Medical Nanobot Cleaning Infection

Inventors Digest, in cooperation with IPWatchdog, is showcasing several essays deserving of honorable mention.  The first in this series appears below.

Inventors Digest held a youth innovation essay contest, in part to celebrate National Inventors Month, last August. The four winning essays are at InventorsDigest.com.  The magazine received and reviewed some 400 essays from across the country. The following illustrate the creativity and optimism of today’s youth. “The level of competition was extremely high, making selection of just four winners a tough task,” said Inventors Digest editor Mike Drummond.

Nanobots – An Invention of the Future

By Hannah Joy Coad, 17, Classical Christian Academy, Sagle, Idaho

Our world will be dramatically different 50 years from today. In the year 2059 people will be living in ways beyond what most can imagine, will have new ways of transportation, and there will be new technology including medical advancements that will substantially change our lives.

Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State

As first reported by Bartholomew Sullivan of The Commercial Appeal, last week, on October 22, 2009, thirty-four members of Congress wrote a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urging her to steadfastly support strong intellectual property rights and not to given in to international demands that would weaken intellectual property rights, particularly patent rights. The concern expressed by these members of Congress centers around negotiations attempting to obtain an international agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCCC). This letter references a 432-0 vote in the United States House of Representatives on June 10, 2009, relative to an amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Bill, which stated that the United States “should prevent any weakening of, and ensure robust compliance with and enforcement of, existing international legal requirements as of the date of the enactment of this Act for the protection of intellectual property rights related to energy or environmental technology” in order to “protect American jobs, spur economic growth, and promote a ‘Green Economy.’”

Jim Greenwood, BIO CEO

A study released today by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) provides first-of-its-kind data on the importance of university/industry research and development partnerships to the U.S. economy. The study of university technology licensing from 1996 to 2007 shows a $187 billion dollar positive impact on the U.S. Gross National Product (GNP) and a $457 billion addition to gross industrial output, using very conservative models.

“It has long been believed that the Bayh-Dole Act, which permits and encourages industry to partner with research universities to turn federally-funded basic research into new and valuable products, is a critical factor in driving America’s innovation economy. Indeed, because of this inspired piece of legislation, the U.S. leads the world in commercializing university-based research to create new companies and good, high-paying jobs throughout the country,” stated BIO President & CEO Jim Greenwood. “This new study provides the evidence to back up that belief.”

At 6 p.m. CST on November 10, 2009, Foundation Surgical Hospital will present a live webcast of a partial knee replacement featuring the iUni® G2 Personalized Knee Resurfacing System. The live procedure will be performed by Dr. Terry Clyburn and Dr. Brian Parsley from Foundation Surgical Hospital in Houston, Texas. During the webcast, the viewing audience can email questions to the doctors.  The patented technology that will be used during the procedure comes from ConforMIS, Inc., a privately-held company that develops and commercializes medical devices for osteoarthritis treatment and joint damage, which allegedly holds proprietary rights to more than 250 patents and patent applications in the areas of imaging software, image processing, implant design, surgical techniques, instrumentation, and manufacturing.  While this announcement tied together with discussion of proprietary technology is likely to capture a lot of attention for both Foundation Surgical Hospital and ConforMIS, ConforMIS has missed an excellent opportunity to tout its technology to a sophisticated audience by not including any patent numbers in the press release, and not having such information findable on its website.

On the same day – October 22, 2009 – that an Apple patent application relating to embedded advertisements in an operating system published, the Redmond Giant, Microsoft Corporation, had US Patent Application 20090265604 publish, which seeks to protect a method for displaying a graphical representation of the vitality of a social network. This patent application was filed on April 21, 2008, and is one of many related to social networking that Microsoft has pending presently.  A search of Patent Office recordings using FreePatentsOnline.com shows there are 19 issued US patents to Microsoft containing the term “social network” or “social networking” and 279 pending US patent applications filed by Microsoft containing one or the other of those terms.  This has become an all to familiar business plan for Microsoft, namely scrambling to catch up with whatever the current hot trend is.  Of particular note, Microsoft has in recent years been late to the party with respect to portable MP3 players, only introducing the Zune once the iPod had established industry dominance.  Microsoft has also been late to the search engine business, feverishly attempting to catch up to Google; they have come to the video gaming market only to be behind Sony PlayStation; and they have famously struggled with operating system failures, requiring a completely new OS to be unveiled just days ago in order to address the embarrassing failure of Vista.

Steve Jobs, with hair. His official photo from his Apple Bio page.

Earlier today a pending non-provisional utility patent application assigned to Apple Computer published.  This application, US Patent Application 20090265214, is titled Advertisement in Operating System, and covers exactly what the title implies; namely an operating system that is capable of displaying a variety of advertisements to users. You are likely to have heard of the first listed inventor, Steven Jobs, the CEO and co-founder of Apple Computer, Inc. While it is difficult to know the purpose and strategy behind a patent application, the attorneys at Fish & Richardson in Minneapolis, Minnesota, who drafted and filed the patent application certainly did a very good job describing just about every conceivable feature and alternative that could coincide with the displaying of advertisements to users of an operating system. It almost sounds funny to call the displaying of advertisements within an operating system “a feature,” particularly given the annoying, ubiquitous and ever more intrusive nature of advertising these days. In any event, the patent application is well written, albeit it written in pre-Bilski style at least with respect to the claims. If Apple does want to pursue this all the way to a patent I suspect there will be plenty of opportunity to do so, and there will certainly be allowable claims that fall within this disclosure.

When it comes to talking with their kids, parents say the topics of math and science are harder to discuss than drug abuse, according to a survey of 561 adults who have children ages 5 to 18. The survey was conducted online between Sept. 23 and 28, 2009 by Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates on behalf of Intel Corporation, and is reported to have a margin of error of +/- 4.14 percent. The survey found that although more than 50 percent of parents rank math or science as the subjects most critical to their children’s future success, they report discomfort talking to their children about these subjects. In fact, nearly a quarter of parents who admit to being less involved in their child’s math and science education than they would like say that a key barrier is their own lack of understanding of these subjects. On top of this, last week, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) revealed that fewer than 40% of fourth-graders and eighth-graders in the United States are proficient in math.

Whenever I travel I always take my laptop, and thanks to a Verizon USB wireless modem I can stay connected pretty much anywhere, although twice a year when I am in Chicago getting any signal is a challenge.  While I am not such a dinosaur that I don’t have a cell phone, I had resisted the Blackberry temptation, at least right up until my cell phone found itself being left in the pocket of a pair of jeans that was then washed.  Not surprisingly, that was the end of the useful life for my Motorola Krzr, which had been extremely dependable.  So I decided it was time to at least consider a Blackberry, and when I went to Verizon I quickly gravitated to the Blackberry Tour, which is a handsome phone that allegedly offers a lot of functionality.  The key being the word “allegedly.”  I have since learned from several others that the problems I was experiencing with the Blackberry Tour are not unique, and indeed have been experienced by many. I realize this post is off topic, but attorneys and other professionals who largely make up the IPWatchdog Blog audience have to make up the overwhelming percentage of Blackberry customers, so I thought I would share my experiences, which were not at all good.

I seem to have started a firestorm by writing a post openly questioning how a patent attorney (i.e., Stephan Kinsella) could be of the opinion that it is preferable to have weak patent rights.  I openly questioned how and why any individual or corporation would hire a patent attorney who does not believe in the patent system and seems to think that patents are bad, perhaps even evil, and certainly the preferable model would be to have exceptionally limited rights.  I appreciate the debate that is ongoing in the comments to that article, but I remain extremely confused regarding the irrational arguments being made.  It seems facts are largely being ignored, and when they are being used they are distort reality, history and truth.  When I make direct statements about facts and history off handed non-responsive and dismissive statements are made along the lines of “if you hold that belief it is obvious you don’t understand.”  Saying that is fine, but that needs to be backed up with facts and argument, which is not happening.  We all know why that isn’t happening, namely because there are no facts or legitimate arguments that can be made to counter what I am saying, so rather than addressing them an artificially zen approach to deflecting and recasting, even ridiculing, is preferred.  Notwithstanding, below are my thoughts regarding some of what is being said.

I stumbled across an interesting article today from The Post and Courier regarding how interest in US patents is picking up in Cuba.  First, it was interesting enough to learn that it is possible for companies and individuals in Cuba to obtain a US patent given how Cuba and the US have been on rather inhospitable terms for many decades.  It was also interesting today to see this article, which discusses how since 2000 there has been a steep rise in patent applications from Cuba, on the same day that the typically anti-patent blog Tech Dirt published What Kind of Innovations Do Patent Encourage? In all fairness to Tech Dirt, which I rarely if ever agree with, the post today was extremely even-handed and even solicited input from those who disagree with the thesis that patents do not promote the right kind of innovation.  The belief is that patents prevent “vertical innovation” and instead promote “horizontal innovation.”  Apparently, patents prevent from building onto patented technology so innovation never really advances with patents and all you can hope for is modest improvements.  Never mind that the thesis ignores reality and that those with a sophisticated understanding of patent laws and a strategy understand that companies build on patented technology constantly, and that is in and of itself a strategy, and a wise one at that.  Never mind that blocking patents exist in every technology and that causes fragility of a patent portfolio and causes every company to continue the invention march or risk obscurity.  See, when you ignore facts and what actually happens such a thesis makes perfect sense.

Let me set the record straight from the start. I do not agree with President Obama on much, and I voted for and supported John McCain dating all the way back to his first run for President. Having said this, it is impossible to ignore the fact that so far President Obama and his Administration is saying all the right things with respect to innovation and patents, and there is real cause for optimism, at least if you believe that innovation and strong patent rights will lead to a better economy and leverage what Americans do best, which is solve problems with ingenuity and innovation. Not only has President Obama appointed a patent attorney to run the Patent Office, which is sadly revolutionary, but when he speaks of innovation his words sound Reaganesque. This has never been more apparent than in his speech on innovation and sustainable growth delivered at Hudson Valley Community College in Troy, New York, on Monday, September 21, 2009.

David Kappos at IPO

Last week USPTO Director David Kappos explained during his speech at IPO that intellectual property law “is widely recognized as the engine that drives our information age economy, maintains our competitiveness and is responsible for creating and sustaining tens of millions of U.S. jobs.” I have been beating this drum now for several years, and despite the obvious and indisputable correlation between innovation and economic expansion that leads to new jobs, the old guard at the USPTO simply couldn’t or wouldn’t understand. It would seem that the days of shuffling chairs on the Titanic are over, and if nothing else at least the USPTO has a leader that seems to understand the link between recessions, start-up companies forming and increased innovation leading to new industries that create jobs. Of course, it certainly helps that Kappos is a patent attorney and was responsible for being Captain of the IBM intellectual property ship, which after all is really all IBM has because without intellectual property protection, particularly without patent protection, IBM would be just three random letters rather than one of America’s mega-corporations that provides jobs.

Mike Drummond, Inventors Digest

Mike Drummond, the Editor-in-Chief of Inventors Digest Magazine and a decorated journalist, has just  joined the Board of Directors of American Innovators for Patent Reform (AIPR).  AIPR, headquartered in New York, represents a broad constituency of American innovators and innovation stakeholders, including inventors, engineers, researchers, entrepreneurs, patent owners, investors, small businesses, and intellectual property professionals such as patent attorneys, patent agents, tech transfer managers and licensing executives.  Most recently, AIPR has opposed the Patent Reform Act of 2009, which some vocal critics have called “patent deform.”   AIPR is on record as opposing proposed apportionment of damages, post grant opposition and a change to the first-to-file regime, all sensible positions and views that I personally hold myself. When reached for comment, Drummond said: “Ideally, the AIPR will be one of those bodies that becomes irrelevant – we do our job so successfully that odious versions of patent reform die and meritorious patent changes take root. It will be interesting to see what sort of posture the new head of the USPTO takes, and what sort of fight we’re in for.”

This post is long over due, and quite frankly it is because I thought I had already posted it several months ago. As I am getting back into the swing of things and gearing up to write more about software, software patents, Parts III and IV of the History of Software Patents (see Part 1 and Part 2), I want to highly recommend The Genie in the Machine: How Computer-Automated Inventing is Revolutionizing Law and Business, written by Robert Plotkin (who not too long ago wrote Why Wishes Should be Patentable for this blog), a patent attorney located in Boston, MA, who is also an Adjunct Professor of Law at Boston University. If you are pro-software patent you need to read this book because it will likely give you some wonderful insights that you can use to help you convince non-believers, and maybe even persuade a patent examiner or two. If you are anti-software patent I would also recommend you read this book as well. Plotkin’s positions are somewhat radical in that not only does he think software should be patented, but he wishes should be patentable as well, and that is exactly what will happen as computer automated inventing becomes increasingly more realistic.

Last week I gave an interview to Mark McCarty at Medical Device Daily, which published on Monday, August 17, 2009.  We had a good conversation for almost two hours about all kinds of patent topics.  Sometimes when you talk to reporters you never really know whether they are following what you are saying, whether they will wait for that one pithy quote that you wish you could dial back as soon as it leaves your mouth, or whether you are going to spend a ton of time talking to them only to get little or no mention at all in the article.  I have had my share of ups and downs with reporters, and recently even spent multiple days helping a reporter who was doing a series of hard-hitting investigative articles on the state of the patent system, only to never get mentioned in any of the articles.  So you never know what will happen, but I always try and play it straight and make myself available whenever possible.  Being a writer myself, I know the importance of a deadline, so I am always willing to comply.  In any event, during my conversations with McCarty he asked me a question that no one had ever asked me before, but one that I have given a lot of thought about over the years.  He asked the simple question: “What should a CEO know about patents and patent law?”  I almost had to pinch myself.

As is the case with all recessions or economic downturns, more and more people are turning to inventing.  This is not at all surprising, and is in fact exactly what you would expect.  When finances are difficult people look to themselves for assistance, and to figure out how they can make a better tomorrow without relying on anyone else.  This is also true for professional inventors, many who lose jobs during difficult economic times.  As more and more corporations do exactly the wrong thing during a recession, namely downsize, spend less on research and development and essentially shoot themselves in the foot, there are a lot of creative, intelligent and energetic people who lose their jobs.  Many of these people have had ideas of their own, but did not have time to pursue them since they are employed full time.  As these people get laid off or outright released, opportunity costs approach zero and they figure that rather than spending endless days looking for work that does not exist, perhaps the better approach is to dust off old ideas and plans and turn them into a reality.

Earlier today Rodger Gooch, a client of mine appeared on the national morning show — Fox & Friends.  Rodger came to me some time ago in order to protect his invention, which he dubbed Data Center in a Row.  We have filed a couple patent applications for Rodger, and there are more inventions in the works.  Rodger is a great guy who found himself hit hard by the recession, so he turned to inventing.  Rodger sold his business before the recession started, and was going to stay on as a consultant and eventually ease into retirement.  Then the recession hit and there was not enough work, so Rodger was not needed.  Then, as if that wasn’t enough, the stock market took a huge hit, so now Rodger was without work and his retirement savings took a severe hit.  Rodger then turned to inventing, and he is now doing quite well thanks to orders coming in at a brisk pace because his invention is a significant improvement over anything else on the market.

In honor of National Inventors Month in August, Inventors Digest magazine and partners are sponsoring the 2059 Essay Contest for middle school and high school students.  IPWatchdog.com is proud to be one of the sponsors for this exciting essay contest, which asks those in ages 12 to 17 to write a 500 word (or less) essay on a technology, tool, product or service will shape our lives in the year 2059.  As the contest information explains: “In 1959, the internal pacemaker, the microchip, the Barbie doll and pantyhose were invented. Each was significant in its own right. But that was so 50 years ago.”  Then the assignment asks: “What will the world look like in 2059?”  This should be an interesting and educational opportunity for teens, which will allow them to show their imagination and creativity in envisioning the future, and perhaps even spark an interest in Science Fiction as well.  As we all know, what is science fiction today becomes science fact tomorrow, as most recently evidenced by scientists transporting matter (a la Star Trek) and feverishly working on cloaking technology (a la Star Trek and Harry Potter).  There are also cool prizes, such as a laptop, the winning essay being published in Inventors Digest magazine and more!

Today in the Science section of USA Today, page 6D, an article titled Hurricane-calming technology?  Gates has plan appeared.  I was interviewed by Dan Vergano at USA Today yesterday regarding the various patents filed by Bill Gates, which I also wrote about in an article titled Bill Gates Seeks Patent on Hurricane Prevention.  The USA Today’s article was a good read and quoted me accurately, which is always nice.  The article also contained some interesting information from a couple of hurricane experts who reached the same conclusion that I did regarding the invention described in the patents.  Gates and the other inventors have described how to use deeper, cold ocean water to mix with warmer surface water to starve a hurricane of fuel, which would lead the hurricane to be reduced in strength or potentially completely dissipated if the surface temperature can be cooled enough.  The science works out and it is easy to see that the invention could be successful.  The magnitude of the undertaking to accomplish the goals of the invention are truly massive and perhaps unimaginable, but the invention would work.  Thus, the invention is plausible, but likely cost prohibitive based on technology available today.

Last week, on July 8, 2009, former Presidential Candidate, former Vermont Governor and former Chair of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean stepped into the health reform debate, discussing in an Op-ed piece published by TheHill.com. It is not surprising that Dean, who is a Medical Doctor and politician, would attempt to let his positions on health reform be known. What is perhaps surprising is that Dean decided to discuss patent reform, rather than keeping with the larger policy matters swirling around the debate. What is downright shocking is that I agree with Howard Dean.  To my knowledge this is the first time I have ever agreed with Dean, although I have always liked him because I feel (perhaps naively) that he is a man of principle. I would prefer elected officials to be straight forward and real, and Dean is certainly both of those things. As it turns out, Dean is also right on the issue of patent reform, at least insofar as biosimilars (sometimes call “follow on biologics) are concerned, which clearly need longer protection than President Obama wants to provide.