Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: patents

Fast Hand Dryer

Hearing about the producer of the high-speed hand dryer, I thought, “Tweaker.” Describing Steve Jobs, Malcolm Gladwell called him a “tweaker.” Like the 19th century inventor who made the spinning wheel spin more smoothly, tweakers make an existing device better.

While we have had hand dryers for a long time, it took a “tweaker” to improve it. Traditional hand dryers take 35 to 40 seconds to dry your hands–if you are patient enough. For 3 1/2 years, Denis Gagnon tried to create a better way. The result was a high-speed hand dryer that did the job in 12 seconds.

The development of the high speed hand dryer was primarily a Massachusetts project. According to a Brookings paper on innovation, Massachusetts is a big center for patents. In an interactive version of the map that follows, Brookings lets you scroll across the dots to see the firms that have the most patents in each area and the number of patents per worker.

The dots indicate the areas with the most patents. At Brookings (linked below), the map is interactive.

From an historical perspective, you can see we might be experiencing a more inventive era.

Patent History From Brookings

Sources and Resources: Like all of Malcolm Gladwell’s articles in the New Yorker, this “tweaking” discussion is wonderful. Also interesting, this NPR report provides more details about the origins of the fast hand dryer while here is the link to the overview of the entire Brookings paper on metro patents. Finally, you might want to look at Tyler Cowen’s The Great Stagnation (a $3.99 Kindle price) to see why he believes invention is currently more of a challenge and at econlife’s look at the bacterial merits of fast hand drying.

Note: This entry has been minimally edited since it appeared.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

shoes, status signals and property rights

A book that you write is your intellectual property. But what if you design the sole of a shoe?

As econlife described last year:

“The trademark of designer Christian Louboutin, his red soles are supposed to represent glamour, luxury and hidden status. Or, as stated by Mr. Louboutin, ‘A shoe has so much more to offer than just a walk.’

Agreeing, fashion house Yves Saint Laurent (YSL), designed its own line of luxury shoes with colored soles and wound up in a Manhattan courthouse. Louboutin claimed trademark infringement. Saying a red shoe sole is “ornamental and functional,” the court supported YSL.”

But now, most of the decision has been reversed.

A federal court of appeals has said that except for a monochromatic red shoe, Louboutin and only Louboutin has the right to a red sole. Saying that, “We hold that the lacquered red outsole, as applied to a shoe with an ‘upper’ of a different color, has ‘come to identify and distinguish’ the Louboutin brand and…qualifies for trademark protection.”

If your can call the sole your intellectual property, what about the shoe?

Probably not. Like jackets and pants and shirts, shoes are too utilitarian to be protected by intellectual property laws. We all have the right to copy their design. (Please see below for more on what is protected.)

A debate that we can trace back to Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, the question about whether and how long we can own what we create has been timeless. While patents, copyrights and trademarks can propel a market economy, sometimes they constrain progress.

For fashion, experts like Johanna Blakley believe a copycat culture is good.

Sources and Resources: You can see both sides of the fashion industry “copycat” debate at econlife, here and here and read more about both court cases here and here. In addition, I recommend this wonderful TED talk and a more serious econtalk interview from Johanna Blakley. For more on Christian Louboutin, this New Yorker article was an especially good read.

copyright protected and unprotected industries

Fashion and other industries without intellectual property protection from TED talk, Johanna Blakley

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Which friction minimizing invention received a patent in 1999?

Amazon 1-Click.

Described by Amazon in their application for patent 5,960,411, the purchaser just hits a button that activates the movement of payment information from “the client system” to the”server system.”

Because 1-Click glides the customer through the purchasing process, it fits Swarthmore Professor Barry Schwartz’s definition of friction-free finance. In a NY Times opinion column, Dr. Schwartz explains that transactional friction can be good and bad. With Amazon, 1-Click can help us save time and energy that we can use productively elsewhere.

Sometimes though, as with the subprime mortgage debacle, too much ease can let us forget the reality of the transaction. When mortgage packages and online “paperwork” eliminated time, effort and friction, the number of transactions multiplied. And the rest is history.

Professor Schwartz concludes by asking us if we would all be better off if we increased financial friction.

The Economic Lesson

A synonym for financial friction is transaction cost. When you call a pharmacy and spend 5 minutes moving through a menu before you can place your order, you have incurred a transaction cost. If an unemployed person has to fill out many forms when applying for a job, he or she has experienced a transaction cost. And, in the former Soviet Union, the everyday transaction cost of standing in line for hours to purchase food and clothing might have led to Communism’s demise.

Much more than friction, 1-Click criticism, expressed in Wired.com, has been about a patent for a payment process.

An Economic Question: What transaction cost have you recently encountered?

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16764_apples..11.22.11_000010813466XSmall

This apple has bites rather than bytes but like its namesake it was patented and took years to develop. When its U.S. patent expired in 2008, it had generated close to $6 million for the University of Minnesota and is still producing royalties in Europe.  With Google, the nicotine patch and the V-chip, it was even named one of 25 innovations that transformed the world.

The name of this apple? The Honeycrisp.

And now, the Honeycrisp has become a mother. You might enjoy reading about its offspring, the SweeTango in this PBS report and a New Yorker video and article by John Seabrook.

The Economic Lesson

Just like a new drug or chemical process, an apple undergoes R & D, gets intellectual property protection, generates royalties, and creates competition and knock-off concerns when its patent expires.

Having taken 31 years to develop, the Honeycrisp’s royalty revenue stream is divided among its inventors, a fund for further research, and the department/college where the faculty developers worked.

An Economic Question: Citing the Honeycrisp, explain why you agree or disagree with Edwin Mansfield (1930-1997) a University of Pennsylvania economist who said that seemingly small innovations can have a massive impact.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16560_8.17_000014030272XSmall

We spray “OFF!” for insect protection, divers use shark repellent, and now, Google has purchased Motorola to resist patent trolls.

Described in an NPR This American Life podcast, patent trolls purchase multiple patents with the intent of suing any firm that ventures close to its tech rights. Because the way to fight patent trolls is to amass your own trove, the NY Times explains that Google sought Motorola for its (more than) 17,000 patents. Discussing the acquisition, a Wired blogger, uses the wonderful title: “Google + Motorola=Android Patent Troll Repellent.”

In this previous post, you can see Apple’s approach to patents.

The Economic Lesson

According to retired Harvard scholar David Landes, individual ambition, entrepreneurship, intelligence, luck, and an ongoing stream of new tools and technology fuel economic growth through technological progress.  Our patent system usually nurtures the development of new technology. It is dysfunctional, though, when used for patent trolling.

I recommend Dr. Landes’s book, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Are Some Nations Rich and Others So Poor?

An Economic Question: Citing the 4 GDP components that follow, explain how new technology fuels economic growth.

  1. business investment
  2. consumer spending
  3. government spending
  4. net exports

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment