Invention Publication - Chirag Tanna [SYSTEM FOR COMMUNICATION OF INFORMATION FOR PROVIDING GUIDANCE IN MOVEMENT]

50 INVENTIONS THAT CHANGED THE WORLD

A totally related (tho' unoriginal) post:
courtesy: Times of India

50 INVENTIONS THAT CHANGED THE WORLD

Since time immemorial, thousands of inventions by man have gone on to transform the world. The Trends team put together a list of 50 (in alphabetical order) that may have played a bigger part than most:

1. Abacus | 190 AD

Use of the abacus, with its beads in a rack, was first documented in China in about 190 AD. The Chinese version was the speediest way to do sums for centuries and, in the right hands, can still outpace electronic calculators.

2. Aspirin | 1899

Little tablets of acetylsalicylic acid have probably cured more minor ills than any other medicine. Hippocrates was the first to realise the healing power of the substance. At the turn-of-the-century, German chemist Felix Hoffman perfected the remedy.

3. Barbed wire | 1873

The world's most divisive invention was conceived not to keep people in or out, but cows.

4. Barcode | 1973

Barcodes were conceived as a kind of visual Morse code by a Philadelphia student in 1952. Now, black stripes have appeared on almost everything we buy.

5. Battery | 1800

In 1780s, Italian physicist Luigi Galvani discovered that a dead frog's leg would twitch when he touched it with two pieces of metal. His friend, professor Alessandro Volta made the first battery which were voltaic cells stacked in a Voltaic pile.

6. Bicycle | 1861

First devised as a gentleman’s plaything in the 1820s, the pushpowered hobby-horse quickly evolved to become the most classless form of transport.

7. Bra | 1913

New York socialite Mary Phelps Jacob is widely considered to be the inventor of the modern bra, which she devised as an alternative to unsightly corsets.

8. Button | 1235

Ancient Greeks fastened tunics using crude buttons and loops, but it took the buttonhole to popularise the little discs of perforated plastic that adorn our clothes today.

9. Camera | 1826

Though British polymath William Talbot was the inventor of one of the earliest cameras, Joseph Nicéphore Niépce produced the earliest surviving photograph on a pewter plate in 1826.

10. Compass | 1190

Sailors in China and Europe independently discovered lodestone— a magnetic mineral that aligned with the North Pole— in the 12th century. By 1190, Italian navigators were using lodestone to magnetise needles floating in bowls of water.

11. Condom | 1640

Egyptians donned them 3,000 years ago and the 16th-century Italian gynaecologist Gabriele Falloppio first advocated their use to prevent the spread of disease.

12. Fridge | 1834

Jacob Perkins was the first to describe how pipes filled with volatile chemicals whose molecules evaporated very easily could keep food cool.

13. Gun | 14th century

Gunpowder led to the creation of the cannon in the 13th century. The biggest step that led to the modern gun was Smith and Wesson’s metalcased cartridge, first fired in 1857.

14. Internal combustion engine | 1859

Credit for the first working internal combustion engine goes to the Belgian inventor Étienne Lenoir, who converted a steam engine in 1859. It spawned the billions of engines that have been built since.

15. Laser | 1960

Physicist Theodore Maiman built the first working laser in 1960. His device was based around a ruby crystal that emitted light "brighter than the centre of the sun".

16. Light bulb | 1848

Joseph Swan in fact developed a bulb before Edison, but the pair later joined forces and today share credit for creating the gadget we perhaps take for granted more than any other.

17. Locks | 2000 BC

Egyptians were the first to put things under lock and key about 4,000 years ago.

18. Microchip | 1958

US engineer Jack Kilby built the world's first monolithic integrated circuit, or microchip that changed the world of computing.

19. Mobile phone | 1947

The first mobile phone service was introduced by Bell Laboratories in Missouri in 1947.

20. Paper | 105 AD

The Chinese began using bark, bamboo fibres, hemp and flax to mill the first reams almost 2,000 years ago, but it took centuries for paper to envelop the world.

21. PC | 1977

Steve Jobs, whose Apple II, launched in 1977, was the first consumer PC to resemble the machines that went on to transform our lives.

22. Printing press | 1454

The Chinese were the world's first printers – they practised block printing as early as 500 AD – but a German goldsmith called Johannes Gutenberg was the first to construct a press.

23. Radio | 1895

Alexander Popov, a Russian, and the Italian-Irish inventor Guglielmo Marconi, separately sent and received the first radio waves. Marconi sent the first transatlantic radio message (three dots for the letter ‘S’) in 1901.

24. Telephone | 1876

Elisha Gray and Alexander Graham Bell raced to make the first working phone in the 1870s, Bell winning in a photo-finish.

25. Television | 1925

Scotsman John Logie Baird first demonstrated TV to the public in 1925.

26. The internet | 1969

Conceived by the US Department of Defense in the 1960s, the internet, together with the World Wide Web, invented in 1989 by Brit techie, Tim Berners-Lee, has shrunk the world like no other invention.

27. The Match | 1826

The Stockholm-based chemist John Walker was the first to discover that when a stick coated in potassium chlorate and antimony sulphide was brushed across stone, it created a flame.

28. The Pill | 1951

The contraceptive pill was developed by a team headed by Carl Djerassi, a chemist, in 1951, but wasn't marketed in the UK until 1962.

29. Wheel | 3500 BC

The wheel surely deserves a place near the top of any "greatest inventions" list. The earliest evidence of a wheel – a pictograph from Sumeria (modern day Iraq) – dates back to 3500 BC; the device rolled West soon after that.

30. Zip | 1913

Credit for the device's invention goes to Gideon Sundback. In 1913, the Swedish engineer made the first modern zip to fasten high boots.

HONOURABLE MENTIONS 1. Bow and arrow | 30,000BC 2. CD | 1965 3. Cardiac pacemaker | 1958 4. Credit card | 1950 5. Drum | 12,000BC 6. Dynamite | 1867 7. Fish hook | 30,000BC 8. GPS | 1978 9. iPod | 2001 10. Kettle | 1891 11. Microscope | 1590 12. Plough | AD100 13. Rubber band | 1845 14. Sewing machine | 1830 15. Spectacles | 1451 16. Syringe | 1844 17. Telescope | 1608 18. Umbrella | 2400BC 19. Walkman | 1979 20. Weighing scales | 5000BC

Bullpen to pitch – play-road for Indian IT / ITeS Industry

In a cross-perspective initiative, legal practitioners upholding facets of law relating to the field of Information Technology (IT) participated in a conference titled “The Indian IT / ITeS Industry Legal and Regulatory Challenges in the Decade Ahead” in Chennai on 02nd May, 2010 to discuss their viewpoints. Each of the legal practitioners, being a distinguished luminary, contributed to an outlook, which they believed to be the road ahead, and thus sought to achieve a paradigm conglomerated shift in outlook for the journey ahead; for every Indian IT firm in correspondence with their legal and regulatory challenges in respect of a unilateral world so as to achieve work compliancy on a global platform, seamlessly. In brief below, are the synopses of each of the speakers with their viewpoints:

Mr. Seturaman Mahalingam, CFO and Executive Director of Tata Consultancy Services welcomed the audience and speakers.

Honourable Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal spoke, at length, about the use of a practical machinery for dispute resolution – ‘arbitrations’. Acting in accordance with The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, she mentioned the plus points and negative points of the practical aspects of the arbitration options in India, and its contemporary criticisms. Her paper is as below:
1
Legal laureate Zia Mody who has raised her firm, AZB & Partners’ stature to the highest levels of national and international acclaim, presented her viewpoints on ‘Evolving Legal and Regulatory regime in India – Impact of IT / ITeS Industry’.

Baker & McKenczie’s Mr. Michael S. Mensik dug out issues in relation to legal constraints on cross-border flows of technology and their impact on India. His understanding and explanation of the various flows of information exchange in an organization brought to light the question of risk management within an enterprise in today’s world of global operations in which a single firm deals with information flow across various nations governed by various legal frameworks. Jeopardy arising out of ignoring the issues of compliance is a complete death-trap for an organization. It is hence necessary to identify areas of compliance risks and to plug those areas with effective solutions. His presentation on ‘Constraints on global flows of encryption & Other technologies and their impact on India’ follows:
a

A partner of Kelley Drye’s New York office, Mr. Talat Ansari, led the audience into the constructs relating to recognizing and enforcing international arbitration awards. His presentation included questions relating to issues wherein, a party in dispute arising from an international contract has won an arbitration award and the losing party refuses to honour the award. He highlighted the use of provisions under the Geneva convention, the N. Y. convention and its enforceable grounds and measures. Details regarding ‘Alternate Dispute Resolution in Outsourcing Contract’ follow:
2b

Recognised in Chambers USA as one of “America’s Leading Lawyers” in the area IT and IT Outsourcing, Mr. Shaalu Mehra, Partner in the Silicon Valley of Perkinc Coie, provided his comprehensive thoughts on ‘Open Source Materials – Challenges Ahead’. He discussed General Public License and their evolutionary versions.

From England, Mr. Mark Lewis (partner at Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP) leads the Outsourcing practice at his firm. He is versed with working parameters in relation to legal issues for IT and outsourcing companies. His book provides manuals on outsourcing. The major case in point of his presentation was a case study, BSkyB v EDS, which although was not a landmark decision had magnanimous proportions in terms of the fraud committed and damages paid. This case study brings to light the liabilities of misstatements in the business garnering process, its compounding problems, lies, deceits, and its (non-surprising) tumultuous repercussions. The case, in detail, ‘BSkyB v EDS: What it means for IT and ITeS providers doing business in the UK?’ is as follows:
3

Departing from legal issues, compliance issues, issues relating to fraud, and issues relating to arbitration, the conference proceeded towards learning the intricacies of what matters most, the money issues. Fund management issues, especially the (oft misconstrued) Income Tax issues were defined in this presentation by Mr. Pradeep Narayanan, Senior Manager with Ernst & Young. Keypoints, as presented by him on ‘Tax issues relating to IT / ITeS Sector’ are as follows:
4

Dr. Mohan Dewan, proprietor of R. K. Dewan & Co., who has single handedly nurtured his firm to become a one-window Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) workshop where all matters from filing to fighting are prosecuted zestfully, submitted his paper on issues relating to patents in the IT industry. He steered his presentation at the conference to enlighten the audience of how strong and needful the pillars of IPR are, for not only the growth of any organization but also for any organization to mark their territory. Explaining the growth of Microsoft where Mr. Bill Gates held onto his own against IBM, during the former’s inception days, by holding on to the copyrights of his BASIC interpreter (language) to understanding the need for IPR in today’s 4th wave (of patterns that shape businesses, economies, politics, religions, global affairs and social power interrelationships), he tickled the brains of the audience to arouse their curiosity of the options under the gamut of IPR and their concurrence with their respective works. His paper on ‘Intellectual Property Rights in the IT Sector: A bane or a boon?’ is as follows:
Software Patent

Mr. Arvind Datar, Senior Advocate, practicing at the Madras High Court, Chennai, submitted his worth of thoughts on the need for institutional arbitration. This ‘Advantages of Institutional Arbitration’ reads as follows:
5

From the European continent, Dr. Alexander Duisberg, Partner with Bird and Bird at their Munich Office, threw light on data protection and data security in accordance with recent developments in the EU. It is common knowledge, that with India and China developing as hot shot destinations for BPO, KPO, LPO and IT industries, especially serving the main offices located West, the idea of sharing data is a must. Ensuring that such transferred data is safe is a nightmare, not only for the firm but the countries hosting the physical office, at large too. Hence, Dr. Alexander presented the following presentation:
6
and shared the following paper:
7

A panel discussion, at the end of the seminar, was set up for discussing the ‘Future of IT / ITes Industry in India’. Speaker Gopalkrishna Hegde, Legal Adviser – RBI, briefly informed about ‘RBI Guidelines on Outsourcing’. Speaker Samuel Mani K., Head of Legal, Infosys spoke in relation to ‘Challenges of Disengagement’. He explained the arduous process of understanding the legal definition of ‘compliance’ in as many countries as the parent company wishes to expand their operations. Case in point was Infosys which operates out of 38 countries, and hence needed to understand compliance issues for every single country of their own accord. Speaker Satya Hegde, SVP & General Counsel – TCS further elaborated on ‘Corporate Compliance’ from TCS’ point of view.

The event concluded by providing fodder for thought in respect of understanding the legal factors to be considered for achieving a seamless IT / ITeS global industry, and the role that India needs to play in respect of Indian IT / ITeS companies to achieve this, hindrance-free.

Are patent agents ghostwriters?

As soon as any person begins to pen his / her thoughts, it is my understanding that he derives from a compendium of things, gathered by virtue of his academic, personal, professional experience, and corroborates them at a sub-conscious level by the prowess of his / her imaginative fuel to churn out a written package. It can, therefore, be a definite possibility that the human under question can eventually enter the same cycle of thoughts and run out of ideas to pen a certain subject matter in a variety of ways.

The trail of thoughts that ensues while drafting a patent application may be borrowed from a variety of sources namely, reference material, online content, offline content, actual working knowledge or even self-driven experiences of the applicant / inventor or of the agent drafting the application.

A Ghostwriter is a person who writes ‘on behalf’ of another person, with a contractual understanding in place that the ghostwriter continues to remain the bodiless entity and credit for all copyright in respect of the ghostwritten article subsists with the other person, which other person is the front face. The legality of such an ‘understanding’ may be questionable on certain accounts, such questionable accounts being an author whom the world believes to write books, but in fact, gets it ghostwritten. Many well-known persons pay ghostwriters, for articulating their verbose dealings in writing. These may include celebrities or politicians who maintain blogs, but of course, do not have the time an inclination to actually pen their own thoughts, but feel the need to do so for sake of personal relationship with his / her followers. But, illegal cases arise, wherein a consumer pays to read ‘claimed original’ stuff from an author, but is hoodwinked by the fact that the author actually hires a ghostwriter to write. In such cases, the clarity of copyright subsistence is questionable, and of course bought off by the power of money.

Ghostwriter – copyright issue!:
The question further escalates to the “patent agent – ghostwriter issue”.

For all practical purposes, a patent agent dealing with original drafting of patent applications serves as a Ghostwriter for his / her client. Every patent application, inherently, subsists with a copyright, which is the client’s copyright. In the instance, then that a patent agent borrows, voluntarily or involuntarily, one of his or her own drafts, or portions thereof, to outline a same trail of thoughts in two different drafts of two different client, the subsequence of copyright overlapping are far more implicative!

Ghostwriter – copyright issue Remedy:
The only remedy in such cases is due-diligence on part of the agent and proactiveness on part of the client, to steer away from already written matter or already published matter. A client should justify his proactiveness by providing a write-up so that the seed of the thought process remains true to the client. Active indulgence between the client and the agent is also a way to warrant such remedies.

Intellectual Property Rights in the IT Sector – A bane or a boon

Paper submitted and presented at:

The Nani Palkhivala Arbitration Centre in collaboration with NASSCOM presents a Seminar on "The Indian IT/ITeS Industry Legal and Regulatory challenges in the decade ahead"

Intellectual Property Rights in the IT Sector – A bane or a boon?

Software Patent

One Gargantuan Step after Another

The shackles (of bureaucracy?) have begun to rust and give way with the cutting edge sword, within the precincts of the Intellectual Property Rights Office, i.e. the Patent and Trademark Office’s physical and virtual presence, borne by the Controller General of Trade Marks, Patents, and Designs i.e. Mr. A. Kurian. Dusts off the files have been swept away, and the confidentiality that ought to be kept and the speediness that ought to have been sought, has been implemented in one gargantuan step after another.

Rapid developments swept Patent Examiners and the Administrative Staff at the Patent Office, particularly, at Mumbai, by Mr. Kurian’s physical presence and random checks on the ‘deals’ at the Patent Office. The steps that inducted this new wind of change were as follows:

1) No persons, other than the Registered Patent Agents, are allowed to enter the restricted premises of the Patent Office building. Even a Registered Patent agent shall be present only if his presence is summoned by virtue of an official call or hearing by an Examiner or an Assistant Controller or Controller or the like authorities.
2) Examiners, Assistant Controller, Controllers shall not mingle with the Agents and Applicants / Inventors. Their absence from the building, even during lunch hours, will be strictly monitored.
3) The Controller General has issued a public notice to all applicants/patent agents to inform the patent office about the non receipt of First examination reports in respect of RQs (Request for Examination) filed prior to 31-12-2006
http://www.patentoffice.nic.in/iponew/publicNotice_09March2010.pdf
4) Public Notice regarding Geographical Indications Journal
http://www.patentoffice.nic.in/girindia/GIR_PublicNotice_26February2010.pdf
5) Application Status Search has been launched by Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks for Indian Patent Applications under IPIRS in the Public Search Gateway (MUST EXPLORE)
http://www.patentoffice.nic.in/ipirs/patentsearch.htm
6) The controller General has issued public notice to the patentee and licencees to furnish the information in the prescribed form regarding working of patent under section 146 of the Patents Act 1970, by 31st March 2010
7) Regarding inspection, increased transparency has been sought, by providing amended copies, which were earlier declined to be given
http://ipindia.nic.in/iponew/office_order01_12January2010.pdf
8) All patent applications have been distributed for examination into four groups:
i) Chemistry and Allied Sciences

ii) Biotechnology and Microbiology

iii) Mechanical and Allied Subjects

iv) Electrical, Electronic and Allied Subjects

9) According to another order, every patent application will be strictly classified according to the International Patent Classification (IPC), and the screening will be according to the Technical Fields of the IPC.
http://www.patentoffice.nic.in/officeCircular/circular08_18May2009.pdf
10) Balancing of officers was carried out in respect of several officers, by way of transfers.
http://www.patentoffice.nic.in/OfficeCircular/TransferOfficeOrder_05May2009.pdf

What has been a campaign of sorts in order to emulate the transparency procedures of many nations which handle a great deal of filings, and the efforts to weed out the discrepancies are now being tackled. These and such rapid developments over the last year, have not only brought a sigh of relief amongst the patent practitioners, but also the cross-hairs of such deeds will targeted to benefit an Applicant and Inventor so that they trust the system.

Introductory Session: Patent Application & Filing

A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a state to an inventor or his assignee for a fixed period of time in exchange for a disclosure of an invention.

Patent application procedures are universally governed by the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement. The Agreement on TRIPS is an international agreement administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO) that sets down minimum standards for many forms of intellectual property (IP) regulation. Although different countries have different internal policies for innovation and Intellectual Property (IP) protection, the common minimum derivatives from the TRIPS agreement need to be adhered to.

According to a first tier of applications, an inventor may file for protection in his own country. This is the simplest of the procedures, wherein the following steps detail the application and grant process, for any of the countries:

1) An inventor, typically with the help of the country’s Registered Patent Agent, drafts a patent application (including the details of the subject matter, in a techno-legal framework) to define the ‘novelty’, the ‘non-obviousness’, ‘inventive step’ and the ‘industrial use’ (which are the cornerstones of determining an invention) of the invention.

2) The patent application is submitted to the country’s patent office. The date of submission of the patent application is the ‘priority date’ which is the timestamp for protection of the patent, from that point onwards.

3) The patent application is published in a national patent journal, periodically published by the respective country’s patent office. This is done for brief description of the subject matter of the application. At this point, any ‘person interested’ upon payment of a fee, may obtain a copy of the patent, for reading and/or opposition purposes.

4) The patent office then begins it review procedure, and issues what is called a ‘First Examination Report’, wherein, it cites closely relevant documents to the patent application, and asks the inventor to differentiate the patent application from these ‘citations’ on the basis of ‘novelty’, ‘obviousness’, and ‘inventive step’. Also, further incongruities may be pointed out and suggested remedial actions.

5) The patent application is then put forth for grant, and deemed a ‘PATENT’.

According to a second tier of applications, an inventor may want to file an application in one or many foreign countries too. For this:

1) The patent application is drafted. And a PCT application is filed along with a national application. A PCT application stands for an application in confirmation with the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), of which 142 countries are currently signatory.

2) The PCT application is a 2-step procedure, wherein, the first step of application provides a blanket cover and a chance of entry into the 142 member countries. Further, it provides a 30 / 31 month time-period for deciding upon which of the 142 countries to enter for protection (patent).

3) The second stage is to individually follow up with applications in each country, with the help of each country’s registered patent agents, adhering to translation norms in respect of the identified countries and the like filing requirements.

4) Further processes are the similar as mentioned above in each of the countries.

For a US company to apply for patent protection in China, South Korea, or India, the PCT application is a good practice. Also, an alternative way is in accordance with the Paris Convention, any inventor need not invoke the provisions of the PCT application, and directly apply for application in the foreign state. The PCT application is good in cases wherein, the number of countries is huge, or when the inventor wants to avail of the 30 / 31 month time period.