There is a trend I have noticed over the past ten years or so that appears to be gaining momentum. Started with JIT (just in time) manufacturing and sales optimization, continued with the enhanced efficiency of shipping and material transport methods, accelerated with the Internet and the newly distributed nature of information resources, and aided by the rise of rapid manufacturing and prototyping technologies, this evolution is continuing. It really seems to me that in some ways the industrial revolution is beginning to come full circle - we appear to be moving away from centralized generation (goods, energy, etc) epitomized by large factories and power plants back to a more distributed model.
One important reason this change appears to be happening is that the technological basis for these activities is continuing to evolve. Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and other alternative energy generation methods combined with the decreased price, size, and increased functionality of various industrial equipment (mostly due to the evolution of CAD and CNC machining and advances in materials) allow very small scale manufacturing and power generation to work sufficiently well and cheaply enough on small unit manufacturing to compete with the economies of scale enjoyed by more traditional methods. A significant advantage is that general purpose tooling can be modified from unit to unit without the retooling costs associated with traditional manufacturing line methods.
So everytime i see prices decrease for rapid prototyping and CNC machines and the capabilities improve, or see cheaper and more efficient small scale power generation methods reach the marketplace, it really brings home the way the industrial landscape is changing. Decentralized manufacturing and power generation is starting to look like the next stage of the industrial revolution ...
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
The patent race in 2008
Looks like IBM is back on top in the patent wars. An article from Reuters says IBM was granted 4,168 patents in 2008, the most ever received by a single entity in a year. Samsung was second with 2,515.
Perhaps more interesting is the source that Reuters used to acquire this data - a company called IFI Claims Patent Services is trying to do something pretty interesting. They have a database of all patents, and are trying to automate the process of sorting and evaluating patents into groups related by subject area and other criteria. Not sure how good the system is, as I have yet to use it, but anything helps. Figuring out what the patent landscape looks like in a specific area can take quite a bit of time unless you have quite a bit of prior experience in the specific field *and* in the IP aspects of the specific field.
Perhaps more interesting is the source that Reuters used to acquire this data - a company called IFI Claims Patent Services is trying to do something pretty interesting. They have a database of all patents, and are trying to automate the process of sorting and evaluating patents into groups related by subject area and other criteria. Not sure how good the system is, as I have yet to use it, but anything helps. Figuring out what the patent landscape looks like in a specific area can take quite a bit of time unless you have quite a bit of prior experience in the specific field *and* in the IP aspects of the specific field.
Friday, January 9, 2009
On the value of ideas and sweat equity
I want to address a fairly common meme that shows up quite often when you deal with inventors and entrepreneurs, especially young ones. The meme is basically "We need to play this one very close to the vest, encrypt all our discussions, get folks to sign NDA's or contracts before we talk to them in any detail, and be very careful who we talk to at all. Because if we are not careful, someone will steal our unique and highly profitable idea."
After the first few patents you file or companies you start you realize a couple of things:
1) The idea itself is at most 10-20% of the insight and sweat equity required to get something off the ground. More commonly 1-5%.
2) Once you start implementing or building something new, usually there are follow on insights developed as a result that are far more important than the original idea.
3) If the idea is easy enough to do that almost anyone could steal and implement it, you should probably try another idea.
4) The kinds of people who are going to put the sweat equity into developing an invention or company most likely will do so on one of *their* ideas, not get all excited about one of yours.
5) Most NDA's dont work. I usually get them signed, but more as part of the process than with the real expectation they will be useful. And only after the negotiations get serious - usually i have disclosed the core of the idea already.
6) Its really not that common to have a 'truly unique' idea. Most likely someone, somewhere has thought about it or something like it, even if it hasn't shown up in the prior art yet.
7) If you are the kind of person who comes up with original ideas, you will have more than you know what to do with. In my experience, folks either come up with 0 or hundreds of good ideas. Not too many come up with between 1 and 10 good ideas.
8) Learning to judge the 'profitability index' and 'effort index' of new ideas is the key to repeated success. If my experience is any guide, you will leave at least 10 good, original, and commercially viable ideas on the shelf for every one you actually pursue. Maybe more like 50 to one.
This blurb was stimulated by a discussion on Slashdot where I posted something fairly similar. Might be worth a full length article at some point, considering how often I hear some variant of this meme.
Contact me if you have any questions about this sort of thing. I am always willing to chat about new ideas and business plans. I even have a very nice bilateral non disclosure agreement that has stood the test of time and can be easily adapted to specific needs.
After the first few patents you file or companies you start you realize a couple of things:
1) The idea itself is at most 10-20% of the insight and sweat equity required to get something off the ground. More commonly 1-5%.
2) Once you start implementing or building something new, usually there are follow on insights developed as a result that are far more important than the original idea.
3) If the idea is easy enough to do that almost anyone could steal and implement it, you should probably try another idea.
4) The kinds of people who are going to put the sweat equity into developing an invention or company most likely will do so on one of *their* ideas, not get all excited about one of yours.
5) Most NDA's dont work. I usually get them signed, but more as part of the process than with the real expectation they will be useful. And only after the negotiations get serious - usually i have disclosed the core of the idea already.
6) Its really not that common to have a 'truly unique' idea. Most likely someone, somewhere has thought about it or something like it, even if it hasn't shown up in the prior art yet.
7) If you are the kind of person who comes up with original ideas, you will have more than you know what to do with. In my experience, folks either come up with 0 or hundreds of good ideas. Not too many come up with between 1 and 10 good ideas.
8) Learning to judge the 'profitability index' and 'effort index' of new ideas is the key to repeated success. If my experience is any guide, you will leave at least 10 good, original, and commercially viable ideas on the shelf for every one you actually pursue. Maybe more like 50 to one.
This blurb was stimulated by a discussion on Slashdot where I posted something fairly similar. Might be worth a full length article at some point, considering how often I hear some variant of this meme.
Contact me if you have any questions about this sort of thing. I am always willing to chat about new ideas and business plans. I even have a very nice bilateral non disclosure agreement that has stood the test of time and can be easily adapted to specific needs.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
The exponential rate of technological growth
Sometimes its easy to miss the degree to which our cultural and technological environment is changing when we are participating in it on a day to day basis. I recently ran across a video from NOAA that brings the degree of some of these changes home.
This is a video of all air traffic around the world in a 24 hour period. Really makes an impression.
A friend of mine had an interesting comment about it: "There is an odd thought I sometimes have that some of our problems are due to our evolutionary and cultural heritage in small groups and villages, and a simple inability to comprehend the scale and simultaneity of the modern world. we can intellectually manipulate information on large scale issues, but we don't really comprend things at a gut level. little videos like this seem to make the scale more real, at least for me."
All i can say is that it makes the scale of human endeavor a little more real for me as well.
This is a video of all air traffic around the world in a 24 hour period. Really makes an impression.
A friend of mine had an interesting comment about it: "There is an odd thought I sometimes have that some of our problems are due to our evolutionary and cultural heritage in small groups and villages, and a simple inability to comprehend the scale and simultaneity of the modern world. we can intellectually manipulate information on large scale issues, but we don't really comprend things at a gut level. little videos like this seem to make the scale more real, at least for me."
All i can say is that it makes the scale of human endeavor a little more real for me as well.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
The curious foci of modern news media
I find it quite interesting to track the kinds of news stories that get national media coverage in the United States against those that get only limited coverage. As far as i can tell, most news coverage consists of truly trivial stories that have little or no bearing on the big picture. How we live, what we understand about the earth and the universe around us, why things are happening in the way that they are. None of these questions seem to be addressed, almost ever.
So a story about how there are two large holes in the Earths magnetic field shows up well below the fold, while stories about assorted minutia accrue top billing. And folks wonder why the world works the way it does ....
Why can't the media exercise some discretion in regard to the stories they promote? Isn't there some measure of abstract importance that could be applied?
Ah well, I suppose the game changes but the story remains the same. C'est la vie.
So a story about how there are two large holes in the Earths magnetic field shows up well below the fold, while stories about assorted minutia accrue top billing. And folks wonder why the world works the way it does ....
Why can't the media exercise some discretion in regard to the stories they promote? Isn't there some measure of abstract importance that could be applied?
Ah well, I suppose the game changes but the story remains the same. C'est la vie.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Ongoing Revolutions in High Density Hydroponics
Traditional hydroponic gardening techniques have always been a bit ahead of their time, and generally only competitive with traditional farming for 'high value' crops. The vertical hydroponics movement is beginning to change that relationship by making it easier to grow traditional food crops at high densities in urban areas close to where the crops are sold and consumed. 'Vertical' refers to a class of hydroponic technologies that can be stacked - yielding much higher crop density than traditional greenhousing or hydroponic methods. I have recently been looking at hydroponic technologies suitable for vertical applications, and have found that cylindrical rotating methods appear to have some fairly significant advantages over traditional hydroponics.
Basically, rotational hydroponic methods consist of a cylinder containing rows of a suitable growth medium, a central lighting fixture, a water reservoir, and a chain drive system that rotates the cylinder at very low speed so each row of plants is dipped into the water reservoir a couple of times per day.
The advantages are simple - these rotational units can be stacked vertically, all plants are essentially equidistant from the light source, and rotational growing generates much larger and healthier plants than non-rotational methods. Combined with LED based lighting operating at only those frequencies at which plants absorb light energy, operating costs can be significantly reduced when compared with traditional hydroponic techniques.
One such system is sold by Omega Garden - although construction of something similar from readily available materials should not be a great challenge for anyone mechanically inclined. An international patent is pending on this technology.
The question is, why arent there more of these systems out there, what problems are associated with setting up small urban production facilities to generate various food crops or high value spice and oil crops, and what can be done to improve this technology even further?
After all, local food crops make a great deal of sense - especially when considering the continuing increases in transportation costs. Grow food near where it will be consumed, and I predict that developing technologies to make this feasible in urban areas will be an ongoing area of research over the next 20 years.
Basically, rotational hydroponic methods consist of a cylinder containing rows of a suitable growth medium, a central lighting fixture, a water reservoir, and a chain drive system that rotates the cylinder at very low speed so each row of plants is dipped into the water reservoir a couple of times per day.
The advantages are simple - these rotational units can be stacked vertically, all plants are essentially equidistant from the light source, and rotational growing generates much larger and healthier plants than non-rotational methods. Combined with LED based lighting operating at only those frequencies at which plants absorb light energy, operating costs can be significantly reduced when compared with traditional hydroponic techniques.
One such system is sold by Omega Garden - although construction of something similar from readily available materials should not be a great challenge for anyone mechanically inclined. An international patent is pending on this technology.
The question is, why arent there more of these systems out there, what problems are associated with setting up small urban production facilities to generate various food crops or high value spice and oil crops, and what can be done to improve this technology even further?
After all, local food crops make a great deal of sense - especially when considering the continuing increases in transportation costs. Grow food near where it will be consumed, and I predict that developing technologies to make this feasible in urban areas will be an ongoing area of research over the next 20 years.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Patent Gridlock - The Tragedy of the Anticommons
I ran into an interesting post on Slashdot referencing an article from the New Yorker that fairly succinctly describes some of the issues I have been having with the current systems and methods we have for handling intellectual property here in the United States. For these kind of sentiments to show up in the popular media, especially outside of the community of folks actively involved in intellectual property issues, really demonstrates the severity of the problem.
To quickly summarize the article, the author suggests that the current patent system is causing an innovation 'gridlock' by encumbering new products and innovations with multiple claims of partial infringement by different holders of existing patents. Now in some sense, this is actually how the system in supposed to operate - if I develop a product that relies on some technology you have developed I am supposed to compensate you in some way for using your work. Unfortunately, because the USPTO has made a practice in the last twenty years of granting patents with increasingly broad claim coverage and granting rights to technologies that do not exist and cannot be built at the current time, the claims of partial interest are so complicated and numerous that the new innovation is doomed before it can even be brought to market. Thus the tragedy of the anticommons.
This problem is further exacerbated by the 'patent trolls' who file for patents on technologies they never intend to bring to market in the hope of extorting a toll on any company unlucky enough to actually bring a potentially infringing product to the marketplace.
I have a couple of suggestions to address this problem, none of which is likely to ever see the light of day. My skepticism regarding implementation does not prevent me from sharing them, however:
* require a functional prototype before granting a patent
* disallow business method patents
* restrict the scope of allowable claims to those demonstrated by the prototype
* require companies to enforce their claims in a timely fashion - if there is no claim as to infringement within 6 months of a potential violation that specific infringer and that infringer alone cannot be penalized
* restrict copyright to a 7 year term which can be renewed for another 7 years at a significant cost
These changes would go some way towards patching the current system, but it should be clear that some serious thought needs to be done regarding how we can fairly handle intellectual property issues in an environment that is, after all, very different from the one the current system was built to address in 1790.
To quickly summarize the article, the author suggests that the current patent system is causing an innovation 'gridlock' by encumbering new products and innovations with multiple claims of partial infringement by different holders of existing patents. Now in some sense, this is actually how the system in supposed to operate - if I develop a product that relies on some technology you have developed I am supposed to compensate you in some way for using your work. Unfortunately, because the USPTO has made a practice in the last twenty years of granting patents with increasingly broad claim coverage and granting rights to technologies that do not exist and cannot be built at the current time, the claims of partial interest are so complicated and numerous that the new innovation is doomed before it can even be brought to market. Thus the tragedy of the anticommons.
This problem is further exacerbated by the 'patent trolls' who file for patents on technologies they never intend to bring to market in the hope of extorting a toll on any company unlucky enough to actually bring a potentially infringing product to the marketplace.
I have a couple of suggestions to address this problem, none of which is likely to ever see the light of day. My skepticism regarding implementation does not prevent me from sharing them, however:
* require a functional prototype before granting a patent
* disallow business method patents
* restrict the scope of allowable claims to those demonstrated by the prototype
* require companies to enforce their claims in a timely fashion - if there is no claim as to infringement within 6 months of a potential violation that specific infringer and that infringer alone cannot be penalized
* restrict copyright to a 7 year term which can be renewed for another 7 years at a significant cost
These changes would go some way towards patching the current system, but it should be clear that some serious thought needs to be done regarding how we can fairly handle intellectual property issues in an environment that is, after all, very different from the one the current system was built to address in 1790.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Are Software Patents On Shaky Ground?
For those of us who work with the US intellectual property system on a regular basis, it is pretty clear that there are some fairly serious systemic problems. Interestingly enough, it seems that the USPTO may be rethinking its position on software patents, specifically as a way to discourage the 'patent trolls'. A patent troll, I might add, is the ancient and hereditary enemy of the intellectual property gnomes.
It looks to me and some others that there may be fewer, higher quality software patents in the USPTO's future, and from my perspective this is a 'good thing' indeed. The system cannot work when choked by an undigestible mass of low quality software patents, so anything to stem the tide should be applauded. It remains to be seen, however, whether these relatively minor adjustments will be enough to save the system. Patents on gene sequences, software patents, 'futurist patents' (patents on inventions no one actually knows how to build now but may be possible later), and more all raise serious questions about how and if a rational, fair, and efficient intellectual property system can be built.
It looks to me and some others that there may be fewer, higher quality software patents in the USPTO's future, and from my perspective this is a 'good thing' indeed. The system cannot work when choked by an undigestible mass of low quality software patents, so anything to stem the tide should be applauded. It remains to be seen, however, whether these relatively minor adjustments will be enough to save the system. Patents on gene sequences, software patents, 'futurist patents' (patents on inventions no one actually knows how to build now but may be possible later), and more all raise serious questions about how and if a rational, fair, and efficient intellectual property system can be built.
Monday, July 14, 2008
New Tools for DNA Manipulation
This is a fairly interesting development - it seems that a Japanese company has developed some very small MEMS (micro electro-mechanical systems) designed to improve our ability to accurately manipulate strands of DNA without breaking them. Like many current systems they use optical tweezers to move the DNA strands around, but the novelty here are the micro 'bobbins' and 'hooks' that allow users to hold a strand in place and edit it. Kind of like a DNA sewing machine.
Infrastructure tools for the bio-design revolution - they arent really here yet, but when they are it may have systemic effects as profound as the development of the general purpose computer.
Infrastructure tools for the bio-design revolution - they arent really here yet, but when they are it may have systemic effects as profound as the development of the general purpose computer.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
First Solar Thermal Component Plant to go Online in Nevada
Utility scale (>10 Megawatt) solar thermal systems are now poised to go mainstream as Austra plans to open a plant in Nevada to mass produce some of the essential components. Previously, most solar thermal installations (especially for utilities) were one-off 'proof of concept' affairs which had a generally negative impact on the resulting price per watt figures, so a source for standardized components is a fairly significant step.
As far as I am concerned, any efforts to improve the state of the art in thermal or panel based solar systems should be supported vigorously.
The Ausra news release can be found here.
As far as I am concerned, any efforts to improve the state of the art in thermal or panel based solar systems should be supported vigorously.
The Ausra news release can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
