User login

Navigation

You are here

Should we be patenting our research

ericmock's picture

I recently stumbled across the patent that is attached to this post.  It's title 'Simulation of String Vibration' obviously caught my attention.  Hoping there was more to it, I downloaded and read it.  To save you the time, I'll summarize.  It basically reads like a conference paper that would probably not get accepted into any respectable journal.  What is patent is a little more specific than the title would imply but nothing that is any more than a trivial extension of existing research.  Essentially the patent describes a way (finite elements) to simulate the planar vibration of a string (actually a tensioned beam) that is excited by a cross-flow.  The concluding paragraph of the Background section reads as:

In addition, it is known that a person can create a sound by holding the two ends of a narrow strip of paper or a blade of grass and blowing between the two ends orthogonal to the length of the strip or blade. Thus, it understood that the strip of paper or blade of grass can be made to vibrate by blowing orthogonal to its length. This vibration is considered to be due to torsional movements of the strip or blade. However, it has not hitherto been established in the prior art how excitement of a blade by orthogonal blowing could be simulated using "one-dimensional" string models. In particular, it is noted that the known string model discussed above could not be used to simulate such excitement, in particular because it is only a one dimensional model (that is, having only one dimension along the length ofthe string) and it has not hither to been understood how torsional components could be modelled in such a string.

The patent does not actually go on to describe a deflection-torsion coupled beam model (which is apparently presented in another pending patent) because it would require too much processing load.  I assume they want a real-time simulation.  Instead the author describes an 'invention' which would "...avoid the problems of a significantly increased processing load and of increasing the restrictions on the allowed model parameters to maintain stability of such the model, which would arise if torsional movements were to be included in the model, in the present invention the excursion of the leading edge of the lamella is taken to be equal to the current excursion or the known string model, while the excursion of the trailing edge of the lamella is taken to be equal to the excursion at the previous time step."  The 'lamella' basically model the beam width.

There are a total of 30 claims made and I reproduce the first few here:

The invention claimed is:

  1. A method, comprising:
  • simulating a string using a wave equation that relates movement of the string in time to force acting on the string, wherein the string has a longitudinal axis in a first direction and is moveable in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, and the force acting on the string simulates a stream of a fluid medium flowing relative to the string in a direction having a component in a third direction orthogonal to both the first and second directions; and
  • creating sounds using the wave equation.
  • A method according to claim 1, wherein the simulated string is supported between two supports, is aligned at rest in the first direction and has a depth in the third direction, whereby the string has a leading edge closer to a source of the stream of fluid medium and a trailing edge further from the source of the stream of fluid medium.
  • A method according to claim 2, wherein the string is caused from rest to vibrate in a plane, which includes the first and second directions, by turbulence in the fluid flow causing the stream offluid medium to exert a pressure on the string in the second direction.
  • A method according to claim 2 or claim 3, wherein:
    • when the leading and trailing edges are out of aligument with one another, the stream of fluid medium exerts a force on the string in the second direction.
  • A method, comprising:
    • simulating a string using a wave equation that relates movement of the string in time to force acting on the string, wherein the string has a longitudinal axis in an x-direction and a depth in a z-third direction orthogonal to the x-direction;
    • the string is supported between two supports whereby it is aligned at rest in the x-direction and is moveable in a y-direction orthogonal to the x- and z-directions; 
    • and the force acting on the string simulates a stream of a fluid medium flowing relative to the string in a direction having a component in a z-direction, whereby the string has a leading edge closer to a source of the stream of fluid medium and a trailing edge further from the source of the stream of fluid medium; and 
    • creating sounds using the wave equation.
  • A method according to claim 5, wherein the string comprises a plurality of discrete elements aligned at rest in the x-direction and spaced apart by a distance dx, each element having a depth dz; and the leading and trailing edges of the discrete elements are able to move in discrete steps of time dt in the y-direction only.
  • Note also that it is stated that "references to the left and right are not intended as limiting references." so someone can't file another patent (or circumvent this one) by flipping the boundary conditions.

    While I'm certainly not a patent attorney, this kind of patent looks very dangerous to academics.  First, there is nothing particularly new presented.  While I have not heard of anyone else using this (bad) model for a flutter simulation, people have certainly used more detailed (plates) and less detailed (rigid body) models to simulate this.  While I doubt Apple Inc. (the assignee) would really sue an academic researcher for infringing on this.  I'm not even sure how they would try to enforce this.  What if I were to publish code that used this method in the public domain?  Would I or anyone else that uses the code be infringing on the patent?  Would Apple require me to obtain a license?

    Ultimately, I think the patent is probably not enforceable as this technique has probably been used in aerodynamic flutter simulations previously.  However, it seems just ridiculous enough that maybe no one has tried it.  And, it likely is ridiculous enough that no one has published it in an easily accessible journal (but maybe in a conference proceedings).  Even if it is not enforceable, someone will have to fight it in court to invalidate it.  Who's going to foot the bill for that?  No one wins but the lawyers.  Are USPTO lawyers just trying to pad the pockets of their civilian counterparts?

    AttachmentSize
    PDF icon StringVibrationPatent.pdf1.14 MB

    Comments

    Hi Eric,

    I've seen quite a few similar patents in software engineering.  I'll try to find some examples when I get the time. 

    I think that if Apple requires you to obtain a license you have no recourse but to pay or fight it out in court.  Once a patent has been issued,  whether the method has been used in the past or not  cannot be decided without going to court.   A way out seems to be to start patenting all your own research too and then have a free for all if you can pay for it:)  After all, the right to owning your intellectual property is one of the founding principles of American democracy.

     -- Biswajit

    I have seen too much of these very similar low quality papers in well known journals such as JASA and Sound and Vib. , many of them have nothing to say if reader be a little expert in the field. but i think the reviewers sometimes are not as expert as readers!. this is why i am sure we should think more about our evaluation system.

    Mike Ciavarella's picture

    I am not sure if you know the story of Einstein at Patent Office

    http://imechanica.org/node/3353#comment-7789

    Well he was quite amazing this guy even for his boss, but he was very provoquative.

    If you think of Einstein of being busy only with relativity, you are wrong, he was a very good Engineer too!

    http://sb3.epfl.ch/gm-perso.data/Einstein100.ppt

    is a fantastic presentation about Einstein's with original perspectives.

    In conclusion, I guess patents follow no different logic as papers, a lot of crap, no good or uniform reviews, and big universities such as MIT who will always have "preferential treatments" for their patents --- finally, in any legal battle, the stronger will win.  So patents are good mostly for big multinationals and for something that NEEDS to be protected because it can be easily copied.

    Something really extraordinary needs NOT to be patented.

    Leonardo da Vinci for example was very secretive about his war machine. He has most of them WRONG, ie. protected by a very small code which is incredible by itself for how he draws very small in those times with no microscopes!

     

     

     

    I think most patents are useless, and laywers might be the ones benefiting from the large amount of useless patents.

    If professors apply for patents for their research, will they give credits to their students, colleagues, and sponsers? I hope the answers should be YES.

    ====================

    That may be all well and good for the one who has the means to patent something, but how furious would you be if you had spent a king's ransom on school, learning how to solve this problem, only to find that after all of your hard work, you now have to pay somebody royalties to use what you learned?

    I've seen ideas in two papers in my field patented as well. I was disturbed by this, and frankly I think that government sponsored research performed in universities ought not to be patented. In addition, I think that the patent office does not set the bar high enough. Perhaps a stiffer patent filing fee would help.

    ericmock's picture

    Stiffer fees (which are already out of reach for most individuals) are not the answer.  That will further push the individual (and small company) out of the patent game and make it something solely for large companies.  What is needed in the short term is for patents to be more thoroughly reviewed and researched.  The scapegoat is always the examiner.  However, these people have to review a massive amount of patents that they may really know nothing about.  Plus, it's always a game in which inventors make ridiculous claims and then back off.

    The real problem is that the burden is on the examiner to show that the invention is not new and not the inventor to prove that it is.  Note that all the references cited in this patent were 'cited by examiner'.  What really needs to happen is to have an open review process in which the USPTO asks experts in the field and in rival firms to debunk the claims before the patent is awarded.  Now, this only happens after the patent is awarded, such that lawyers can pad their pockets.  Why not have the arguments in the beginning and keep this stuff out of the courts?

    Perhaps leveraging open source to examine patents is a good idea. A wikipedia like site perhaps. This would keep the costs down as well.

    Subscribe to Comments for "Should we be patenting our research"

    Recent comments

    More comments

    Syndicate

    Subscribe to Syndicate