This is exactly why companies don't accept unsolicited ideas. I'm willing to bet that "no thanks" letter contained broilerplate to cover exactly such a lawsuit.
Normally, companies don't even open the envelope. Once it's opened, you are subject to this kind of "stealing my idea" problem.
Most envelopes are just put into a bigger envelope and sent back with a brief explanation that they dont accept them.
You wouldn't have to store the actual prototype anymore to keep record of one. Keep digitally notarised video or pictures on a hard-drive somewhere. It would be a whole lot better than the rough sketches that are submitted with current patent findings.
I wonder if I can patent this idea?
No. You can't patent an idea, only the "expression" of one as a device, process, software, or unique application of nature (I'm not going to explain that one).
not having read it all, what I read quickly, say's they DON'T have a case - why - like I was once told when I presented an idea to Harley-Davidson, that they later THAT WEEK, presented to they're dealers - "Sorry, you can't trademark a concept or idea"
Now if they had inventory a "iPod Style" device, and so on, then they might have a case.
The microprocessor and display are mounted on the footwear, preferably on the tongue of the shoe, in a water resistant housing with a long life battery providing self contained operation.
Sounds like a pedometer to me. Are they going to sue all the pedometer manufactures that have designed pedometers that clip on your shoe too? That would be more fitting than the Nike+ iPod combination.
They don't have to. But, they can usually tell by where in the company it is addressed to. Often there is a hint in the name of the sender, or address. If they don't do business with that person they won't bother with it, but it must be returned?in case.
Not that their patent isn't similar, but what they patented was totally unfeasible for the most part, if you build the electronics into the shoes, they're only going to last the life of the shoe, and if you're a serious runner, you might get a year out of a pair of shoes.
Heh. Many serious runners get a couple of months out of a pair of shoes. Elite runners get maybe a month.
This really has nothing to do with the Nike+ iPod, which is just a pedometer in your shoe that tells your iPod what to play. the pedometer works in any shoe, not just a Nike+
Actually, from the standpoint of measuring performance, this is very similar to how the Nike+ works. It is not "just a pedometer." Ok, it's a pedometer, but a very intelligent one. The accelerometer in the Nike+ doesn't actually measure your speed directly. It measures the timing of your foot strike. From that, based on formulas determined by testing in sports performance labs, it calculates your speed. That's why it won't work when riding your bike (no foot strikes) and why it does work (albeit less accurately) on a treadmill where you aren't actually going anywhere.
That being said, I assume the patent isn't on the exercise science behind the formula to derive speed. It's based on the implementation. In that regard, other than being in your shoe, there's nothing in common with the Nike+. Different sensor type, different sensor arrangement, not built into the shoe, different display, etc.
If however the patent is on the science behind the technique to derive your speed, Nike and Apple's only defense may be prior art and the patent holder's failure to defend their patent against other's who have implemented similar techniques (Polar's Foot Pod being the most obvious example).
Not that their patent isn't similar, but what they patented was totally unfeasible for the most part, if you build the electronics into the shoes, they're only going to last the life of the shoe, and if you're a serious runner, you might get a year out of a pair of shoes.
I agree this idea would have been terrible for runners. I run very serious and shoes wear out after 400 miles. This would not be a system that people would use. I suspect that they are jealous that Nike/Apple thought of a much better idea. I don't personally own the Nike+ system but i have a Garmin Forerunner GPS watch and use that to log all my miles. I personally burn through shoes every 6-7 weeks.
You wouldn't have to store the actual prototype anymore to keep record of one. Keep digitally notarised video or pictures on a hard-drive somewhere. It would be a whole lot better than the rough sketches that are submitted with current patent findings.
I wonder if I can patent this idea?
You know that, I know that, but this IS the government we're talking about.
I'm sure a lot of people thought of combining mp3 players and phones.. I know I did well before they existed, but theres no way I could have done anything about it. If a company invests the time and money making a quality product, they deserve the rewards.
I'm curious how patents work when different companies come out with similar products though. Correct me if I am wrong, but Apple didn't invent mp3 players, so do they have to license the technology?
I think a more pertinent quote from the patent abstract would be this:
Four membrane switches are located in the sole of the footwear: a pair of membrane switches is positioned under the ball of the user's foot and a pair of membrane switches is positioned under the heel of the user's foot. The membrane switches sense the compressive pressure of the foot on the sole and detect when the foot leaves and contacts the underlying surface. A microprocessor calculates a performance parameter for the person based upon the elapsed time between the foot push off and the foot strike.
That doesn't sound like the Nike+ kit at all. The Nike+ sensor is just an accelerometer mounted in the sole of the shoe. No pressure sensors involved.
And why aren't they going after every other maker of similar distance/speed recording athletic devices? They are just as similar to the the patented idea as the Nike+ kit.
The description of the patent doesn't matter. What matters is the claim. See Claim 1:
"A foot mounted apparatus for measuring the locomotive performance of a person having a foot which is fit with footwear having a flexible sole, the apparatus comprising:
means for sensing the acceleration of the foot when the sole of the footwear is flexed and the foot is pushing off from an underlying surface and for generating a foot push off signal;
means for sensing the deceleration of the foot when the foot is striking against an underlying surface and for generating a foot strike signal;
means for receiving the foot push off signal and the foot strike signal and calculating a performance parameter for the person based upon the elapsed time between the foot push off signal and the foot strike signal, the means for calculating comprising means for selectively determining all of the following performance parameters: user vertical leap time, user vertical jump distance, user running speed, user trip distance traveled, and accumulated total lifetime distance traveled by the apparatus;
means for receiving input from the user, and
means for communicating at least one performance parameter to the person. "
Based on this claim, I would say they have a case.
Are you guys telling me that neither Nike nor Apple applied and received patents for their system prior to taking it to market?
These companies have to have the biggest bunch of inept lawyers I've ever seen.
I will bet $1000 that they had. However, the patent system is severely backlogged. Whatever they filed won't be reviewed until maybe three years after, and won't be approved until one year after that.
So, if Apple/Nike applied for the patent in 2006, we won't know anything about it until at least 2009.
I have a problem with many of these patent filings and subsequent law suits. My main question is... After patenting the idea, did they actually develop a working model and try to market the product?
If not, it seems to me I can sit here all day and come up with fantastic ideas for future technologies, patent these ideas as unique, and wait for someone else to do the R&D. Once that's out of the way, I simply sue them for a few percentage points.
A bad analogy would be domain name squatting were I simply think of domain names that could be huge later, or take the names of brands and register them before the owner of the name does and squat on them to wait for the payoff. In a number of these cases I know the decision has gone against the squatter.
If coming up with fantastic ideas is all that's needed, then it's time for me to think what Apple, Microsoft and everyone else could be doing 20 years from now and secure my retirement with just a few thousand dollar investment in a patent.
Feel free to do that.
However, keep in mind that applying for a patent will cost you at least $10K to $20K, a lot are rejected (to the surprise of a lot of people here), and 95% of the patents never generate any income for the patent holders.
Knowing those numbers, would you still want to file whatever "ideas" you can think of as patents?
Others pointed this out, I do not believe they even attempted to make a product. They put some drawing together with some words around them but had no idea how to actually make the idea work.
I hate patents like this, the US patent office needs to change its rules and say unless you can show or prove how the patent would be implemented the patent would not be granted.
The fact they attempted to shop it around right after they filed it, just go to show they have not clue nor did they want to spend their time and money marketing the idea. Also, notice how long they waited to file their suit, obviously if they shopped this idea to Nike years ago and when nike and apple come out with a product why didn't they file suit the next day.
The reason, they wanted to see if the idea would take off and how much nike and apple would made on the idea. They probably could not get a lawyer to take their case until it was worth a few million $.
Just so people know there are patent scams, people come up with an idea get a lawyer to put the patent application together and file it, then people sent them to as many companies they think would could use the idea, then wait and see if the company comes out with a similar product, then sue them.
What surprises me is Nike bother to send them a letter back, most companies have a policy of never recognizing anyones ideas, they usually just send letters like this back un-open if they can for this exact reason. Hell, you hear all the time about people getting pissed because apple will not listen to their ideas, well this is why.
Anyway, I think this will get tossed because you will find there is prior artwork on this idea. This is nothing new, researcher on human physiology have been using similar systems for a very long time, thus the reason apple and nike did not attempt to patent the idea.
The description of the patent doesn't matter. What matters is the claim. See Claim 1:
"A foot mounted apparatus for measuring the locomotive performance of a person having a foot which is fit with footwear having a flexible sole, the apparatus comprising:
means for sensing the acceleration of the foot when the sole of the footwear is flexed and the foot is pushing off from an underlying surface and for generating a foot push off signal;
means for sensing the deceleration of the foot when the foot is striking against an underlying surface and for generating a foot strike signal;
means for receiving the foot push off signal and the foot strike signal and calculating a performance parameter for the person based upon the elapsed time between the foot push off signal and the foot strike signal, the means for calculating comprising means for selectively determining all of the following performance parameters: user vertical leap time, user vertical jump distance, user running speed, user trip distance traveled, and accumulated total lifetime distance traveled by the apparatus;
means for receiving input from the user, and
means for communicating at least one performance parameter to the person. "
Based on this claim, I would say they have a case.
The patent isn't based on what they did, but how they did it. The specifics of the design are the patent.
Saying that they put sensors in the shoe that are read digitally isn't enough.
like I was once told when I presented an idea to Harley-Davidson, that they later THAT WEEK, presented to they're dealers - "Sorry, you can't trademark a concept or idea"
Comments
This is exactly why companies don't accept unsolicited ideas. I'm willing to bet that "no thanks" letter contained broilerplate to cover exactly such a lawsuit.
Normally, companies don't even open the envelope. Once it's opened, you are subject to this kind of "stealing my idea" problem.
Most envelopes are just put into a bigger envelope and sent back with a brief explanation that they dont accept them.
You wouldn't have to store the actual prototype anymore to keep record of one. Keep digitally notarised video or pictures on a hard-drive somewhere. It would be a whole lot better than the rough sketches that are submitted with current patent findings.
I wonder if I can patent this idea?
No. You can't patent an idea, only the "expression" of one as a device, process, software, or unique application of nature (I'm not going to explain that one).
Perhaps they should be suing eath other?
Sounds like they have a case to me.
not having read it all, what I read quickly, say's they DON'T have a case - why - like I was once told when I presented an idea to Harley-Davidson, that they later THAT WEEK, presented to they're dealers - "Sorry, you can't trademark a concept or idea"
Now if they had inventory a "iPod Style" device, and so on, then they might have a case.
Skip
Normally, companies don't even open the envelope. Once it's opened, you are subject to this kind of "stealing my idea" problem.
Most envelopes are just put into a bigger envelope and sent back with a brief explanation that they dont accept them.
How do they know the envelope contains an idea?
The microprocessor and display are mounted on the footwear, preferably on the tongue of the shoe, in a water resistant housing with a long life battery providing self contained operation.
Sounds like a pedometer to me. Are they going to sue all the pedometer manufactures that have designed pedometers that clip on your shoe too? That would be more fitting than the Nike+ iPod combination.
How do they know the envelope contains an idea?
They don't have to. But, they can usually tell by where in the company it is addressed to. Often there is a hint in the name of the sender, or address. If they don't do business with that person they won't bother with it, but it must be returned?in case.
Not that their patent isn't similar, but what they patented was totally unfeasible for the most part, if you build the electronics into the shoes, they're only going to last the life of the shoe, and if you're a serious runner, you might get a year out of a pair of shoes.
Heh. Many serious runners get a couple of months out of a pair of shoes. Elite runners get maybe a month.
here is the abstract of the patent:
And here is an image of the patent
This really has nothing to do with the Nike+ iPod, which is just a pedometer in your shoe that tells your iPod what to play. the pedometer works in any shoe, not just a Nike+
Actually, from the standpoint of measuring performance, this is very similar to how the Nike+ works. It is not "just a pedometer." Ok, it's a pedometer, but a very intelligent one. The accelerometer in the Nike+ doesn't actually measure your speed directly. It measures the timing of your foot strike. From that, based on formulas determined by testing in sports performance labs, it calculates your speed. That's why it won't work when riding your bike (no foot strikes) and why it does work (albeit less accurately) on a treadmill where you aren't actually going anywhere.
That being said, I assume the patent isn't on the exercise science behind the formula to derive speed. It's based on the implementation. In that regard, other than being in your shoe, there's nothing in common with the Nike+. Different sensor type, different sensor arrangement, not built into the shoe, different display, etc.
If however the patent is on the science behind the technique to derive your speed, Nike and Apple's only defense may be prior art and the patent holder's failure to defend their patent against other's who have implemented similar techniques (Polar's Foot Pod being the most obvious example).
Not that their patent isn't similar, but what they patented was totally unfeasible for the most part, if you build the electronics into the shoes, they're only going to last the life of the shoe, and if you're a serious runner, you might get a year out of a pair of shoes.
I agree this idea would have been terrible for runners. I run very serious and shoes wear out after 400 miles. This would not be a system that people would use. I suspect that they are jealous that Nike/Apple thought of a much better idea. I don't personally own the Nike+ system but i have a Garmin Forerunner GPS watch and use that to log all my miles. I personally burn through shoes every 6-7 weeks.
You wouldn't have to store the actual prototype anymore to keep record of one. Keep digitally notarised video or pictures on a hard-drive somewhere. It would be a whole lot better than the rough sketches that are submitted with current patent findings.
I wonder if I can patent this idea?
You know that, I know that, but this IS the government we're talking about.
I'm curious how patents work when different companies come out with similar products though. Correct me if I am wrong, but Apple didn't invent mp3 players, so do they have to license the technology?
I think a more pertinent quote from the patent abstract would be this:
Four membrane switches are located in the sole of the footwear: a pair of membrane switches is positioned under the ball of the user's foot and a pair of membrane switches is positioned under the heel of the user's foot. The membrane switches sense the compressive pressure of the foot on the sole and detect when the foot leaves and contacts the underlying surface. A microprocessor calculates a performance parameter for the person based upon the elapsed time between the foot push off and the foot strike.
That doesn't sound like the Nike+ kit at all. The Nike+ sensor is just an accelerometer mounted in the sole of the shoe. No pressure sensors involved.
And why aren't they going after every other maker of similar distance/speed recording athletic devices? They are just as similar to the the patented idea as the Nike+ kit.
The description of the patent doesn't matter. What matters is the claim. See Claim 1:
"A foot mounted apparatus for measuring the locomotive performance of a person having a foot which is fit with footwear having a flexible sole, the apparatus comprising:
means for sensing the acceleration of the foot when the sole of the footwear is flexed and the foot is pushing off from an underlying surface and for generating a foot push off signal;
means for sensing the deceleration of the foot when the foot is striking against an underlying surface and for generating a foot strike signal;
means for receiving the foot push off signal and the foot strike signal and calculating a performance parameter for the person based upon the elapsed time between the foot push off signal and the foot strike signal, the means for calculating comprising means for selectively determining all of the following performance parameters: user vertical leap time, user vertical jump distance, user running speed, user trip distance traveled, and accumulated total lifetime distance traveled by the apparatus;
means for receiving input from the user, and
means for communicating at least one performance parameter to the person. "
Based on this claim, I would say they have a case.
Are you guys telling me that neither Nike nor Apple applied and received patents for their system prior to taking it to market?
These companies have to have the biggest bunch of inept lawyers I've ever seen.
I will bet $1000 that they had. However, the patent system is severely backlogged. Whatever they filed won't be reviewed until maybe three years after, and won't be approved until one year after that.
So, if Apple/Nike applied for the patent in 2006, we won't know anything about it until at least 2009.
I have a problem with many of these patent filings and subsequent law suits. My main question is... After patenting the idea, did they actually develop a working model and try to market the product?
If not, it seems to me I can sit here all day and come up with fantastic ideas for future technologies, patent these ideas as unique, and wait for someone else to do the R&D. Once that's out of the way, I simply sue them for a few percentage points.
A bad analogy would be domain name squatting were I simply think of domain names that could be huge later, or take the names of brands and register them before the owner of the name does and squat on them to wait for the payoff. In a number of these cases I know the decision has gone against the squatter.
If coming up with fantastic ideas is all that's needed, then it's time for me to think what Apple, Microsoft and everyone else could be doing 20 years from now and secure my retirement with just a few thousand dollar investment in a patent.
Feel free to do that.
However, keep in mind that applying for a patent will cost you at least $10K to $20K, a lot are rejected (to the surprise of a lot of people here), and 95% of the patents never generate any income for the patent holders.
Knowing those numbers, would you still want to file whatever "ideas" you can think of as patents?
I hate patents like this, the US patent office needs to change its rules and say unless you can show or prove how the patent would be implemented the patent would not be granted.
The fact they attempted to shop it around right after they filed it, just go to show they have not clue nor did they want to spend their time and money marketing the idea. Also, notice how long they waited to file their suit, obviously if they shopped this idea to Nike years ago and when nike and apple come out with a product why didn't they file suit the next day.
The reason, they wanted to see if the idea would take off and how much nike and apple would made on the idea. They probably could not get a lawyer to take their case until it was worth a few million $.
Just so people know there are patent scams, people come up with an idea get a lawyer to put the patent application together and file it, then people sent them to as many companies they think would could use the idea, then wait and see if the company comes out with a similar product, then sue them.
What surprises me is Nike bother to send them a letter back, most companies have a policy of never recognizing anyones ideas, they usually just send letters like this back un-open if they can for this exact reason. Hell, you hear all the time about people getting pissed because apple will not listen to their ideas, well this is why.
Anyway, I think this will get tossed because you will find there is prior artwork on this idea. This is nothing new, researcher on human physiology have been using similar systems for a very long time, thus the reason apple and nike did not attempt to patent the idea.
The description of the patent doesn't matter. What matters is the claim. See Claim 1:
"A foot mounted apparatus for measuring the locomotive performance of a person having a foot which is fit with footwear having a flexible sole, the apparatus comprising:
means for sensing the acceleration of the foot when the sole of the footwear is flexed and the foot is pushing off from an underlying surface and for generating a foot push off signal;
means for sensing the deceleration of the foot when the foot is striking against an underlying surface and for generating a foot strike signal;
means for receiving the foot push off signal and the foot strike signal and calculating a performance parameter for the person based upon the elapsed time between the foot push off signal and the foot strike signal, the means for calculating comprising means for selectively determining all of the following performance parameters: user vertical leap time, user vertical jump distance, user running speed, user trip distance traveled, and accumulated total lifetime distance traveled by the apparatus;
means for receiving input from the user, and
means for communicating at least one performance parameter to the person. "
Based on this claim, I would say they have a case.
The patent isn't based on what they did, but how they did it. The specifics of the design are the patent.
Saying that they put sensors in the shoe that are read digitally isn't enough.
How do they know the envelope contains an idea?
Now I know how my bill payments get "lost" by companies I owe... they think I'm sending them ideas about how to improve their products or business.
Funny, I never get my payments back in the mail, enclosed in another envelope.
N
like I was once told when I presented an idea to Harley-Davidson, that they later THAT WEEK, presented to they're dealers - "Sorry, you can't trademark a concept or idea"