, considering all externalities are 2 to 3 times the price at the meter, then cheaper, better and cleaner energy is available at home. Far better in all respects than any factory in China or India.
Watch the assumptions and assertions in Olivier's presentation and see how much and how quickly it all comes to pass.
'via Blog this'
Friday, September 2, 2016
PTO 101 worst management Practices. Workers bilked the government of millions by playing hooky, watchdog finds - The Washington Post
Patent office workers bilked the government of millions by playing hooky, watchdog finds - The Washington Post:
The USPTO wins, hands down. They have implemented 101 of the all time worst management practices, all at one time.
It may be worthy of a method patent application since no one has ever considered implementing all know mis-management practices at once in one organization.
In reading the Washington Post article by Lisa Rein, you move from groan and wonderment, to GROAN and bewilderment, to actual PAIN and anger.
All processes are broken as designed. It is reasonably hard to manage with a Union. There is no good rationale for unionization within government, really. Combine that with a cozy relationship where there is no accountability and no direct responsibility.
To accommodate the new technology and new ways possible of working (telework, computer record searches, cloud computing, etc.) they regressed to pre-computer processes, measures and methods.
People who work at home, don't have to log in to work. People who come to work have to time-clock in, but never clock out. People who don't work much during the week, log in huge amounts of overtime and receive big bonuses.
When you read a report like this, you assume that you are likely reading the worst of the worst. This seems to be so prevasive, however, that it is embedded in the culture and the protocols, i.e., standard operating procedure (SOP, or in this case SOL). It appears that this is only a sample, so the problem is likely approximately a multiple of the problem. That is, the report is not a measure of the problem, but can be used to generate a huge estimate of how BIG the problem really is.
WHATTTT!
This is painful to read at so many levels. This is a case study of government failure, management structure decay, and leadership incompetence. It is all the best of bad leadership practices integrated into one office.
We at SBP love innovation and want to see the USPTO do the best job possible for the world of innovation. We at SBP love telework, and believe telecommuting is one of the easiest, fastest, and bestest ways to start improving our carbon footprint (while savings massive amounts of time and money doing so).
The only bright spot in the whole report is that poor performers are monitored (read managed) and consequently only 4% of the identifiable problems of fraud come from the poor performers. Good news, poor performers don't do a very good job, but they also don't do a spectacular job of cheating taxpayer, either.
Managers are obviously a huge part of the problem in so many ways and at so many levels. This whole environment is not salvageable; congress needs to kill off everything USPTO related, and rebuild the organization with proper structure and incentives.
Oh this is ugly...
Painfully, UGLY!
'via Blog this'
The USPTO wins, hands down. They have implemented 101 of the all time worst management practices, all at one time.
It may be worthy of a method patent application since no one has ever considered implementing all know mis-management practices at once in one organization.
In reading the Washington Post article by Lisa Rein, you move from groan and wonderment, to GROAN and bewilderment, to actual PAIN and anger.
All processes are broken as designed. It is reasonably hard to manage with a Union. There is no good rationale for unionization within government, really. Combine that with a cozy relationship where there is no accountability and no direct responsibility.
To accommodate the new technology and new ways possible of working (telework, computer record searches, cloud computing, etc.) they regressed to pre-computer processes, measures and methods.
People who work at home, don't have to log in to work. People who come to work have to time-clock in, but never clock out. People who don't work much during the week, log in huge amounts of overtime and receive big bonuses.
When you read a report like this, you assume that you are likely reading the worst of the worst. This seems to be so prevasive, however, that it is embedded in the culture and the protocols, i.e., standard operating procedure (SOP, or in this case SOL). It appears that this is only a sample, so the problem is likely approximately a multiple of the problem. That is, the report is not a measure of the problem, but can be used to generate a huge estimate of how BIG the problem really is.
WHATTTT!
This is painful to read at so many levels. This is a case study of government failure, management structure decay, and leadership incompetence. It is all the best of bad leadership practices integrated into one office.
We at SBP love innovation and want to see the USPTO do the best job possible for the world of innovation. We at SBP love telework, and believe telecommuting is one of the easiest, fastest, and bestest ways to start improving our carbon footprint (while savings massive amounts of time and money doing so).
The only bright spot in the whole report is that poor performers are monitored (read managed) and consequently only 4% of the identifiable problems of fraud come from the poor performers. Good news, poor performers don't do a very good job, but they also don't do a spectacular job of cheating taxpayer, either.
Managers are obviously a huge part of the problem in so many ways and at so many levels. This whole environment is not salvageable; congress needs to kill off everything USPTO related, and rebuild the organization with proper structure and incentives.
Oh this is ugly...
Painfully, UGLY!
'via Blog this'
Thursday, September 1, 2016
The world's first super light folding electric bike | YikeBike
The world's first super light folding electric bike | YikeBike:
Even cooler than the Segway, and multiple times as functional.
Give a look at this YikeBike. When you see this bike, you will say Yikes!
It is reminisce of the old High Wheeler bikes with the monster wheel in front, and no gears (1-speed). But with a twist.
The question to ask is this new bike a true invention? Is it innovation? Or is it both?
It won the Time Magazine's intention of the year in 2009. Finalist in Nobel's Prize for Sustainability.
Part of that question might be answered by how many patents the technology harbors.
The main international PCT patent (2008-2009) has been filed in about 8 countries and does not appear to be issued. There are other interesting patent technologies integrated into the design. Here's the main patent WO2010007516A1 from the EPO.
It seems like a great alternative to the idea of our usual approach to jump into our SUV and drive a few streets to work or for a latte -- 180 pound person being transported by a 2,000 vehicle using a 300-400 horse power motor.
This idea seems to solve several problems with the bike as a mode of transportation, some problems that we never really knew we had.
When you look at the product, you will wonder where the motor and the batteries hide.
How does it keep from falling over in 3 different directions?
What is a "farthing" and how can it possibly be considered a great selling point? Even if you call it a "mini-farthing". Do we really need a secondary axis, orthogonal to the primary axis?
Can you take your YikeBike on your man bike (Harley) without being called out for having a "girlie-man bike"?
Where can you get a YikeBike? Apparently, they have free international shipping.
YikeBike comes with "the freedom to park wherever I DAMN please!"
Will people say, "Wow", "Cool" and "hip", or will they say:
"Yikes!"???
'via Blog this'
Even cooler than the Segway, and multiple times as functional.
Give a look at this YikeBike. When you see this bike, you will say Yikes!
It is reminisce of the old High Wheeler bikes with the monster wheel in front, and no gears (1-speed). But with a twist.
The question to ask is this new bike a true invention? Is it innovation? Or is it both?
It won the Time Magazine's intention of the year in 2009. Finalist in Nobel's Prize for Sustainability.
Part of that question might be answered by how many patents the technology harbors.
The main international PCT patent (2008-2009) has been filed in about 8 countries and does not appear to be issued. There are other interesting patent technologies integrated into the design. Here's the main patent WO2010007516A1 from the EPO.
It seems like a great alternative to the idea of our usual approach to jump into our SUV and drive a few streets to work or for a latte -- 180 pound person being transported by a 2,000 vehicle using a 300-400 horse power motor.
This idea seems to solve several problems with the bike as a mode of transportation, some problems that we never really knew we had.
When you look at the product, you will wonder where the motor and the batteries hide.
How does it keep from falling over in 3 different directions?
What is a "farthing" and how can it possibly be considered a great selling point? Even if you call it a "mini-farthing". Do we really need a secondary axis, orthogonal to the primary axis?
Can you take your YikeBike on your man bike (Harley) without being called out for having a "girlie-man bike"?
Where can you get a YikeBike? Apparently, they have free international shipping.
YikeBike comes with "the freedom to park wherever I DAMN please!"
Will people say, "Wow", "Cool" and "hip", or will they say:
"Yikes!"???
Friday, July 22, 2016
Stronger Chinese Patent Laws Also Help U.S. Companies - WSJ
Stronger Chinese Patent Laws Also Help U.S. Companies - WSJ:
China is blasting past the USA in the patent world. They have already been the most busy patent office in the world for several years.
But now they are the office with the most issued patents: 359,000 issues, up 45% from 2014. WoW!
And we, in the USA are down 1% to below 300k.
Interesting that they pay up to $4,500 (30,000 yuan) for patents. That's probably more than full reimbursement for the full patent costs in China. People could make money by taking patent applications elsewhere (non PCT) and file them in China. And, that's apparently what people did. It seems that the motive to get paid the government subsidies for issued patents would incentivate a nice bribery market.
China first stepped into the world of intellectual property in 1985 when joining the World Trade Organization.
Many foreign companies are able to sue, successfully, in China. But, of course, they would only sue once they knew they have a clear-cut case and inspected the political landscape.
I still think that part of the massive move to China for IP is to help cut off the infringers at both ends of the product pirating pipeline from China to USA/EU/Japan: manufacture, distributor/exporter, retailer, and seller.
"Serious obstacles" of IP in China for foreign companies by the State Department is, by all measures an understatement. However, there seems to be progress.
Note that this article is more complete than the one printed in the paper.
'via Blog this'
China is blasting past the USA in the patent world. They have already been the most busy patent office in the world for several years.
But now they are the office with the most issued patents: 359,000 issues, up 45% from 2014. WoW!
And we, in the USA are down 1% to below 300k.
Interesting that they pay up to $4,500 (30,000 yuan) for patents. That's probably more than full reimbursement for the full patent costs in China. People could make money by taking patent applications elsewhere (non PCT) and file them in China. And, that's apparently what people did. It seems that the motive to get paid the government subsidies for issued patents would incentivate a nice bribery market.
China first stepped into the world of intellectual property in 1985 when joining the World Trade Organization.
Many foreign companies are able to sue, successfully, in China. But, of course, they would only sue once they knew they have a clear-cut case and inspected the political landscape.
I still think that part of the massive move to China for IP is to help cut off the infringers at both ends of the product pirating pipeline from China to USA/EU/Japan: manufacture, distributor/exporter, retailer, and seller.
"Serious obstacles" of IP in China for foreign companies by the State Department is, by all measures an understatement. However, there seems to be progress.
Note that this article is more complete than the one printed in the paper.
'via Blog this'
Monday, July 18, 2016
ARM Holdings is giving up their "holding" to Sprint/SoftBank
ARM Holdings, the maker of chips and chip making technology has week a favorite here at IPZine. They are basically an IP company holding lots of patents on lots of stuff. They specialize in energy-efficient, reduced instruction set (RISC) chip technology; build it and then license it out to chip makers.
They have really taken off into the work of the Internet of Things.
Today SoftBank (parent of Sprint) has offered to by ARMH in an all cash bid. The stock is up 50% today. Even at this elevated price, the price-to-earnings ratio is 70!. Compare that to Intel (INTC) with a paltry PE of 15. Profit margin of 35% vs 20% for INTC.
ARM has remained independent and resisted the various take-over pressures. Until now. This changes somewhat the ARM dynamic of licensing tech to multiple players and making lots of money from licensing revenues (nearly pure profit). ARM has focused on tools and R&D and left the heavy work of manufacturing, distribution, etc. to their clients.
This is probably a good time to start getting out of the stock; SoftBand (Sprint) is not nearly the same type of investment. Sprint is more of a utility play, not R&D.
The drop in British Pound has made ARMH a far better deal to acquire. (ARMH is UK based.)
On a separate note, SoftBank's interests in buying up chip makers might become more complicated with ARM Holdings, in the company's holdings.
In the end, the independence of ARM Holdings didn't hold.
They have really taken off into the work of the Internet of Things.
Today SoftBank (parent of Sprint) has offered to by ARMH in an all cash bid. The stock is up 50% today. Even at this elevated price, the price-to-earnings ratio is 70!. Compare that to Intel (INTC) with a paltry PE of 15. Profit margin of 35% vs 20% for INTC.
ARM has remained independent and resisted the various take-over pressures. Until now. This changes somewhat the ARM dynamic of licensing tech to multiple players and making lots of money from licensing revenues (nearly pure profit). ARM has focused on tools and R&D and left the heavy work of manufacturing, distribution, etc. to their clients.
This is probably a good time to start getting out of the stock; SoftBand (Sprint) is not nearly the same type of investment. Sprint is more of a utility play, not R&D.
The drop in British Pound has made ARMH a far better deal to acquire. (ARMH is UK based.)
On a separate note, SoftBank's interests in buying up chip makers might become more complicated with ARM Holdings, in the company's holdings.
In the end, the independence of ARM Holdings didn't hold.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)