I just came across this article and thought it would be perfect to share with the class. Check it out everyone!
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/05/owen-nannarone/
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Monday, May 6, 2013
Silly Patent #30
PNEUMATIC SHOE LACING APPARATUS
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=www.google.com/patents/US5205055.pdf
I really like this dumb patent because it gives an explanation to the Marty McFly's shoes from one of my favorite movies, Back to the Future 2. This patent was granted in 1993, I guess 1993 was the year for receiving dumb patents. This invention is definitely useful for the disabled or elderly. Essentially anyone who would have trouble tying their own shoes. The notion of self strapping or tying shoes is obvious but the method in which this inventor describes is not too obvious. The idea is clearly not novel as it was portrayed to the world in 1989 in Back to the Future 2. I guess the method in which is laces itself is the novel part. It is even in the title of the invention "Pneumatic". I will admit I had to look up what Pneumatic ment and this is the definition I found, Pneumatic - Adj. containing or operated by air or gas under pressure. Nike put 1000 pairs of the shoes from the movie up for sale a few years ago at a charity event for $1,000 each. They sold out in less than a day and do not even include the self lacing apparatus. Currently these shoes are being resold on ebay for $7,500. Imagine how much they would be going for if they included this pneumatic shoe lacing apparatus!
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=www.google.com/patents/US5205055.pdf
I really like this dumb patent because it gives an explanation to the Marty McFly's shoes from one of my favorite movies, Back to the Future 2. This patent was granted in 1993, I guess 1993 was the year for receiving dumb patents. This invention is definitely useful for the disabled or elderly. Essentially anyone who would have trouble tying their own shoes. The notion of self strapping or tying shoes is obvious but the method in which this inventor describes is not too obvious. The idea is clearly not novel as it was portrayed to the world in 1989 in Back to the Future 2. I guess the method in which is laces itself is the novel part. It is even in the title of the invention "Pneumatic". I will admit I had to look up what Pneumatic ment and this is the definition I found, Pneumatic - Adj. containing or operated by air or gas under pressure. Nike put 1000 pairs of the shoes from the movie up for sale a few years ago at a charity event for $1,000 each. They sold out in less than a day and do not even include the self lacing apparatus. Currently these shoes are being resold on ebay for $7,500. Imagine how much they would be going for if they included this pneumatic shoe lacing apparatus!
Silly Patent #29
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=www.google.com/patents/US5255452.pdf
I have attached the link to view the PDF of the patent I found when I searched for Silly Patents. It is a device for giving the illusion for anti-gravity. It is a shoe that supports the person who wears it when they lean forward. While it is silly I have seen something like this be "useful". While I personally have no use for it I have seen street performers use similar devices to just stand there leaning. I guess if you are a street performer this is something of high use. I do not know how to claim this as novel as it is just a support system, and it was filed in 1993. I guess in terms of a shoe this is a new idea for a shoe (one that supports your body weight when you lean forward). In addition to that, it can be considered a non-obvious shoe device. Again, I see no use for it personally and I still consider it a silly patent but I see why someone would have a use for it and why someone would want to patent it.
I have attached the link to view the PDF of the patent I found when I searched for Silly Patents. It is a device for giving the illusion for anti-gravity. It is a shoe that supports the person who wears it when they lean forward. While it is silly I have seen something like this be "useful". While I personally have no use for it I have seen street performers use similar devices to just stand there leaning. I guess if you are a street performer this is something of high use. I do not know how to claim this as novel as it is just a support system, and it was filed in 1993. I guess in terms of a shoe this is a new idea for a shoe (one that supports your body weight when you lean forward). In addition to that, it can be considered a non-obvious shoe device. Again, I see no use for it personally and I still consider it a silly patent but I see why someone would have a use for it and why someone would want to patent it.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Steady increase in patents #27
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/patent-grant-update.html
It looks like the number of patents issued has continued to increase since 1983 with a slight drop during the recession. The numbers have since picked up to reach record highs and are on track to be the year with the highest number of patents issued. As technology is advancing there is more use to file patents. Also, now that the patent "game" has received more publicity with many high profile cases resulting in millions of dollars transferring hands people are starting to see dollar signs in their eyes. It is great that our government is able to process this many patents in the coming years and are willing to help protect the intellectual property of inventors but not all of the people filing patents are doing it for the right reasons. The drop during the recession makes me wonder why. Was it because patents are somewhat pricey to file or was it because people were just focusing their efforts elsewhere?
It looks like the number of patents issued has continued to increase since 1983 with a slight drop during the recession. The numbers have since picked up to reach record highs and are on track to be the year with the highest number of patents issued. As technology is advancing there is more use to file patents. Also, now that the patent "game" has received more publicity with many high profile cases resulting in millions of dollars transferring hands people are starting to see dollar signs in their eyes. It is great that our government is able to process this many patents in the coming years and are willing to help protect the intellectual property of inventors but not all of the people filing patents are doing it for the right reasons. The drop during the recession makes me wonder why. Was it because patents are somewhat pricey to file or was it because people were just focusing their efforts elsewhere?
Patenting a sandal? #26
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/patent-conscious-preparation-for-a-summer-at-the-beach.html
After reading this article I am conflicted. On one hand I want to commend the inventor for patenting such a simple stupid idea probably with the hopes that Crocs will buy it from him. On the other hand this guy sucks and so does whoever let it slide through the patent office. I understand this as a design patent but as a utility patent? How was this classified as new and useful. The concept of sandals that make imprints has always been out there. I remember as a young kid seeing cheap plastic sandals from China on the beach that would do the same thing. And I have no idea how this is useful. Im sure I could come up with a bogus excuse as to why it is useful. But again, this guy played it smart he took the chance to patent it and it worked. I highly doubt he will go ahead and produce these sandals. The more realistic route is to sit on this patent and wait to be bought or for someone to infringe. Im torn.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Natural Phenomena? #25
An article on Patentlyo says that the supreme court has ruled that abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature are now ineligible for patent protection even when previously unknown or discovered. In the article there is a poll you can take that asks: Whether you think those non-textual exclusions should be treated as "prior-art. The results are as follows: abstract ideas 20%, natural phenomena 32%, laws of nature 32%, and none of the above 15%. I would really like to know how someone could even attempt to patent a natural phenomena and the USPTO let it slide. I think there is something that I am not understanding here is they are just now making laws of nature etc. un patentable. I would like to hear some feedback from the class in the comments section to discuss this.
Budget Cuts #24
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/uspto-budget-cuts.html
I cant believe with all of the back logged patents and work that is not being dont in the patent and trademark office the government thought it would be a good idea to not only cut the budget, but also turn over the user fees to the treasury. It seems like in a time like this the user fees would be what would sustain the USPTO. Apparently someone really wants to screw with everyone filing a patent and everyone working in the patent office. I am going to do some more research in the next few days to see who is in charge of making the call to cut the budget. I saw this article and i thought it was a joke. If you thought the USPTO was backlogged before, you havent seen the worst of it yet.
I cant believe with all of the back logged patents and work that is not being dont in the patent and trademark office the government thought it would be a good idea to not only cut the budget, but also turn over the user fees to the treasury. It seems like in a time like this the user fees would be what would sustain the USPTO. Apparently someone really wants to screw with everyone filing a patent and everyone working in the patent office. I am going to do some more research in the next few days to see who is in charge of making the call to cut the budget. I saw this article and i thought it was a joke. If you thought the USPTO was backlogged before, you havent seen the worst of it yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)