Perpetual Innovation

Author: BizMan

  • Big winners of Renewable Energy: IP and Manufacturing

    Renewable Energy Patents in 2019

    As you look at the companies
    that are winners in Renewable Energy (RE) you have distinct winners (and
    losers, especially in the fossil fuel world). But there are entire countries
    that stand to win as well. Several countries have become exporters of energy,
    for example, when they produce more regional energy than they can use. I like
    the image set related to 25 areas/countries that are winners in Renewable
    Energy (at     LoveMoney.com,
    The world’s greenest nations that are reaping the rewards    ). Here’s Love/Money’s
    take on China, both in terms of the technology (Intellectual Property) and the
    manufacturing/exporting:

    “Of all patents for renewable energy issued globally, as of 2016 China
    has 29%. That’s more than 150,000 patents, which underlines the focus of
    China’s investment in the industry. So it’s not a shock that the country
    has been dubbed a “renewable energy superpower” in a recent report issued
    by the Global Commission on the Geopolitics of Energy Transformation. The
    report argued that, as renewables come to fossil fuels globally, new energy
    leaders will emerge    .    ”
    The US had only 100,000
    patents (vs 150,000 for China) and Europe had 75,000 in renewables according to
    the Forbesanalysis in Jan 2019.  Overall,
    patents in renewables has made impressive progress, even though RE patents are
    only 1% of all patents (and other high-tech categories like computers are about
    6%). Check out the great article at the World Intellectual Property
    Organization (WIPO) on RenewableEnergy patents by James Nurton. More than half of the RE patents through
    the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) are in solar. Fuel Cell technology has
    consistently exceeded Wind in terms of patents. Fuel Cell (using hydrogen) is
    important because it can function as battery, battery backup, stationary power
    and portable power. Geothermal is trivial are of RE patent activity. When the
    RE “international” patents (PCTs) are registered at the national level the
    first three countries are: Japan, USA, and Germany.
    On the
    manufacturing/exporting side, China has been a huge producer of the world’s
    renewables (solar, wind and more). Here’s how LoveMoneysummarized Chinese production of RE:
     “China
    is currently the world’s largest exporter of solar panels, wind turbines,
    batteries and electric vehicles. The country is well-suited to wind power
    production, and it has an estimated potential capacity of 2,380 gigawatts.
    What’s more, many Chinese companies are investing in renewables    .”
    Keep in mind that many things sustainable are lower tech,
    not higher tech. Much, if not most of sustainable solutions does not require
    break-through solutions. Using less energy can be very low tech (turning the
    lights out when out). Driving less (by telework) can be no tech. But in the cases
    where leading tech can be a major competitive advantage, he owners of IP will
    win.
    Look also at GlobalTrends in Renewable Energy Investment in 2019 by UN Environment Program and
    Bloomberg. Where is RE coming from? The investment from 2010 through 2019 has
    been $2.6T with 52% in Solar and $41% in Wind.
    And the final question: how do we get to 100% renewable
    energy in a reasonably short period of time?
    #RenewableEnergy #REPatents #IntellectualProperty
    #IntellZine #SustainZine #WIPO #Sustainability #PCT #REInvestment #Solar #Wind
    #RE100

  • Efficient Infringement 2: Which is Bigger Toll? EI or Patent Troll?

    In
    Part 1 on February 13, “    Inequality
    finds a place in IP where Efficient Infringement Runs Wild    ,”
    we emphasized the David vs Goliath nature of patent holding startups trying to
    get justice against a mega-tech infringer. 
    Infringement is somehow legally transformed because it is efficient – an
    odd attempt at rationalizing an illegal action. (Note the new location of our
    IP Zine and all past blog posts are at     www.IntellZine.com.) 
    Well, just as we acknowledge that, “hope springs
    eternal,” as Apple’s appeal in an infringement case was rejected (Bloomberg/LA
    Times, Feb 24, 2020).  The US Supreme
    Court refused to consider the tech giant’s attempt to avoid paying upwards of
    $1B in patent damages to VirnetX Holding Company, a Nevada company with less
    than $2M in annual revenue.  VirnetX
    somehow managed to tough it out for a decade trying to get Apple to pay
    royalties on patents for secure communications technology.
    Of
    the long list of things to fix in IP law, efficient infringment is certainly
    one of them.  Somehow, infringement cases
    must be settled far more rapidly than today’s decade long slogging through the
    mud.  The market disappears in ten years,
    there is no longer revenue available to fight over.
    From The LA Times, “The high court denied Apple’s
    petition arguing that a $439-million judgement from the first of two cases
    brought by VirnetX was ‘grossly excessive’ and should be thrown out… A second
    case not currently before the high court, resulted in a $503-million verdict
    over the same patents and newer Apple products.” (    https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-02-24/apple-rebuffed-supreme-court-billion-facetime-patent)  
    This ruling was nearly one month after a federal jury
    in Los Angeles ruled that Apple and Broadcom must pay $1.1B in damages to
    Caltech for infringing on WiFi patents.  That’s
    right, California Institute of Technology (    http://www.caltech.edu/),
    the university in Pasadena California! What’s a school gonna do with patent
    technology anyway? Apple was ordered to pay $837M, Broadcom Inc $270.2M.  “It’s the biggest jury verdict of any kind so
    far in 2020 and the sixth largest patent verdict of all time, according to
    Bloomberg data.” (    https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-01-29/caltech-wins-a-1-1-billion-jury-verdict-against-apple-and-broadcom)
    Apple’s strategy is based on maintaining the Company’s high profit margin which
    demands fighting for years in various courts. 
    Does “efficient infringement” ring a bell here?  (The $838M won by Caltech is about one day of
    sales and 1.5% of the company’s $55.3B net profit in 2019.)
    Apple and Broadcom lose Caltech infringement case
    But wait, there’s more. Apple’s appeal to the US
    Supreme Court did not go well for Apple. On March 13, 2020, the US Supreme
    Court rejected the opportunity to review the case (originating in Texas, of
    course). The final settlement that Apple agreed to pay was $454M to VirnetX.  Now down to about half a day of sales and
    0.8% of the company’s net profit in 2019. Roughly $1 for each of the 400M
    devices that VirnetX claims patent infringement. (See     here
    for one discussion of case-closed.)
    So, Apple argues, essentially, “efficient infringement”,
    which we will return to in a second. But VirnetX has been ungraciously referred
    to as a Patent Troll, a Nevada corporation operating out of a Troll Hole in
    Texas. Here’s an example of articles during the decade by Zack Epstein in the
    NY Post:     https://nypost.com/2018/04/11/apple-ordered-to-pay-half-a-billion-dollars-in-damages-to-patent-troll/
    Patent
    Trolls    . The more derogatory term, but sometimes more
    accurate, is patent troll; other
    related terms are patent holding company
    (PHC), patent assertion entity (PAE),
    and non-practicing entity (NPE).
    Wikipedia has a good, but not especially strong, page on     Patent Trolls.
    The advantage of going back to Wikipedia is that it is dynamic and usually is
    updated perpetually by people. This Apple case is in the article, but not
    updated for 2020. Anyone can update, so please consider going and improving the
    article.
    There is the dilemma to choose between the lesser of
    two evils: the     toll
    of the patent troll     or the stealth of efficient infringement.  It
    is hard to support VinnetX, and the tolls of patent trolls.  Our values state that deliberate attempts to
    extort money on less-than-honorable pretenses cannot be condoned.  We have     several
    blogs posts about Patent Troll     and their negative
    impact on innovation and economic productivity. 
    On the other hand, efficient
    infringement     is the result of a deliberate – with malice of foresight –
    corporate strategy.  It is callous and
    predatory.  It is practiced by companies
    that are unquestioned technical powers and have major share in their
    markets.  They have uncommon market power
    and use it with against rivals.  In
    particular, these companies prey on start-up entrepreneurs if their new
    technology is a threat or an opportunity.
    Neither party is honorable in any way, but the greater
    of the evils is efficient infringement. 
    It would be a more positive impact on innovation if efficient
    infringement became too expensive by way of damages to risk continued
    practices.  The courts need to look just
    at the question of infringement and the issue of market power to make this
    call.
    These efficient infringement courtroom dramas go on
    and on, and on and on. A decade in this case. 
    Get the picture?  As one of
    several high-tech giants that are apparently doing the same, Apple doesn’t
    anticipate any significant downside. 
    When served a rare injunction, it just moves up the justice stepladder
    until, if necessary, it reaches the summit. 
    To be sure, The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear its appeal must have
    come as a shock.  But, will this change
    behavior?  Not likely.
    Here is another way to cast a harsh spotlight on
    efficient infringement.  The House of
    Representatives should hold hearings when these cases like these reach the
    public eye.  The CEO of the infringing
    company must be subpoenaed to testify whether or not efficient infringement is an accepted corporate policy; does the
    company’s board and CEO approve infringement and willingly will pay damages,
    eventually.  Today, a CEO can hide behind
    legions of lawyers. Being forced to testify in person just might, might change
    strategy.  In addition, Congress should
    make egregious efficient infringement a
    felony, Grand Theft – Intellectual Property punishable by 5-7 years in prison
    and forfeiture of revenues and fines for the key decision maker(s): Chair, CEO
    and CFO.  When enforced, efficient infringement will become a
    relic of a lesser past.
    Here is an afterthought. It is obvious that corporate
    lobbying and campaign contributions have removed any possibility of
    Congressional action to strongly deal with infringement today.  As the economy reopens, many things will
    change.  It would very much benefit the
    entrepreneur if the legal system enforced IP laws to protect the new technology
    inventions we will need.
    #Patents #EfficientInfringement #Infringement
    #PatentTroll #Apple #PAE #NPE

  • Beyond Moore’s law, Beyond Silicone Chips

    Beyond Moore’s law, Beyond Silicone Chips

    Beyond Moore’s law (by Dr Ed Jordan)

    After almost 60 years, Moore’s law, related to the doubling of computing power every year-and-a-half-ish, still holds. At the current exponential speed, there is a brick wall looming in the foreground: the physical limitations of silicon chips. The most straightforward example of how that might impact a company is to look at Intel Corp. But first more on Moore’s law and the more general idea of learning curves.

    (more…)

  • Cool Motor that Runs on Air

    A lot like a perpetual motor: no fool’n.
    As a kid, college really, I was intrigued about the idea of a “perpetual” motor. A motor that ran forever. My idea seemed like it should work, but I had a hard time getting someone to explain why it wouldn’t. My idea was based on the flywheel of the single engine Briggs & Stratton where a magnet on the flywheel creates the spark for the ignition on each rotation. My idea was to have magnets that attract the flywheel and a reverse magnet to repel the flywheel once it got past. But I had the problem that the flywheel would get attracted and stuck. So I found something called paramegnetic materials, materials that repel both positive and negative magnetic forces. All I needed, then is to have a thin sheet of paramagnetic material pass between the attracting magnets to let the flywheel move on to the repelling magnet. Perfect, a perpetual motor.
    I finally got to talk with a Physics professor at USF who explained my small, but subtle issue with the perpetuity of my motor. When you use a magnet, you loose a magnet. It took energy to magnetize a magnet, so the process of using it will deplete it!
    For decades, there have been articles about perpetual motors… But generally they have gone the way of “cold fusion”.
    Here is a very cool article/technology on a motor that runs on air. Liquefied Nitrogen, actually. Very cool. Literally, about -210 C (or -340 F). So, if the internal combustion motor works on the temperature differential before the ignition of fuel and after ignition, the liquid nitrogen concept works in the same way: from really really cold, to cold. Not nearly the same as the 1,000 times differential from gasoline, but still an effective motor. Effective only once you overcome the problem of things freezing up in the process.
    So here’s the great Wired article by Nicola Twilley about the inventor Peter Dearman: A One-Time Poultry Farmer Invents the Future of
    Refrigeration: Mechanical cooling revolutionized the global food supply—and
    accelerated global warming. Peter Dearman’s liquid air engine could change all
    that.
    The thing that Dearman had to overcome is to bring the temp of the super cold nitrogen up enough that it didn’t freeze up the works. (Kind of a reverse of the radiator idea to cool the motor down.)
    So the motor works, not especially efficient, but it works.
    However, your favorite internal combustion engine is very inefficient. Your car is only about 15% efficient. Diesel turbine motors for electricity are generally about 40% efficient, at best… Unless… Unless you need the excess heat. So if you can use the heat, like hot water on a campus environment, then the combined heat and power (CHP) can be very efficient, maybe up to about 70%.
    Imagine if you could use the cool from a liquid nitrogen engine? Say, hypothetically, for refrigerated storage or reefer. (No, not a Jimmy Buffet kind of Reefer!:-) A refrigerated reefer truck.
    And, wa la. You have a really great method of efficiently transporting and simultaneously cooling perishable products.
    The cryogenic reefer truck seems to be really gaining traction (sorry about the pun) within several food chains.
    Very cool!
    Dearman says the nitrogen solution will result in a 40% improvement over diesel in terms of greenhouse gases. If is the nitrogen is liquefied (chilled) by renewable energy the improvement compared to diesel moves up to 95%.
    Even Cooler!
    It also helps to overcome the need for Freon or the replacements for Freon. (Fluorocarbons are a wicked greenhouse gas that blow holes in the ozone layer.)
    With 78% of the Earth’s atmosphere, nitrogen (N) is readily abundant.
    Dearman has several patents related to cryogenics and cryogenic motors.
    Interestingly, it would appear that the same Peter (T?) Dearman is also the inventor of respirators and ventilators back in 1990!

  • Inequality in Efficient Infringement

    Inequality Finds a Place in Intellectual Property (IP) where Efficient Infringement Runs Wild
    Well established. Well understood. Great wealth creates great inequality. Wealth creates its own space, and maintains exclusivity by keeping others out.
    Here, a different view is taken of the inequality condition.  It is a perspective based on corporate wealth – aka corporate greed – masquerading as producing shareowner value.  It is almost axiomatic that when a company scores a major – no, “outstanding” – market success it is compelled to keep the great successes going.  A few outstanding successes include:  Apple’s iPhone, Google’s search engine and ad, Microsoft’s Windows, Ford’s F150, IBM’s Watson, and Coke Cola Company’s Coke.  Companies with successes like these are faced with a profound dilemma: what is the follow-on major winner that produces profits and increased shareowner value?
    CEOs of high tech companies, of consumer product companies, of logistics companies, of pharmaceutical companies, of medical device and drug companies have for the last several decades looked to their Intellectual Property assets as a source of answers to the follow-on question.  Research and Development (R&D) leading to new inventions and products is frequently the best source of value-added enhancement to an established offering, and consequently, to the opportunity to create a new market.  This is, however, the cost causing method as R&D is a heavy burden in most companies and while success can be magnificent, failure is also a possibility.
    A patent system can be strong or it can be weak.  Unfortunately, the US has gone from strong to weak over the past fifteen years.  In a strong system, there is a “presumption of validity” wherein the patent holder’s rights are protected against infringement: infringers are punished and patents are not subject to constant attack in the courts or the Patent Office (USPTO).  In a strong system, investors are far more likely to invest in a product when it has patent protection.  Most new jobs are created by young companies and the majority need funding – especially if they are disruptive and fast-growing.
    A strong patent system is what you should think of as the “play by the rules” method or process of gaining new corporate revenues and market success.  It is conducted on a level playing field.
    In contrast, a weak system is basically the opposite.  The courts tend to rule against the patent holder, established competitors ignore the innovator’s patent and engage in what is termed “efficient infringement” utilizing long, drawn out court processes the innovator cannot afford.  Large and well-established high-tech companies have led the strong-to-weak downward slide by lobbying congress and funding campaigns which resulted in the American Invents Act (AIA) of 2011.  “Google spent $18M on lobbyists the year the AIA was passed…Google wanted a weak patent system because it already dominated the search and internet advertising in 2012…with a 67% market share.  Today, (2018), with a weaker patent system firmly in place and no fear of any innovating competition protected by patents, Google’s market share has increased to almost 80%.”  (Shore, M., 2018, Mar 21, How Google and Big Tech Killed the U.S. Patent System, IPwatchdog.com)
    “Efficient infringement occurs when a company deliberately chooses to infringe a patent because it is cheaper to fight off a legal challenge from an inventor than it is to license the patent.  This practice is especially harmful to small inventors and innovators and it undermines our broader innovation economy.”  (Save the American Inventor, 2019, May 21, www.SaveTheInventor.com)
    In selected circles, this is stated as “efficient infringement is a ‘fiduciary responsibility’ when the costs are less than those in R&D plus product development.”  Huh!  What? Really? Is this saying that Effective Infringement is legal?  It is Stealing!  It is the startup in a garage inventor versus a mega high-tech corporation with very deep pockets taking and using the invention.  The term “infringing” originally applied to a situation where a company accidentally or inadvertently used the same technology (techniques, methods, algorithm, signaling, coding) as the patent what the patent owner claimed (and may have been granted rights to in an issued patent).  In such cases, when the patent owner discovered the infringement, he went to court and got an injunction against the infringer – as cease and desist order.  In most instances, the outcome of follow-on negotiations was that the infringer paid some settlement for past infringement, took a license to the patent, and paid royalties for future sales (usually until the patent expired).
    A strong patent system sounds rather quaint in view of today’s infringement-as-a-corporate-strategy where the infringer drags the patent owner through the courts for years until the inventor and his funding are exhausted.  Here is yet another example of wealth inequality where those with money disadvantage those without.  “Try to assert a patent covering the technology being copied and the Gang of Five will simply petition the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) dragging the patent through inter partes and deveining it of any useful subject matter if the proceedings are instituted.”  (Brachmann, S., 2017, March 17, How tech’s ruling class stifles innovation with efficient infringement, IPWatchdog.com). Gang of Five refers to Google (Alphabet), Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon.
    Meanwhile, back in Washington, DC, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), Chair of the Senate’s Subcommittee on IP, said the Committee would not be able to complete its work on legislation addressing patent eligibility.  “[A]bsent stakeholder consensus, I don’t see a path forward for producing a bill – much less steering it to passage – in this Congress.”  There is no mention of considering strengthening injunctions or treating efficient infringement as the crime it is.  (Borella, M., Feb. 4, 2020, The Zombie Apocalypse of Patent Eligibility Reform and a Possible Escape Route, www.patentdocs.org)
    High tech gets to run free without restraint for at least another year.  Hey look, it’s a fiduciary responsibility.