5 ms·

Here is a true story I have not previously shared on HN... While in law school, in attempt to defray tuition costs, I would order Livestrong style silicone bra

Here is a true story I have not previously shared on HN... While in law school, in attempt to defray tuition costs, I would order Livestrong style silicone bracelets and sell them at Daytona Beach bike week. After tinkering I began working with the manufacturer to mold the silicone bracelets with RFID chips and file a patent. As a law student, I found the patent filing process to bring real world practice to my classroom theory, plus I learned a lot about RFID technology in the process (mostly researching prior art, such as, RFID shopping carts; RFID one time use hospital bands; ect...). However, as a law student I had no practical (financial) way of bringing my idea to market. Nevertheless, I contacted Disney's director of park operations to discuss the potential of my RFID silicone bands acting as park tickets, monetary accounts and the general efficiency RFID bands could have of park operation efficiency (tracking lines, ride times, open seats, ect...). As one might expect I was blown off, given a nice generic response that there is no interest...but sure enough 7-8 years later the parks have incorporated RFID technology through the use of...silicone bands. I think such a story highlights the various positions one could take on our patent existing system. Some might say I was a patent troll, filing a patent where I knew I could never financially bring a product to market, others would argue that situation is why patents exist where the inventor needs to protect an idea where often times but for being the inventor/patent filer a giant corporation might come along and simply take an idea without any benefit to the inventor...finally some may say I should not have received a patent in the first place as RFID silicone bands are not non-obvious in the first place. Though I never sued, my own experience brings a certain bias to the table, and I would simply ask in countries that do not have a similar intellectual system to the US, is there an example of an inventor actually bringing an invention to market where they were not simply beat out by an existing corporation?

soup10 12y ago
You invented neither peanut or jelly or bread, should the pbj sandwich be patentable? The chances of you being the only source pitching RFID tech to Disney is zero. Sorry you didn't get their business. Did you pitch to any other companies? Did you expect Disney to license your patent and figure out the technical implementation themselves? Does your patent apply for non-silicone bracelets? Seems like RFID tech is and still is a legitimate business opportunity for many.. sounds like you gave up on it, why?
- will_brown 12y ago
  >You invented neither peanut or jelly or bread, should the pbj sandwich be patentable? This is the idea of researching prior art...and could be extended to the numerous other RFID technologies that are patented, I mentioned a few that were part of my patent application: 1. RFID shopping cart (presumably inventor didn't invent shopping carts or RFID) and 2. 1 time use RFID hospital bands (again inventor invented neither hospital bands or RFID). Ultimately, combining two technologies (using the term loosely) in non-obvious (sometimes it is obvious) results in a new patentable invention. I realize you were using your example as just that, but while a PBJ will not be patentable, one could copyright the recipe. Coke specifically avoided doing this in a counter-intuitive measure to protect the closely guarded secret formula (which would otherwise be publicly disclosed if a copyright was filed).
  - mdorazio 12y ago
    Recipes explicitly cannot be copyrighted: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html This is why Coke's recipe is a trade secret instead. I've recently been down the patent research path myself and to me it is still not clear what creates a patentable non-obvious combination of technologies, and what is simply not patentable. In many cases it seems based on the patent reviewer's subjectivity.
    - will_brown 12y ago
      >Recipes explicitly cannot be copyrighted Yes; however, as the link you provide explains if more than just a simple listing of ingredients (i.e. description, pictures, ect...) the same can be awarded copyright. A copyright on a cook book is still the industry standard, because a single filing/fee covers an entire book of recipes. >I've recently been down the patent research path myself and to me it is still not clear what creates a patentable non-obvious combination of technologies, and what is simply not patentable. In many cases it seems based on the patent reviewer's subjectivity. 100%, much like trademark and copyright much is left to the subjectivity of the reviewer. I will say this about the patent office (compared to trademarks), the reviewers are generally very well educated in their respective fields (engineering, medicine, ect...). The only other way to gain more insight into obviousness standard is reading case law/precedent.
throwingaway71 12y ago
Yes, I would say that you were an abusive and useless patent troll. Your idea was essentially guaranteed to be found by somebody with expertise who approached the problem. Further, it cost you nearly nothing to develop your not actually useful yet (because it was wildly incomplete) technology. Yet you, as a value-extracting lawyer, are clearly upset that you didn't get paid. Even though you didn't invent a damned thing. Even though you did nothing novel or worthy of protection. You are evidence that the patent system is broken. It literally sickens me that you think you were entitled to something for that stupid useless shit you did. It sickens me. Business sucks (and America sucks) because of a glut of value-extracting assholes like you who are too stupid to recognize the difference between what you did, and CREATING value.
ScottBurson 12y ago
I don't have time to really dig into this, but I'll offer the following lay opinion anyway: The idea of putting an RFID chip in a silicone band per se strikes me as obvious, in the sense that someone who needed to track people in a confined space would be likely to think of it themselves, once they were aware of the existence of the component technologies. A patent is a deal that the people make with an inventor: in exchange for the publication of your invention, we give you a time-limited monopoly on it. In order for this to be a good deal for us, the intellectual contribution of your idea to the state of the art needs to be significant. If someone else is likely to have the same idea, then granting you a patent is a very bad deal: you get a license to sue, and the people get nothing of any value in exchange. (Aside: note that this is a fundamentally economic judgment, not a legal one. I think some training in economics should be required for patent examiners.) Now, that said, I haven't looked at the patent. It may be that there is more to it than this; that there were specific technical difficulties that had to be overcome. Just for example, let's suppose that in early prototypes, the chip had a tendency to work its way to the surface of the silicone and fall out. The solution to that problem might well be nonobvious and deserving of a patent. But you haven't mentioned anything like that.

soup10 12y ago

You invented neither peanut or jelly or bread, should the pbj sandwich be patentable? The chances of you being the only source pitching RFID tech to Disney is zero. Sorry you didn't get their business. Did you pitch to any other companies? Did you expect Disney to license your patent and figure out the technical implementation themselves? Does your patent apply for non-silicone bracelets? Seems like RFID tech is and still is a legitimate business opportunity for many.. sounds like you gave up on it, why?

will_brown 12y ago
>You invented neither peanut or jelly or bread, should the pbj sandwich be patentable? This is the idea of researching prior art...and could be extended to the numerous other RFID technologies that are patented, I mentioned a few that were part of my patent application: 1. RFID shopping cart (presumably inventor didn't invent shopping carts or RFID) and 2. 1 time use RFID hospital bands (again inventor invented neither hospital bands or RFID). Ultimately, combining two technologies (using the term loosely) in non-obvious (sometimes it is obvious) results in a new patentable invention. I realize you were using your example as just that, but while a PBJ will not be patentable, one could copyright the recipe. Coke specifically avoided doing this in a counter-intuitive measure to protect the closely guarded secret formula (which would otherwise be publicly disclosed if a copyright was filed).
- mdorazio 12y ago
  Recipes explicitly cannot be copyrighted: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html This is why Coke's recipe is a trade secret instead. I've recently been down the patent research path myself and to me it is still not clear what creates a patentable non-obvious combination of technologies, and what is simply not patentable. In many cases it seems based on the patent reviewer's subjectivity.
  - will_brown 12y ago
    >Recipes explicitly cannot be copyrighted Yes; however, as the link you provide explains if more than just a simple listing of ingredients (i.e. description, pictures, ect...) the same can be awarded copyright. A copyright on a cook book is still the industry standard, because a single filing/fee covers an entire book of recipes. >I've recently been down the patent research path myself and to me it is still not clear what creates a patentable non-obvious combination of technologies, and what is simply not patentable. In many cases it seems based on the patent reviewer's subjectivity. 100%, much like trademark and copyright much is left to the subjectivity of the reviewer. I will say this about the patent office (compared to trademarks), the reviewers are generally very well educated in their respective fields (engineering, medicine, ect...). The only other way to gain more insight into obviousness standard is reading case law/precedent.

throwingaway71 12y ago

Yes, I would say that you were an abusive and useless patent troll. Your idea was essentially guaranteed to be found by somebody with expertise who approached the problem. Further, it cost you nearly nothing to develop your not actually useful yet (because it was wildly incomplete) technology. Yet you, as a value-extracting lawyer, are clearly upset that you didn't get paid. Even though you didn't invent a damned thing. Even though you did nothing novel or worthy of protection. You are evidence that the patent system is broken. It literally sickens me that you think you were entitled to something for that stupid useless shit you did. It sickens me. Business sucks (and America sucks) because of a glut of value-extracting assholes like you who are too stupid to recognize the difference between what you did, and CREATING value.

ScottBurson 12y ago

I don't have time to really dig into this, but I'll offer the following lay opinion anyway: The idea of putting an RFID chip in a silicone band per se strikes me as obvious, in the sense that someone who needed to track people in a confined space would be likely to think of it themselves, once they were aware of the existence of the component technologies. A patent is a deal that the people make with an inventor: in exchange for the publication of your invention, we give you a time-limited monopoly on it. In order for this to be a good deal for us, the intellectual contribution of your idea to the state of the art needs to be significant. If someone else is likely to have the same idea, then granting you a patent is a very bad deal: you get a license to sue, and the people get nothing of any value in exchange. (Aside: note that this is a fundamentally economic judgment, not a legal one. I think some training in economics should be required for patent examiners.) Now, that said, I haven't looked at the patent. It may be that there is more to it than this; that there were specific technical difficulties that had to be overcome. Just for example, let's suppose that in early prototypes, the chip had a tendency to work its way to the surface of the silicone and fall out. The solution to that problem might well be nonobvious and deserving of a patent. But you haven't mentioned anything like that.