YEAHH!! – to obsessive professional nerdism!

Well, that’s what I thought when I received news about a movie as an e-mail from one of the IP blogs, I subscribed to. Nonplussed, till now, I never knew the affinity or hate (usually, extreme reactions) that the display of one’s profession on a medium causes.

So, Flash of a Genius, had me on grips almost immediately, its sole reason being the subject matter of the movie, which revolves around one man’s (Robert Kearns') invention which stemmed vis-à-vis his own need – the intermittent wiper system – in cars, and the US automobile industry which 'infringed' upon his invention. (The antagonists in this case, being Ford and Chrysler). So, goes the protagonist on his salvaging journey amidst the techno-legal framework and the burden of fighting it out against the tide. Undeterred and plausibly in Hollywood, melodramatic style, this movie aims to woo the audience showcasing the victory and turmoil of this lone man (as pitched against the stalwarts).

Interestingly, intermittent wipers came about after Robert Kearns was hit in his left eye by a champagne cork on his wedding night in 1953. Later, Kearns was driving his Ford Galaxie through a light rain, and the constant movement of the wiper blades irritated his already troubled vision. He modeled his mechanism on the human eye, which automatically blinks every few seconds.

Kearns invented and patented the intermittent windshield wiper mechanism for use in light rain or mist and tried to license it to the big automakers. They all rejected his idea and then some went ahead and put intermittent wipers in their cars beginning in 1969. In 1967, he received the first of more than 30 patents for his wipers. He sued Ford in 1978 and Chrysler in 1982 for patent infringement.

Ford argued that Kearns’ patents were overly broad and therefore invalid. In 1990, a jury decided that Ford infringed on Kearns’ patent, though it concluded the infringement was not deliberate. Ford had contended the patent was invalid because the windshield system contained no new concepts. But Kearns argued a new combination of parts made his invention unique.

That jury failed to reach agreement on how much he should be awarded, and another jury later ordered Ford to pay Kearns $6.3 million, trimmed by a judge to $5.2 million. To settle the case, Ford agreed to pay $10.2 million and to drop all appeals. Chrysler ended up paying Kearns $18.7 million plus interest.

Interesting to read are the following Robert Kearns patents:

1) Windshield Wiper System with Intermittent Operation; United States Patent 3,351,836

2) Intermittent Windshield Wiper System; United States Patent 3,602,790,

3) Intermittant windshield wiper control system with improved motor speed; United States Patent 4,544,870

Amidst the scriptwriters' on-going hunt for ubiquitous-ly laudable subject matters, it would be interesting to see the portrayal of the patent system on a motion medium. A neat way to drive home the point about the need for the system and its intricacies, too, albeit Hollywood style!

References:

[1] http://www.flashofgenius.net/

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Kearns

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Motor_Company

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler

[5] http://www.google.com/patents?id=_qVQAAAAEBAJ&dq=Robert+Kearns (US Patent 3351836)

[6] http://www.google.com/patents?id=JF4TAAAAEBAJ&dq=Robert+Kearns (US Patent 3602790)

[7] http://www.google.com/patents?id=EO8rAAAAEBAJ&dq=Robert+Kearns (US Patent 4544870)

Accelerated Examination at the USPTO: view and counterview

If,
we begin with the hypothesis that all endeavours (read as ‘inventors’) may be classified in the following formats:

- the absolute genuine; one having the premise that he understands the entire spectrum of the subject matter of his invention, its credibility, its genesis, its patentability and its subsequent conjecture in relation to the technological advance over the prior art;

- the discombobulated; one having the premise of understatement (not able to recognise the worthiness of his efforts and invention) with respect to his subject matter, or with a genuine interest in his know-how, albeit, not aware whether his know-how is prosecutable for protection;

- the marauders; one having the premise of nonchalant destruction and is prying the system only to scavenge for loopholes, and plausible leeway to gain entry and sublime recognition;

Then,
assumption of the hypothesis validates the clause that only the first type of people enumerated above, should arguably follow this new path.

Follow the two diametrically opposite viewpoints cited below:

1) Pointing the anomalies of the system;
versus
2) Elaborating the worthiness of the system.

New Entry, much fanfare: Sound Marks

In a further cementing step, to aid the establishment of the boundaries of one’s cognitive processes, and to provide legal rights towards the same, the Indian Trademark registry increased the recognition form from its ‘intellectual and visual’ ability to an ‘intellectual and audible’ ability.

What followed was India’s first sound trademark (1), (2), whereby, the Indian Trademark Registry (Delhi Office) awarded Sunnyvale, California-based Internet firm Yahoo Inc.’s three-note Yahoo yodel, a mark relating to its yodeling sound [listen here (3)]. A sound trademark1 essentially refers to an audible rendition such that it is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings.

The US practice of registering an audio or video reproduction of the sound (for a Trademark) reveals that a detailed written description of the application should also be included, while the Europe practice dictates that the sound mark should be represented graphically through musical notation. Such practices are fairly logical.

In sync and in continuum with such ‘non-conventional’ marks, WIPO, the United Nations agency, has now initiated an Intellectual Property Conference (4) in Singapore (first time in Asia) in order to revise its 1994 treaty on global trademarks.

What presumably follows next, is the incorporation of another one of the human senses as an attribute towards distinction of products, typically, the nose, and its associated characteristic, the smelling function, e.g. the smell of a perfume or any product, for that matter.

PatentInc*. Viewpoint:
We await to see the appropriate filing requisites for increasingly intangible matter. Also, the question now arises as to whether we should take cue from these to also expect further incorporation of the remaining two senses, viz., the ‘taste’ and the ‘feel’ of a product. Is it going too far? Or how far is too far?

In any case, defining of such visual and further non-conventional marks, more importantly with a viewpoint in cases of potential infringement and justifications sought thereof, is going to be an upheaval task, mainly because of the non-precedential subject matter. Till the time being, let the mark holders rejoice in the sentiment of acquiring new non-tangible lengths and breadths, and increase their monopolistic stranglehold towards completely defining their product.


References:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_trademark

2. http://www.livemint.com/2008/08/22002259/Yahoo-awarded-India8217s-fi.html

3. http://www.uspto.gov/go/kids/soundex/75807526.mp3

4. http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Revised-trademark-treaty-may-cover-sound-&-smell/40242/

*PatentInc. - – a proprietary outfit in the field of Intellectual Property, India.

IPR regime – INDIA

The idea of providing a (much needed) structured impetus towards paving a path wherein, inventors, corporates, and the like are not impeded by lack of directions or even lack of knowledge (ignorance) of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), for that matter, has been flirting in the minds of senior personnel already active in the (IPR) field. What is lacking, however, is the aligning of forces in one particular mega-direction in order to snowball the efforts. A 3-pronged approach, as detailed below, can be attempted to channelise the flow of processes in the IPR regime.

The envisioned pathway should follow the outlined pattern, thus:

1) Schools and educational institutes mainly should comprise the bandwagon for nurturing a professional’s thoughts. A first tier of the recipients of such education should be the professionals servicing the IPR industry. Lack of experience, relative newness of the Indian Patent Act, flimsy attempts by the IPO to write and re-write the patent manual, relatively less exposure, are some of the major stumble-blocks in today’s Indian IPR scene. As reported here [1], the Kerala government has initiated a drive to introduce IPR as a compulsory subject in schools and universities. With training at the grassroots level, the Kerala government affirmatively hopes to align students’ thought processes and attempt to solve the country’s shortage of trained professionals; thus expanding the current realm.

2) Meticulous gardening of thoughts and weeding out the randomness in a plausible inventor is a firm step that ought to be taken by corporates towards training/mentoring their employees which include understanding the genesis of a technology over the years through patents and its concurrent effects on the industry in the progressive time scale. The strings of this causal relationship between innovations and industry growth become visible clearly, by this study [2]. Particularly, Indian SMEs currently only invest in need-based research and development (or only when they have exhausted the option of ‘not-copying’). A recent development as reported here [3] is a definite positive step towards creating awareness of a strong IPR regime to impress and authorise their work at the national and international level, without trespassing each other’s domains and subsequently conform to uniform global standards. Finally, this recognition is bound to translate into economic benefits for the company at a micro-level as well as for the nation at a macro-level.

3) Miscellaneous:

An active lobby of current IPR professionals need to progressively create awareness within their sphere of influence in an unbiased manner. E.g. keeping an inventor involved at all times, creating adequate transparency in the process, propagating the finer points of the IPR spectrum in relation to theoretical knowledge as well as from derived practical exposure ensures the smoothness of the learning curve for newer professionals, and hence, aids in stimulating this endeavour.

Nipping the brain drain is just as important. Increasing off-shore activity (i.e. foreign MNCs recruiting Indian talent, and claiming protection as a derivative of their work for the company), relatively less stimulation in Indian companies from an innovation point of view, and restricted resources for such innovative steps and research hinder the innovative flow-chain and provide only for transient surges in the patenting scenario, if any. As can be seen here [4], foreign firms have increasingly filed patents with Indian employees as the inventors. This results in a total loss of economy for the nation and home firms in parallel sectors.

For India to boast a comprehensive enforceable patent docket in various sectors of technology, it needs to exhibit an un-impeded continuum of enforce-able patents; one where the genesis is easily traceable, without gaps, and one such that commands international value. Further, it should be coupled with able personnel manning the IPR regime (typically, IPR agents, IPR attorneys, IPR valuation services, judicial system bolted by strong precedents and laws and the like). With a start [1] in the training segment, we are definitely on our way to come of age.

References:

[1] http://www.livemint.com/2008/08/26232915/Kerala-to-introduce-intellectu.html?h=B

[2] http://www.livemint.com/2008/06/08235610/Foreign-firms-drive-surge-in-t.html

[3] http://www.livemint.com/2008/08/18190329/Training-programme-for-Indian.html

[4]http://www.livemint.com/2008/06/08235610/98E45802-64F5-4CF6-A9A5-FD112B66658BArtVPF.pdf