Hospital Tech Declines To Patent His Invention, As Saving Lives Is 'More Important Than Money'
from the not-everyone-rushes-to-patent dept
These days, it often feels like anyone who does anything even remotely innovative feels the need to rush down to the patent office, because that's what you always hear. There's so much talk about why everyone "needs" to patent stuff, that everyone starts to believe it. So it's somewhat refreshing to find someone who created something that really does appear to be useful, and has said that he has no interest in patenting it. The guy is a hospital psych tech -- and came up with his invention a few years ago, after a fellow psych tech in the hospital was strangled to death by a mentally ill patient, who did so by grabbing the lanyard all staff members are required to wear, which holds their "alarm button" in case of emergency. Not surprisingly, this and a few similar incidents, had staff members at the hospital quite wary of wearing the lanyards, even though they were required. So Mike Jarschke came up with a new lanyard design, which has three "breakaway" points that will snap if the lanyard is pulled too hard. The hospital tested it out, and now they've been issuing the new lanyards to staff. After all that, he had no interest in getting a patent.Jarschke didn't bother to patent his invention. There are other things more important than money.Of course, watch now as someone else tries to get a patent on it. Either way, this actually reminds me of some research we pointed to a few years ago, showing that the vast majority of inventions occur not because of the direct profit motive of selling a product on the market, but rather because someone is trying to solve a need for themselves. We see this over and over again, and it seems odd to have a patent system that covers those cases. It goes against every reasonable defense of the patent system. After all, the patent system is really only supposed to be an incentive to create a product that wouldn't exist but for the patent system being there to prop it up. And yet, patents are still granted on those kinds of inventions all the time. It's nice to see that at least some people don't see the need to go that far.
"When we get safety for this hospital, that's going to be way better than money for me," he said.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The true inventor
1) that the invention should be used.
2) Tht he/she should be recognised as the inventor
3) Money.
If No.3 gets in the way of No.1 then No.3 is ignored.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Better Idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weary/wary
wary = on guard for possible danger
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Better Idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Even Better Idea
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I hope he wasn't so silly ...
http://www.amazon.com/Fox-40-Break-Away-Lanyard/dp/B0017W1PLS
I had a breakaway lanyard for my whistle as the high school football team manager in the late 70s.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: weary/wary
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://www.squidoo.com/breakaway-cat-collar
Anyway, it's at least five years, back to the dawn of my cat ownership.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Simple extension of an existing idea
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not sure there isn't prior art already
I'm not sure what is patentable about the idea -- it may be something special about his breakaway design, but it's not the concept of a breakaway lanyard itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
just trying to think how the RIAA or MAFIAA could claim this as being one of their copyrighted items. there must be a way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not sure there isn't prior art already
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Of course, I'd rather point to the host of previously-existing breakaway connectors as evidence that this isn't even a patentable invention, but this is the USPTO we are talking about here, so no doubt whoever does file will enjoy a healthy, innovation-fueling 20-year monopoly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: weary/wary
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not sure there isn't prior art already
This fact wouldn't stop some people from patenting it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
As you note, breakaway things around the neck are also well known.
Still, he could probably have gotten a patent on his "invention." If his patent examiner balked, the inventor's patent attorney would have deluged the examiner with additional BS until the examiner caved and awarded the patent. If they examiner held out longer than usual the patent might have had to be narrowed to hospital lanyards with exactly three break points.
The latter bit of specificity might cause minor problems for future trolling. For example, if they tried to sue someone for a breakaway clothes hanger that had two break points it would have been a little bit harder to win a patent suit in some jurisdictions. But trolling doesn't really require a strong suit. The patent holder could probably get some type of settlement on any type of breakaway feature on any type of object in the future.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The best way
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beware the Trolls
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I have an idea....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Better Idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How is this patentable?
Then again, everyone had two click ordering, but only Amazon was brillant enough to make the non-obvious leap to a better high-tech tomorrow.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not sure there isn't prior art already
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The innovative part is...
If you only have one break away that leaves a lot of strong lanyard length to be strangled with. With multiple breakaway points there isn't a long enough piece to be an effective (or convenient) strangle device.
Cat collars break in one place just to relieve the confinement not to have shorter length.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Simple extension of an existing idea
Have you patented this yet? :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It is a significant extra burden to actually find out who invented things.
Conciously not filing for a patent to later backstab the first to file the patent under certain circumstances.
The problems with first to file are:
There is literaly no reason not to file for a patent. In turn it is encouraging trolling since any patent getting through is a good patent. (It can be combatted by raising the bar for patenteability, less damage awarded (maybe compensated by fines) or complex changes to the patent definition).
The true inventor will sometimes get screwed by the most patent-office-savy guys.
Pick your poison. None of the above are particularly good systems, but both are overall working fine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: weary/wary
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: How is this patentable?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lawyers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Not sure there isn't prior art already
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This guy's public disclosure and use of the invention would destroy the absolute novelty requirement under the new patent law. The first to file name is a bit of a misnomer. It's really the "first inventor to file (with grace for the inventor)".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Could he have only delayed a very nasty patent failure somewhere down the line when a company with more lawyers than engineers recognize this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yes, and it's horrendous that such a move would be necessary. However, getting a patent is not cheap, and it's a lot of hassle. "Defensive patents" are a luxury beyond what normal people can justify.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Would one just not enforce it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
First entry for "breakaway lanyard":
http://www.idsuperstore.com/lanyards-breakaway-lanyards-c-8_17.html
He likely couldn't patent it, because there is plenty of prior art.
Sorry!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Better Idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why did it take random tech to come up with an obvious solution?
Why hadn't one of the large lanyard manufacturers done it already?
Oh because they have their IP and can just sit on it, and the fear of being sued for making something like a remote idea some patent reviewer rubber stamped that one time.
People are/were dying, because adding multiple breakways might have been to costly in a courtroom battle.
IP Is our greatest asset, even more important than lives.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You obviously know how to use Google, so we'll wait.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The point is that the "technology" already exists. He may have come up with a specific application, but it's not new (but maybe "new to him"...). So while it's a nice story of "didn't choose to patent" the point is it's unlikely he could have, even if he had wanted to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They'll quickly find out someone else already has a patent on it (and it'll either be Microsoft, Apple, or Amazon).
Worse: had this guy filed is patent, and marketed the product, the patent trolls would find "fibrous straps with multiple break-aways in chastity belts" patent enough to sue for infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I can see how the three breakaways are better than one in this circumstance, though, because an attackers hands could grab the lanyard at the breakaway and still have a nice long "string" to use with one hand on each end.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, or if you're afraid of it appearing to be abandoned, simply give a perpetual non-exclusive license to anyone you find infringing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
When I learned about the standard-issue being the non-breakaway variety at my wife's hospital, I was very surprised, too.
But I understood better after hearing her talk about work for a couple of years: in general, hospitals are broke and they cut corners in every little way they can find. A normal lanyard is less than $1, a breakaway one is about $3. Mystery solved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why such criticism?
If this guy doesn't wish to patent his 3 breakaway design, big deal. He doesn't want to stop other companies from making them too. He just wants hospital employees to be safe and save lives if ever they're in a dangerous situation.
End of story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Found Link
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Found Link
Here it is again:
http://www.usalanyards.com/detachable-triple-safety-snap-closure-lanyards.aspx
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]