Google Patents Needle-Free Blood Draw
pdfaiw.uspto.gov
pdfaiw.uspto.gov
Questions of corporate motivation aside, however, this will never replace the majority of blood draws. The patent claims it is only intended for small samples, so if the lab needs more than this device can reliably extract in one go, they'll do it the old-fashioned way. Additionally, there's a high likelihood of hemolysis (rupturing of red blood cells, which releases haemoglobin and the rest of the contents of the cytoplasm into the blood plasma). The patent does not appear to address that issue (perhaps I just missed it, but I saw no references), but my wife (who is an ICU/ER nurse) tells me it is problem. That also severely restricts the range of tests for which blood drawn by this method would be suitable.
A system for blood-free draw that works reliably would fit the moonshot descriptor quite easily.
Wouldn't this be part of their Calico subsidiary?
You also have to keep buying new needle drums/cassettes as well as glucose strips - not sure if this system cuts down on disposable parts?
[1] http://www.mhealthnews.com/news/next-google-glucose-sensing-...
[2]http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2015/10/19/googl...
edit: I can answer my own question: this was published on December 3, 2015. But it was filed May 28, 2014, which was created in 2015.
Fixed this for you.
Legally, according to the patent license, I can’t use VP8 (Google) or react (Facebook) either, as I believe the patents, like all software patents, are invalid and should not have been granted.
> Legally, according to the patent license, I can’t use VP8 (Google)
OK, let's see:
> If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to the institution of patent litigation or any other patent enforcement activity against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any of these implementations of WebM or any code incorporated within any of these implementations of WebM constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any patent rights granted to you under this License for these implementations of WebM shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.[1]
Seems upfront to me, and nothing to do with if you sue Google over matters unrelated to VP8, believe software patents are invalid, etc etc.
It's just a modified Apache 2.0 patent license grant, so unless you object to all projects under that...?
> If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.[2]
So, yes, I can not legally use any project that uses patents and only this grant.
If I can’t say in court "I believe the patent is invalid", then I can’t use the software.
It’s not "free" if they require you to believe their political ideas to use it.
And I don’t want to give up that freedom. As I am sure that I will do so.
So, no, webm, VP8, VP9, Google’s new stuff, etc is not "free of patents", it just happens to have patents which most users don’t notice.
It’s Google’s business model in general, make it just good enough that most never notice the drawbacks.
As I pointed out above, that isn't true except in the narrow sense of if you try to sue for the invalidity of the webm patents specifically, and then you'd lose your license to the webm patents and only the webm patents (never mind that if you tried to argue that a software patent was invalid because all software patents should be invalid the court would throw it out so fast that likely no one would notice what you did).
You can object to that narrow clause, but no one ever claimed the project was "free of patents", just that it was royalty-free and that it includes a patent license grant for any patents covering the code and format.
Moreover, as (again) I noted above, every Apache 2.0 licensed project has the same clause, so you have a lot more windmills you should be tilting at right now.
That's a pretty extreme and naive view. We live in a complex world and some software patents have their place.
What we need to get rid of is patent trolls, though. Without non-practicing entities, software patents would be a lot more useful.
It's not more extreme than some objecting to all form of eg euthanasia. (Which is a fairly mainstream view.)
The only acceptable patent is one that provides a specific solution to a problem, an algorithm, etc.
Let me give you an example: I object to high-fructose corn syrup being in Coca Cola in the US market, therefore it's illegal for me to drink Coca Cola in the US.
this is the reason i say patents have become perverse.
Alphabet is now a conglomerate by intentional design. Each unit is focused, in theory.
I can see why Google might be interested in doing this. They're already in the smart watch market, it's only a short leap into the world of medical devices if they invent a way to continuously monitor blood sugar levels (among other metrics) for the user.
Read the last paragraph (0003) of the Background and then look at that watch device. If I could flip my wrist over, push a button, hear a hiss and 5 seconds later I can tell where my levels are, my day to day life, for the rest of my life, is made that much easier.
It seems they've tested this thing. On Google employees?