Category: Off Topic

Share via email

Dan Pierron

Having only recently become aware of the genius that is The Oatmeal, I’ve had to digest its wealth of top-shelf comics, as well as informative comics rivaling those of XKCD, in a relatively short time.  My interest was first drawn when TO became embroiled in what is universally recognized as a frivolous suit filed on behalf of Funny Junk, a comedy-aggregating website, filed by Mr. Sex.com himself, Charles Carreon.

It is nothing new for a party caught red handed and exposed for making a cheap buck to get angry and sue, but what makes this story interesting is how TO redirected the venom of this blunder in a judo-like maneuver to utilize TO’s immense popularity for a charitable purpose.  TO flipped Funny Junk’s demand for $20,000 on it’s head, calling on his fans to donate the money instead to WWF (not WWE for trademark fans out there) and ACS.  Not only did TO’s fans pony up the asked-for 20 grand, they added 200 thousand more.

Intermixed in this tale of delicious retribution is the site indiegogo.com, a kind of Kickstarter for non-profits.  This type of microfinancing, popularized by the likes of Prosper, LendingClub, and Kiva, has been adopted for the purpose of funding projects for the greater good.

Science!

It seems that, based on TO’s success in its earlier outing, he decided to take the next step by undertaking a bigger project, the creation of a museum honoring Nikola Tesla at his Wardenclyffe facility.  In order to exceed a competing bid, TO set about collecting $850,000 in donations, which would be matched by the state of New York.  Once again, TO’s fans answered the call, exceeding the desired amount by nearly $350,000.

We are in the midst of a shift, a realization of what the earliest internet visionaries imagined.  Along with the much-reported use of social media as a vital means of communication in the Arab Spring, social change is occurring.  More than that, its genesis is completely online.  When a site like TO and its kind, including the likes of Penny Arcade, are able to create communities through common interest and spur action from that community.  Maybe it’s just me, and maybe I’m just recently becoming aware of it, but this type of activism for causes generally unrelated to the reason for the formation of a group seems unprecedented.  It’s like new societies are being created.  Sure, the fact that they are created around a webcomic might make some doubt their sincerity or worth, but they would be ignoring the hard evidence, in the form of dollars and cents, that the communities are donating, taking worthwhile causes on their backs and acting out of nothing but interest in the cause.  And that is something I am proud to be a part of.  I encourage anyone reading this post to engage with the online communities that already exist around sites you likely visit every day, and join in their charitable efforts.

Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

I know this is a departure from the typical posts on intellectual property that I normally do, but I wanted to take some time out to urge our readers to join our firm in supporting The Scott Center for Autism Treatment at Florida Institute of TechnologyZWM is very proud to support many organizations.  Please take a minute to check out our community page to find out more information about the various organizations that we proudly support.

This year, I am honored to be the chairman of the committee planning the annual fundraiser for The Scott Center – The Evening of Hope IV. The event will be held on April 21, 2012 at the home of one of the Trustees of Florida Tech, Joe Flammio.  I really want to thank Mr. Flammio for his generosity to The Scott Center.  Sponsorships are still available, and can be purchased here.

As a special treat this year, The Kempf family, owners of Kempf’s Jewelers in Indialantic have again donated a Rolex watch to be raffled off  for the benefit of The Scott Center.  Tickets are only $25 a piece and can be purchased here.  The drawing for the Rolex watch will be held at Kempf’s Jewers on April 28.

The Scott Center for Autism Treatment has a three pronged mission – Service, Training & Research.  The three pronged approach of The Scott Center provides families and persons suffering with Autism with the treatment that they need,  training for future therapists, and research of new Autism treatments.  I am lucky enough to live in this wonderful community that provides such great resources to families that deal with Autism.  I thank all the members of our committee, and I look forward to a wonderful event.  Please join me in supporting the fight against Autism.

 

Share via email

Danie Roy

I really feel like we can’t reiterate what is and isn’t allowed to be patented according to 35 USC 101. The short version is, if you need to use the words “natural,” “God,” “perpetual motion,” “physics-defying,” “psychic,” or any combination or variant of the above, it’s probably NOT patentable. When in doubt, contact your friendly neighborhood patent practitioner.  Shockingly, there are never any shortages of patent applications for this subject matter.

Now, we’ve already discussed some variant of all of the above, such as “Godly Powers” and “Perpetual Motion Devices.”  Somehow, I managed to actually stumble upon patent applications for God himself and Perpetual Energy supplied by God. How is this different from Godly Powers you ask? In Godly Powers, the applicant claimed to be God. This new application is claiming God.

The correct answer to "can I patent God?"

Or at least, that’s what I can make out. The application claims to be a continuation of a patent on a drain trap as well as almost a page’s worth of other applications. In the words of the Examiner, “The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite and functional or operational language.” The same goes for the rest of the application. As if that weren’t enough, the applicant cursed no less than nine times in the application, rightfully raising objections from the Examiner.

To be clear: never ever ever ever ever EVER curse in an application. One, it makes you sound uneducated. Two, you’re never going to get an Examiner to allow an application like that. Three, it’s against the rules (37 CFR 1.3).

Tune in next time for Part II: Holy Perpetual Motion!

Share via email

Danie Roy

Yes, you read the title right.

Scientists have been trying to grow meat for some time, and they’re pretty close to making it work commercially. Right now it’s worth WAY more than its weight in gold. It’s not solid gold life-sized elephant expensive,  but maybe solid gold toilet seat expensive.  At roughly $200k for a quarter-pound burger, it’s certainly nothing to sneeze at.

Here’s the odd part, though: nobody has eaten the patented patty yet. The Netherlands-based scientists are trying to find a lab rat before they eat the expensive meat themselves.

I would even wear this shirt, made possible by Randall Monroe of XKCD. Because I am a nerd.

There are some ethical questionsarising over the “test tube burger,” from “it’s unnatural therefore wrong” to PETA’s offering of a $1 million prize to whomever can create a commercially viable meat that doesn’t harm animals.  And, regardless of how people feel about PETA and those appealing to nature, just about everyone is asking themselves, “would I eat lab-grown meat?”

My answer? I’d eat it…if it were cheaper. I can’t afford a $200k burger, but I’d try one if it were offered to me. It’s gotta be better than what’s in hot dogs and the average fast food burger anyway, and it’s produced in a clean environment. Plus, the “green” effects are a bonus. Who knows, someday we may have meat makers or we might be able to print meat. Science happens. So, scientists, if you’re reading this, I’d like to be the burger hipster now. I will eat that sciencey meat…if I don’t have to pay out the wazu, of course.

Share via email

Danie Roy

What is invention? When you’re in elementary school, it’s a solution to a problem. As you get older, you realize it can also be a better solution to a problem. Even older, and you simplify down to just “innovation.” But what is innovation? I would argue that it is staying above or driving the technological curve. After all, building a better mousetrap is nice, but cyborg mice is just so much more interesting! (Plus, EMP guns would make the best moustraps, then!)

I bring this up because there seems to be a big freakout about copyrights and 3D printers.  The freakout should really be about patents and 3D printers, and, honestly, I don’t know why there’s not more excitement than doomsday predictions.

Yes, that bunny was made by that box.

Before I get too far into that, I should probably explain the hype about 3D printers. This is a fairly new technology that is pretty much what it sounds like: a printer receives a series of 2D patterns to build up a material that is printed – that is, applied in layers – until a 3D object is formed. All things considered, it is probably the least wasteful modeling technology, but, like I said, it’s still new. It’s really slow, not yet universally affordable (especially the printing materials, which range from $7 to more than $300 per pound), and not yet perfect at what it does. That said, the technological curve is exponential: the technology will be there soon.

The freakout is happening because people think that now, with things like Pirate Bay’s physibles, bootleg items will start popping up left and right. Copyrights groups are shouting anarchy, trademark holders are squirming, and patent holders are giving the death glare. Allow me to explain the implications for patents (because, you know, patents is what I do):

“Eventually you can print your own bootleg crosstrainers” is a comment that has been thrown around a lot. This particular example is a long way off, however, as a 3D printer having 2 different material cartridges is currently a big deal. Single-material shoes, on the other hand, such as, say, Crocs, (which have many patents on them, by the way) need to be more on the lookout. These can (and likely will) get copied and printed with the current technology.  It might currently be cost-prohibitive, but someday soon, it may not be.

Design patents are suddenly way more valuable again. Personal use or not, if you print out or distribute a patented design, you are DEFINITELY violating the law and will likely get your freshly printed pants sued right off of you. We may not be too far off from printing more complex items covered by utility patents, either.

So what can you do? There is going to be a demand to print what you have, how can you protect your rights? Simple: get ahead of the curve.

This actually is a great opportunity. The geeks might as well be screaming at you “hey, this is a potential market, shut up and take our money!” The thing about geeks, especially early adopters, is that they are really proud of their new technology. In some cases, they’re willing to pay a little extra to showcase it. So, let me walk you through an idea to ride the wave of technology instead of aimlessly drowning in it.

Sell licenses to designs. Find a way to watermark the files so that they are more difficult (or impossible, if you can swing it) to copy, and sell them online. Sell kits, even! Material cartridges and a drive with files on it, for example (or a redemption code). To go back to the Crocs example, the early adopting geek will be more than happy to buy that design and print it, if for no other reason than to show off what their technology can do. You need to make a 3D design at some point anyway, right? Plus, if your consumer has those awkwardly-sized feet, they can have a pair that fits, while the manufacturer doesn’t have to make special orders, and the salesman isn’t stuck trying to explain why they won’t sell half a pair of shoes.

How to do it? Make an online market. If you don’t move to profit off of your hard work in a market that wants it, someone else will try to.

“Those whippersnapper pirates will try to steal it anyway!” you object. “They all want to get something for nothing!” I won’t lie to you, some people are going to try to steal no matter what you do, but there will always be an honest bunch who genuinely want to compensate you for what you’ve done. If you don’t offer what they want, however, that’s where things get sticky. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure here.

Knows their audience.

Take the My Little Pony phenomenon, for example. When Hasbro released the 4th generation of a children’s show meant to market pony toys to young girls, they had no idea that the plot and characters would charm an audience that was nowhere near their target demographic. Keep in mind, the actual demographic for this show is pretty close to the demographic that would buy a 3D printer. Hasbro wasn’t ready to deal with this phenomenon, but they quickly adapted: ponies that started to look more like those portrayed on the show were offered for sale, episodes were made available on iTunes, and consumer loyalty was promoted. The company even went as far as giving a fan favorite background pony the name fans had bestowed on it. Once boxed sets of the show were available, “bronies” started buying them. Same goes for iTunes episodes and show-accurate toys. Sure, you’ve got a few people who will continue to download lower-quality versions of the episodes, but most fans are content to either watch their Saturday morning cartoons or buy the iTunes version… or even wait for the episode to get posted online by the company that airs the show!

No, the market will not always stay the way you like it. Occasionally, however, it will tell you exactly where it’s going and how to exploit it. Some will always steal, but there’s very little you can do about that. Adjusting what you offer to capture those who are willing to pay, however, is something you CAN do… so do it. Minimal effort for high profit is a great business strategy, after all.


Subscribe

Login



TUESDAY, MAY 21, 2013

Bad Behavior has blocked 13208 access attempts in the last 7 days.