Metallocene Catalysts: Disruption and Patent Rights

A great article on the rise of metallocene catalysts and patent aactivity in this area is "POLYMERIZATION CATALYSTS PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE" at Thomspon Scientific. Metallocene catalysts initially were worse than the dominant catalysts used in polymer production, Ziegler-Natta catalysts, but have since proven valuable for many applications, including tough polyolefins and elastomers. Interesting note from the article: Ziegler-Natta catalysts were actually invented by Banks and Hogan (US Patent 2,642,467, 16 June 1953, "Production of high-octane fuel components"). Perhaps they should be called Banks-Hogan catalysts.

University-Industry Relationships: Impact of the Bayh-Dole Act

When the Bayh-Dole Act was passed in 1980, it was intended to strengthen collaboration between universities and industry. Instead, there is good evidence that in practice it has caused many companies to be wary of funding R&D at U.S. universities, and may be driving significant funding to foreign schools. Some of this evidence was persuasively presented by Susan Butts of Dow Chemical in statements before Congress in July 2007. Excellent food for thought.

Digital Piracy on the Run? A Big Win for Musical IP Holders

The first courtroom case against digital piracy by an individual consumer resulted in a huge win for the plaintiffs, holders of intellectual property for music.

Four major record companies — EMI Group, Sony, Bertelsmann AG and Warner Music Group all joined in the suit against Jammie Thomas. Charged with illegally uploading 24 tracks that could be downloaded by others for free, Ms. Thomas now faces a fine of $220,000. Ouch! This verdict will probably cause many others to settle out of court, and hopefully will encourage more people to think twice before stealing the copyrighted property of others.

Disruptive Innovation Where It Counts: Earthquake-Proof Housing for Emerging Nations

Kudos to Colorado State University and the Indonesia Aid Foundation for innovating where it really counts. They have been developing low-cost ways to make earthquake-proof structures to be used in emerging nations like Indonesia, where huge casualties are inflicted when earthquakes strike. The spirit of disruptive innovation is finding ways to reach low-end users and non-users with innovations that are convenient and affordable, often blindsiding those who are focused on the expensive, high-tech solutions. Earthquake-resistant buildings is a great example. Instead of designing complex foundations and sophisticated reinforcements, low-cost solutions have been found using discarded tires as a shock-absorbing element in the foundation of the building, and bamboo as a replacement for rebar in concrete.

They are going to need help to get these innovations in use globally, and there is a need for further work as well. There may be opportunities to exploit low-cost fibers and fabrics as part of the reinforcement for concrete structures, especially in high-stress areas. And better integration of ceilings into the earthquake-resistant design could help.

Partners could include Cemex and other cement manufacturers.

I'm also looking for innovations in low-cost water purification that can be run from solar power. Let me know your thoughts.

Beware Domain Name Theft

Sobering article from the Wall Street Journal: Web-Address Theft Is Everyday Event by Kevin Delaney. Has some important tips for protecting your domain name from theft. Most important: don't use free online email accounts as your primary contact with the domain registrar. Failure to use the account may result in its inactivation and theft by someone else. You'll spend years and thousands getting it back, in some cases.

Intellectual assets include digital assets such as domain names, and they need to be a key part of your IA strategy at an early stage as you develop new products and services. They are key assets that we help our clients with.

Toxic Fabrics Now Safe Enough to Eat: An Example of Innovation for Improved Profits AND Improved Sustainability

In Made to Stick, authors Chip and Dan Heath discuss the case of once-toxic fabrics used in Steelcase chairs. The Swiss company, Rohner Textil, provided dyed fabrics to Steelcase, but the trimmings of these fabrics could not be disposed of in Switzerland because they had a lot of toxic chemicals - they were classified as toxic waste that had to be shipped to countries with less strict environmental regulations such as Spain. Steelcase and Rohner wanted to come up with fabrics that were not toxic waste, but safe enough for babies to suck on. Rohner hired environmentalist William McDonough and his chemist partner, Michael Baumgart (see McDonough & Partners and MBDC--also see McDonough's Website). They went to the companies that provided dyes and asked to see their books in order to know all about the chemicals they used in their processes. They would not accept "it's proprietary". Sixty companies refused this kind of partnership, but one did: Ciba-Geigy, a Swiss chemical company. They went through the details of 8000 chemicals, and of these found 38 that were safe enough to eat. They found that they could make every color needed by Steelcase except for black. Rohner selected natural fabrics - wool and ramie - and ended up with a truly safe process. When Swiss inspectors came to test their effluent stream, they thought their instruments weren't working. The chemicals they were testing for weren't being detected at all. Then they went to the incoming water stream - Swiss drinking water - and got the normal small positive readings. The effluent was actually cleaner than the incoming drinking water, apparently being filtered by the natural fabrics, without release of harmful chemicals.

The resulting process was not just cleaner - the costs of the product dropped by 20%. They didn't have to spend money to ship trimmings to another country, but could sell them to local farmers to make mulch or insulation. Workers didn't need to wear protective gear to work with the fabrics. And Steelcase could sell furniture with fabrics safe enough to eat. Innovation, economic advantage, and sustainability/environmental responsibility were achieved.

Yes, it's possible to innovate for business growth and profitability while also improving your green, sustainable position and reducing your environmental footprint.

Stanford's Resource on Fair Use and Copyright Law

Many people wonder when they can use material from a copyrighted source under the Fair Use Doctrine. Stanford University's Copyright and Fair Use Overview resource on the Web includes an excellent chapter on Fair Use. Thanks, Stanford! Here's a brief excerpt:

In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and "transformative" purpose such as to comment upon, criticize or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. Another way of putting this is that fair use is a defense against infringement. If your use qualifies under the definition above, and as defined more specifically later in this chapter, then your use would not be considered an illegal infringement.

So what is a "transformative" use? If this definition seems ambiguous or vague, be aware that millions of dollars in legal fees have been spent attempting to define what qualifies as a fair use. There are no hard-and-fast rules, only general rules and varying court decisions. That's because the judges and lawmakers who created the fair use exception did not want to limit the definition of fair use. They wanted it--like free speech--to have an expansive meaning that could be open to interpretation.

Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: commentary and criticism; or parody. . . .

Some of our clients might benefit from considering their article, "Copyright Protection for Short Phrases" by Richard Stim.