Sulfur directive and IPR

To be populistic: we pay now, but our industry has a payback time in 2020 and gets the money back from Greek merchant shipping.

[Local subjects for a change. Heavier IPR material moved to www.project-trogolodyte.org. // Paikallisia asioita vaihteeksi. Raskaampi IPR-materiaali siirretty ylläolevaan linkkiin.] 

[Finnish version: here. All the links in the article point to Finnish-language sources, but similar material can be found easily.] 

The sulfur directive has been  accepted in the EU parliament. By 2015, ships in the Baltic sea need to drop their sulfur emissions from the current 1% to 0.1%.
Finland is strongly polarized on this. Environmentalists (of whom I am one) against industry. The environmentalists “won” this round, but this is not the place for anyone to gloat, at least not arrogantly. On the contrary, both sides have valid concerns. The directive is positive for environmental and health reasons; it is negative for the Finnish economy and employment statistics.

How positive or negative? One should be skeptical of everyone and everything since it is such a complicated issue, but approximately:

  • The directive saves lives. Whether or not one believes the exact figures of the environmentalists (50,000 extra deaths a year), it is clear that sulfur and particle emissions do have large-scale health effects.
  • Finland will suffer economically. Whether or not one believes the exact figures given by industry, (600 millions EUR per year or 12,000 jobs), common sense and a look at the map says that Finland will suffer more than most countries. We are effectively an island.
  • This is not just an EU decision. The International Maritime Organization IMO has itself approved the limits already in 2008. The EU directive adds very little. If this directive really came as a surprise, someone has been sleeping soundly.
  • In 2015, the limit only affects the so-called SECA-areas, meaning the Baltic Sea, North Sea, English channel and the coasts of Canada and the USA. In the rest of the world, the limit will not be applied until 2020 at the earliest, possibly as late as 2025. It is easy to find this unfair: the directive hurts those countries the most which have already done a fairly good job reducing emissions in general.

The Finnish government has proposed to give 30 million EUR in subsidies to quickly attach scrubbers to ships, but this most likely cannot happen due to the anti-subsidy laws  of the EU.

If Finland had been prepared for the directive, there could have been a win-win scenario. That 30 million, rather than being used (or not used) for subsidies, could have been used to kick-start a major R&D program to create ultra-cheap ultra-flexible plug-and-play scrubbers that could fit into even the shabbiest ships of the world.

There are fewer limits on R&D subsidies, and the 30 million really would not be a major dent in the national budget.

In fact, the 5-10 years’ extension for the rest of the world is precisely what could have given us an opportunity. In 2020 (or 2025), everyone will be just as “surprised” as Finland is now, for example the Mediterranean countries. In the current economic situation, the Mediterranean countries really cannot afford large public R&D investments, even if they are awake.

The possibility would arise from using the IPR system correctly. To those who don’t know much about IPR, and to those who do but are skeptics (myself included), the word “patent” sounds like a boogieman. But this is exactly the kind of situation which the IPR system is meant for: to enable large investments now, in the hopes of recouping those investments much later via licensing. Patents are valid for 20 years. In these R&D programs, it would make sense to patent everything that moves.

To be populistic: we pay now, but our industry has a payback time in 2020 and gets the money back from Greek merchant shipping.

Ugly and heartless? Yes. IPR is ugly.

Unethical? No. This is what the IPR system is meant for, whether one likes it or not. This is not unfair against small inventors (a common complaint), because no one can build large-scale scrubbers in his garage. This is large machinery, requiring large companies.

The proposal may sound vaguely nauseating to everyone. But this is what I would do. It may be too late for the sulfur directive, which is regrettable. But when the next environmental “surprise” arrives, it would make sense to be prepared.

 

Rikkidirektiivi ja IPR

Populistisesti sanottuna: me maksamme nyt, mutta meidän teollisuutemme kiskoo rahat lisenssimaksuina takaisin kreikkalaisilta laivanvarustamoilta vuonna 2020.

[Paikallisia aiheita vaihteeksi. Raskaampi IPR-materiaali on jatkossa osoitteessa www.project-trogolodyte.org. // Local news for a change. Heavy IPR material at link above.] 

[English version: here]

Rikkidirektiivi on  hyväksytty EU-parlamentissa. Vuoteen 2015 mennessä Itämerellä kulkevien laivojen polttoaineen rikkipitoisuuden on laskettava nykyisestä yhdestä  prosentista 0,1 prosenttiin.

Kiista on kärjistynyt vahvasti kahteen leiriin: ympäristönsuojelijat (joihin itsekin lukeudun) vastaan teollisuus. Kenenkään ei nyt kannattaisi hehkuttaa ainakaan ylimielisesti; päinvastoin on ymmärrettävä, että vastapuoli ei ole kokonaan väärässä. Ympäristön ja terveyden kannalta direktiivi on positiivinen; Suomen talouden ja työllisyyden kannalta se on negatiivinen.

Kuinka positiivinen tai negatiivinen? Kaikkiin tarkkoihin arvioihin on syytä suhtautua skeptisyydellä, koska kyse on äärimmäisen monimutkaisista asioista, mutta suunnilleen:

  • Direktiivi säästää henkiä. Uskoi luonnonsuojelijoiden tarkkoihin lukuihin tai ei (50,000 ylimääräistä kuolemaa vuodessa), niin jotain terveysvaikutuksia rikki- ja hiukkapäästöillä joka tapauksessa on.
  • Suomi kärsii taloudellisesti. Uskoi teollisuuden tarkkoihin lukuihin tai ei, (600 miljoonaa euroa vuodessa tai 12,000 työpaikkaa), jo terve järki sanoo että laivaliikenteestä riippuvainen Suomi kärsii suhteessa enemmän kuin moni muu Euroopan maa.
  • Kyse ei ole pelkästään EU-päätöksestä, vaan Kansainvälinen merenkulkujärjestö IMO on itse hyväksynyt rajat jo 2008. EU:n direktiivi sinällään tuo vain vähän uutta tähän laivateollisuuden itsensä hyväksymään rajoitukseen. Jos direktiivi tuli täytenä yllätyksenä, joku on nukkunut sikeästi.
  • Raja koskee vuonna 2015 vain SECA-aluetta eli Itämerta, Pohjanmerta, ja Englannin kanaalia sekä USA:n ja Kanadan rannikoita. Muualla maailmassa alempaa raja-arvoa aletaan soveltaa aikaisintaan 2020 ja viimeistään 2025. Tätä voi pitää epäreiluna: niiltä alueilta vaaditaan eniten, jotka jo nyt ovat pääsääntöisesti pyrkineet hoitamaan päästöt asiallisesti.


Suomen hallitus on lupaillut teollisuudelle 30 miljoonan euron tukea rikkipesureiden nopeaan asentamiseen, mutta suora tuki ei luultavasti onnistu EU-kilpailusäännösten takia.

Jos direktiiviin olisi varauduttu ajoissa, olisi voitu menetellä tavalla joka hyödyttäisi kaikkia. Nuo 30 miljoonaa olisi tukiaisten sijaan voitu sijoittaa tuotekehitysohjelmaan, jossa olisi kehitetty aivan uudenlaisia superhalpoja plug-and-play rikkipesureita. Tavoitteena olisi suodatin, joka olisi mahdollista asentaa maailman rähjäisimpiinkin laivoihin.

T&K-tukia eivät samat kilpailusäädökset koske, ja 30 miljoonaa ei näin tärkeässä asiassa olisi suuri panostus valtiolta.

Itse asiassa juuri tuo muulle maailmalle annettu 5-10 vuoden viivästys avaisi mahdollisuuksia. Vuonna 2020 (tai 2025) asia tulee muille (esimerkiksi Välimeren) maille eteen aivan yhtä suurena “yllätyksenä” kuin meille nyt. Varsinkaan laman aikana Välimeren mailla ei ole varaa suuriin  julkisiin T&K-panoksiin, vaikka siellä asiaan herättäisiinkin.

Yksi mahdollisuus tulisi patenttijärjestelmän oikeinkäyttämisestä. Asiaa tuntemattomille ja IPR-skeptikoille (joihin itsekin lukeudun) sana “patentti” kuulostaa helposti möröltä. Mutta juuri tässä patentointi ja innovaatioiden suojaus on paikallaan: mahdollistamaan suuret panostukset nyt, mahdollisuudella saada rahat takaisin lisenssimaksuina. Patentit ovat voimassa 20 vuotta. Näissä T&K-hankkeissa olisi tärkeää patentoida kaikki mikä liikkuu.

Populistisesti sanottuna: me maksamme nyt, mutta meidän teollisuutemme kiskoo rahat lisenssimaksuina takaisin kreikkalaisilta laivanvarustamoilta vuonna 2020.

Ruman ja sydämettömän kuuloista? Onhan se. IPR on rumaa.

Epäeettistä? Ei. Tähän IPR-järjestelmä on juuri tarkoitettu, piti siitä tai ei. Tällä ei myöskään sorreta pieniä keksijöitä, koska ei toimivia pesujärjestelmiä kukaan autotallissaan tee. Kyse on suuren luokan koneista, ja tarpeeksi laaja-alaista osaamista on vain suurilla tekijöillä.

Näkemykseni saattaa kuulostaa epämääräisen vastenmieliseltä kaikkien mielestä. Mutta näin kuitenkin tekisin. Voi olla että nyt on jo myöhäistä, ja se on valitettavaa.  Seuraavaa ympäristönsuojelun “yllätystä” vastaan, mikä se sitten onkaan, voisi sen sijaan alkaa jo nyt valmistautua tällä tavalla.

 Muita ympäristöriitoihin liittyviä kirjoituksia: Vastakkainasettelut.

Spinning off Project Troglodyte

Project Troglodyte has raised enough interest that we’ve decided to spin it off as a separate project altogether. It will now continue at http://www.project-troglodyte.org.  

We’ve also gotten new collaborators (and especially people who are contributing anonymously), so a transfer makes sense at this point.

Zygomatica will continue as it is — a platform for the three of us to think about things in different ways.

Project-troglodyte.org , we hope, will grow into something with a tighter focus.Bad patents are not the end of the world, and very few people either understand or care about the issues, but they are something to be strongly opposed nevertheless.

There is pressure to harmonize patent systems around the world. This is not necessarily all bad. Unfortunately, “harmonize” seems to mean “make identical to the US system.”

There are two key problems. The US system is highly vulnerable to patent trolls (see Wikipedia article, but note that information might not be completely unbiased). In particular, there is pressure to loosen limitations on software patents, which are the lifeline of trolls. (See Wikipedia article, but note that the information may be partly outdated).

Whatever the advantages or disadvantages of a patent system in general, we fell quite strongly that the US system is not something we in the rest of the world should “harmonize” ourselves to. The other way around, perhaps.

Some of the regions where the debate is ongoing:

Australia. Allows software patents, but appears so far to have had less problems than the US. (See iLaw, jurisdiction.com)

New Zealand. Ongoing debate. Rules are being changed to make SW patenting slightly easier, but the exact impact is unclear (see ZDNet, TheRegister)

Europe. Software patents have been banned so far. But debate is ongoing. (See EUPat, FSFE). For latest news, see FSFE: Unitary patent threatens innovation in Europe.

Given that the pressure is worldwide and the problem is the US, we think our chosen strategy of looking at the US system is the right one. At least we will be prepared if we are “harmonized”.

So: from now on Zygomatica.com for our different thoughts on different things, Project-troglodyte.org for a wider community effort focusing on worrisome patents.

Jakke Mäkelä, Niko Porjo, and Timo Tokkonen

Pollution week 5: Summary

“So we will continue to plod on. In fact, we will be expanding this activity to a new website soon.After all, what’s the alternative? Maybe if we all close our eyes and ears, all the bad things will go away?”

Written by: Jakke Mäkelä, Timo Tokkonen, and Niko Porjo.

The postings this week have, we think, given an overview of what a project like Troglodyte could hope to achieve against entities like Intellectual Ventures. Not much, but even a tiny bit helps. Especially posting four might give ideas on countermeasures against the worst of the trolls.

The possibilities are quite limited; on the other hand, being prepared is infinitely better than being unprepared.

Continue reading Pollution week 5: Summary

Pollution week 4: Could we do something about Intellectual Ventures?

“But a normal company would never let a poo reference take pride of place on its patent document. For most healthy companies, patents are simply too serious a matter to allow sophomoric poo humor.”

Even if the previous parts of the Pollution week (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3)  left a general sense of bewilderment, they don’t necessarily have to leave a sense of complete hopelessness.  Maybe the phenomena that were noted in Part 3 could be useful. Even if it’s not directly possible to fight trolls, it makes eminent sense to see what vulnerabilities they might have. This information might be useful to someone, somewhere.

The metadata of part 3 suggests that the inventors have been working in a “patent factory” mode, i.e. churning out applications for the purpose of churning out applications. This may have happened during one intense day, or during several workshops, or over a longer period of time.

It so happens that this mode is not completely unfamiliar to me.  This means that I may have insights into the weaknesses of this mode, which might be helpful should anyone ever wish to try to invalidate a patent of this type.

 

Note that these points are not in any way related to this particular ‘002 patent. The same kind of mechanisms seem to be operating in any number of cases, and the ideas here are fully applicable there as well.

The article in bizjournals.com is worth quoting again. “….Several times per year ISF brings together thought leaders across industry and academia for these day long, forward ideation discussions. At times, a specific innovation is created as a result of these sessions. When that happens, it is customary for the individuals who have contributed to the innovation to be credited if a patent application is filed.”“

This may well be “customary” at IV, but I do not believe I have seen such a cavalier attitude expressed elsewhere. The question of “who contributed” is actually a hotly contested issue. (See C.R. Bard v. W.L. Gore & Associates for an 800 million USD case that has lasted 38 years, and is about who should be credited as a co-inventor). Any incorrect names in the inventor list would certainly be interesting in litigation.

Also there seems to have been a long development time for these patents; the ‘002 seems to be a variant/extension of an original idea that was more closely related to personal health monitoring. There are certainly innocent explanations for this in the filing process (applications may have to be rewritten and so on). However, it does leave open the question of just *when* something was invented.

Specific possibilities:

  • Are they sure they have the right inventors? In principle, having even one name included incorrectly, or lacking just one name, could mean the patent (or at least some claims) are invalid. The Bizjournals article suggests that IV has a somewhat cavalier attitude toward this aspect.
  • If these were made at ideation discussions, where and when were they, and who took part? Were minutes taken? Who invented which claim?
  • In general, is all the paperwork in order? Has every inventor signed every piece of paper that needs to be signed? A group filing an application a week is bound to make careless mistakes at some point. Cases can be made or destroyed on small technicalities.
  • Are there any anomalies, such as people being on inventor lists when they did not attend a specific meeting at all?
  • Was everything in these patents really invented during one day long session? If so, why have there been so many additions and amendations throughout the years? Who has made the additions? Where are they documented?
  • If the additions the workshop results were considered just technical steps rather than new inventions, who made that evaluation?
  • Are these applications actually the result of multiple inventions? If so, who made them, and are they documented? What claims are owned by what inventor?

 

——————————-
CODA

The ‘002 patent itself provides a somewhat appropriate note on which to end.  The first reference, in a prominent place, is the following:

Figure 1: First reference in ‘002 patent

 “Buchanan, Matt: “Twitter Toilet Tweets Your Poo”; Gizmodo.com; Bearing a data of May 18, 2009; Printed on Jul. 1, 2009; pp. 1-2; located at http://gizmodo.com/5259381/twitter-toilet-tweets-your-poo”

The reference does not seem to be cited in the actual document. It has a vague connection with the subject matter, but so could any number of articles,  so it is not really clear why it is here in the first place.

It is even less clear why it is here, in first place. The list is in no particular order, and there is for example Agger in the references, so it is not a question of Buchanan being the first in alphabetical order. Someone somewhere wanted a poo reference to be the first thing that hits the reader in the eye.

I would definitely have wanted done something like this in high school. Or university, for that matter. Or, come to think of it, even now. I’m childish. I would love to have to have a poo reference on a serious document like this.

But a normal company would never let a poo reference take pride of place on its patent document. For most healthy companies, patents are simply too serious a matter to allow sophomoric poo humor.

An attitude that is this cavalier toward inventor status and poo humor is a sign that something is just not quite working right. And that makes it increasingly probable that the company will make careless mistakes. A single comma in the wrong place can make all the difference.

What overall conclusions can we now draw from the exercise? (Subject of next posting).

 

Translate »