by 
FORT WORTH, Texas -– TTI, Inc. has signed a distribution agreement with Murata Electronics North America to become an authorized distributor of Murata Power Solutions products.
Murata Power Solutions is a leading manufacturer of power electronics including dc-dc converters, ac-dc power supplies, magnetic and digital panel meters.
Jeff Ray, Vice President Product Marketing, said, “We are excited about the opportunity to introduce the Murata Power Solutions’ technologies to the market. Historically TTI has focused on the distribution of the base components that support our customers’ power requirements, but now with the Murata Power Solutions product offering, we can address our customers’ requirements for off-the-shelf power supply modules as well.”
Ray continued, “Having the full line of Murata Electronics technologies, including Murata Power Solutions, puts TTI in an ideal position when working with design engineers. Our partnership with Murata Electronics makes the entry into the power supply business via this addition of Murata Power Solutions’ even more rewarding.”
Tony Coalson, Senior Vice President, Sales Americas, Murata Electronics North America, added, “TTI has been one of Murata’s top distributors for nearly 20 years. The extension of the recently acquired Murata Power Solutions product line to TTI enables us to gain access to an extremely focused, operationally excellent distributor that services the targeted industrial equipment and controls, telecommunications, computing and medical equipment markets. TTI’s demonstrated performance in Murata’s core capacitive and electromagnetic products gives us the utmost confidence that our mutual end customers will benefit from having TTI servicing their dc-dc-converter, ac-dc power supply, magnetic and digital panel meter requirements.”
{complink 12888|TTI Inc.}
I share your reservations about the change in law. Granting the patent to the first to file rather than the first to invent is not likely to help the little guys out there, quite the opposite. Another thing that could prove detrimental is the question of fees. If they get very high, only those with deep enough pockets will be able to hold patents, and the individual genuis inventor without a fortune or a backer wouldn't stand a chance.
Patents are now being leveraged as a weapon to destroy compitition, and by non-producing entities to suck the life out of companies that actually try to make a living by producing quality products. Yes, there are some that try not to pay for IP, but there are far more that are attacked with patents that don't even apply to the technology being developed by that company. Patents are being used as weapons, not for the betterment of man kind as our forefathers had envisioned. That is the current state of affairs in the court system. Business are being extorted by patent thugs that are saying, 'thats a real nice Company and product you are building, it would be a shame if something happened to it, now wouldn't it?'.
And then comes the “patent reform”? Why is it bad you ask? Because it removes one of the defenses that the defendants could possibly use in court to clear themselves of the charges. “Prior Art” goes away. If somebody already built one, but didn't patent it, they could be sued by whoever patents it in the future. In other words, the only way to keep from getting sued is to patent every possible idea, concept, ans gizmo you can think of, and then some! If you don't spend every last penny you have on patent lawyers and tie up all your engineers doing patent descriptions, and pay all the USPTO fees, then you are garunteed to get sued in the future. How is this helping the problem? The reform just made the problem worse by 100 orders of magnitude! And that's a conservative estimate.
Nowhere does any of this promote more inventions, or aid the inventor in developing new inventions for the betterment of society. None of this is adding to the human side of the inventors problems and creating a better world. That is the very basis for having the USPTO in the forst place! Helping the lawyers and accountants to shovel money from one account to another is not helping anything.
@scoleman, wow, one of the best posts I've seen on EBN, honestly. This is kind of similar to what I was I was going to reply with, only you probably expressed things better than I could.
You're completely right about patents being used as weapons. And how none of this promotes or improves upon the very concepts that patents were originally intended for.
Patents are a good idea. They worked (largely) great for many years. That's no longer the case. Although to be fair, the system was NEVER perfect.
But at this point, can the system even be overhauled? Is there ANY reform proposal that would actually solve the majority of the current issues? I'm not particularly optimistic.
The law , I think, with 90% of certainty, has been written by big and powerful companies attorneys.
When I'll read it I will be 100% cert of that.
I bet that no congressman or senator has read it.
One more nail in the mortuary box of innovation.
The patent were fist used in the republic of Venice to encourage the scientists to solve technical problems.
Today they are used to stop progress.
One thing the law should contain is the loss of the rights if the patent is not used for two years.
giuann,
It would be extremely hard to STOP patent legislation simply because it a service that people pay for. Not to mention that it is NOT cheap. So it will continue (even when patents are granted that may not necessarily hold up in court). Especially in the case where a small shop is going up against a big corporation. You simply cannot afford the legal strainer. So in some cases, it makes you wonder what the true benefits are of actually having a patent.
I would like to see a streamlined patent system that makes it easier for anyone to file and not just those with deep pockets. I would also like the patent review process to be a lot more stringent whereby the reviewers realy check for themselves that their is no prior art out there and that the patent is not frivolous. There are too many poor patents out there just now. Once I figure out how to pay for all this a I will be sure to inform you 😉
I look at things this way. Let's say, for example, a pharma company works for many years and spends millions of dollars developing a new drug. At the last minute, one of the bio-engineers decides to run to the patent office and file for a patent. Tough luck Pharma, you just lost your invention, huh? You can fire the engineer, but so what? They can just sell it to your competition and make a whole lot of money. Maybe we had better keep the “prior art” part of the provisioning process. I'm reminded of the question, “Who is Elisha Gray?”
As @Youjaes dubbed his subject line, it's totally a double-edge sword where there are obvious advantages for some and equally obvious disadvantages for others.
The sadder part is that more and more frequently legislators put forth bills that don't really address the heart of the matter nor go far enough to create adequate solutions or at least viable alternatives. @scoleman said it well – patents are being used as competitive weapons. To some extent it's understandable that IP – much like supply chain practices – need to be leveraged to distinguish a company from its competitors, but not at the price of choking inventors and stifling innovation. Time will tell if the America Invents Act lives up to its promise of pioneering ideas and slowing down uncessary legal battles, or if it's a law with more loopholes people and companies have to figure out how to jump through.
I think scoleman is completely right. The law makers might have had good intentions in writing this new law, and I stress might, but it appears overwhelmingly like it is going to cause even more problems. The small time engineers or companies are going to have big issues fighting giant corporations with countless piles of attorneys and money.
At this point I too remain pretty pessimistic that the system can be overhauled and brought into proper alignment.
Jennifer, I think patent registration is a global issue. I had read that most of the common names or the technologies are patented by crown companies, without many efforts. Since this technologies are already in place with some other name or in local form, most of such small scale users or companies are in problem with the patent/ royalty issues.
Jenn, great post. As I mentioned in the EBN newsletter I think this is a bad idea. I see it as “He with the most lawyers wins.” I know organizations such as the Lemelson Foundation do a lot of good work, but tactics such as submarine patents undermine th true intention of the patent system. First to file is just a way to position yourself for a lawsuit, rather then actually create value int he makeretplace.
I can see advantages to both first-to-invent and first-to-file methods. The first-to-invent method to award patent priority seems like it levels the playing field a little more for the small business or individual inventor, provided they do a good job of recordkeeping during development. The 1-year statuatory bar gives such inventors a chance to evaluate the market potential for the invention prior to committing to the full cost of the application process.
However, first-to-file would encourage inventions to be filed sooner rather than later in the development process in order to secure ownership, and therefore would get innovation into the public domain faster, spurring the pace of innovation.
Fairness of the system comes down to how well the legslation is codified into patent rules and process – the jury is still out on that!
Regarding your question “What effect do you think the legislation will have on high-tech IP companies that earn their bread and butter by building up a patent portfolio and then selling that technology to OEMs?”, I don't perceive much impact. I haven't had a chance to completely read the bill yet, but I am sure for these firms, rapid drafting and submision of applications is already a focus. If anything, this lesgislation gives them an additional advantage over inventive entities that have fewer resources , as you mention in your article.
Actually, patent and employee agreements have safeguards for such activities. The current legislation states “The owner of a patent may have relief by civil action against the owner of another patent that claims the same invention and has an ealrier effective filing date, if the invention claimed in such other patent was derived from the inventor of the invention claimed in the patent owned by the person seeking relief under this section.” Employee IP agreements have similar, and probably additional wording that restricts such actions. I'm sure anyone working in R&D, particularly something as capital intensive as drug development, is cover by these contracts.
Employee agreements are eassy to get around. Just get a friend to file the patent for you. They didn't sign anything.
Perhaps, but the person or people identified as inventors must have contributed to at least one claim in the invention. Seems like it would be a fairly easy trail to folow back and make a case for derivation. It will be interesting to see how sections of the legislation actually work in practice. I certainly make no claims (no pun intended) about how well, or fair, the mechanics will prove to be.
What is the issue regarding patents? Are the legal fights between Apple and Samsung good for the industry? IMHO, they do more harm than good. Are patents too broadly described?
Those are all good questions and I don't have any good answers for them. Then again, I can say a few things. If Apple and Samsung are misbehaving, how will changing the law stop that? They can misbehave if they want to and litigate no matter what the law says. We also have to be aware of the limitations on what a “contribution” is. If someone makes a contribution and doesn't ask for compensation at the time, can they come back and say “Pay me!”? Would “Prior Art” be considered a contribution? I was under the impression this stuff was supposed to simplify things, but it looks like it is making things more complicated. Has the President signed the bill yet?
Well, if patents worked well and they truly represented an invention, then yes, Apple and Samsung could go to court but if it's something else… let them compete.