Category: Patent

The Invent Blog linked to an article from the Wall Street Journal entitled Testing the Marketability Of Your Product Idea. The article suggests that you should test market your product or invention by soliciting feedback from (1) friends and family, (2) those who might understand your product’s industry or customers, (3) employees and customers in stores that sell similar items, and (4) online surveys.

What’s missing here? Google AdWords.

You can test market any idea in a short time using Google AdWords. Here’s how it works:

You create your ads
You create ads and choose keywords, which are words or phrases related to your business [or invention].

Your ads appear on Google
When people search on Google using one of your keywords, your ad may appear next to the search results. Now you’re advertising to an audience that’s already interested in you.

You attract customers
People can simply click your ad to make a purchase or learn more about you [or your invention]. You don’t even need a webpage to get started – Google will help you create one for free.

You can experiment with different keywords to determine which works to generate the most traffic. The traffic will help you gauge the market for your invention. For step by step details on how to test market your invention using AdWords, check out chapter 10 of The Four-Hour Workweek by author Tim Ferriss or read this blog entry.

The PTO recently granted Microsoft patent 7,231,019. It covers a method and system of identifying callers by (1) capturing the acoustic properties of the caller’s voice, (2) creating an acoustic model of the caller’s voice, and (3) comparing that model to stored models of prior callers. It also compares the caller’s words with language models compiled for previous callers to assist in caller identification.

Illinois has a relatively strict eavesdropping statute. So, I wondered whether a person could violate the eavesdropping statute by using this system.

Microsoft’s system is capable of identifying a caller from a single utterance. The system is able to identify a caller “without alerting the caller to the identification process.” The patent claims the system is useful for, among other things,(1) “easily filter[ing] unwanted calls of telemarketers, for example, from desired calls from known callers,” and (2) efficiently routing calls at a large call center to the correct recipient or information database.

Eavesdrop Statute

The eavesdropping statute states, in part: A person commits eavesdropping when he: (1) Knowingly and intentionally uses an eavesdropping device for the purpose of hearing or recording all or any part of any conversation . . .unless he does so (A) with the consent of all of the parties to such conversation or electronic communication. . .” 720 ILCS 5/14-2 (2007). The statute defines eavesdropping device as “any device capable of being used to hear or record oral conversation. . .” Id. at 14-1. The statute defines “conversation” as “any oral communication . . . ” Id.

The eavesdropping statute covers more than just listening in on other people’s conversations. You can violate the eavesdropping statute if even one person to the conversation agrees to the recording, i.e. if the person participating in the conversation is doing the recording. Basically, you can’t record a phone conversation unless all other people on the line agree. Also a back-and-forth conversation is not necessary, one person speaking is enough under the statute because a conversation means any oral communication.

Microsoft’s System vs. Eavesdrop Statute

So if I’m using Microsoft’s system to filter unwanted calls of telemarketers without alerting the caller will I violate the eaves drop statute? It depends on whether the system is used “for the purpose of . . . recording … [the] conversation.” The system uses a computer to analyze the caller’s voice. In order for a computer to analyze a voice it must record the speakers voice into the temporary memory of the computer. Once in the computer’s temporary memory the system can analyze the caller’s voice, recognizing words and creating a acoustic profile. Therefore, the system makes a recording of the caller’s oral communication.

However, its not enough for the system to record a communication. The person using the system must use the system for the purpose of recording the communication. That’s a harder leap to make. When someone records a conversation, that usually implies the person can later play back the recording for themselves or others. Microsoft’s system does not seem to allow the user to playback the recorded caller’s voice. If the system also allowed the user to play back the caller’s voice then the user might run into problems under the eavesdropping statute.

If recording an unconsenting caller’s voice violates the statute doesn’t the use of an answering machine violate the eavesdropping statute? No, courts recognize callers implied consent to the recording when they leave a voice message. Here, however, Mircosoft’s patent claims to identify callers “without alerting the caller to the identification process.” Its unlikely that a caller can impliedly consent without knowing it.

Victory: Microsoft’s Patent

Absent a voice playback feature, the person using the caller identification system is likely not using the system for the purpose of recording the communication, but rather is using the system to identify the caller. As a result, he or she is likely safe from the reach of the eavesdrop statute.

A patent targeted by EFF’s patent busting project caught my eye. A company called NeoMedia claims:

the general concept of reading an “index” (e.g., UPC number1) off of what it calls a “data carrier” (e.g., consumer product) and crossreferencing that index in a database in order to find the necessary information to look up and connect to a remote computer (e.g., URL fetched out of a database which is then inserted into a web browser).

The November 15, 2006 edition of the EFF’s Effector email newsletter summarizes the patent:

NeoMedia claims to have invented the basic concept of any technology that could, say, scan a product on a supermarket shelf and then connect you to price-comparison website.

This technology has the potential to empower consumers and force prices to reflect real-time supply and demand. Think about scanning the bar code of a product at a retail store with your phone. The information is transmitted to a price-comparison site and the results display on your phone. Now you know instantly whether the price there at the retail store is the best price.

This technology has the power to put some real teeth into those lowest-price-guarantees. What if the price-comparison surveyed not only online retailers but also traditional retailers? So you could scan a product at Circuit City and find out it is available for $50 less at the Best Buy store one mile down the road?

A company called Scanbuy already provides a free service that allows consumers to enter a bar code into their cell phone and receive: best price, other online prices, product reviews, and information about the product. This service will probably only really catch on when it is easy to use, i.e., when the users cell phone scans the barcode instead of requiring the user to manually enter the number.

Will retailers honor their lowest-price-guarantee when a customer shows the retailer the price comparison results on their phone? Some guarantees do not apply to prices of online retailers, and some match only in-print advertisements from competitors. The cost of redeeming a lowest-price-guarantee has been described as a hassle cost. Can retailers afford to continue providing guarantees when the consumer’s search cost incurred in discovering a lower price is virtually eliminated? Will this technology be the death of low-price guarantees? Or will retailers just retreat to price matching only in-print advertisements from competitors? If they retreat will the guarantees loose their effectiveness (if they are effective in the first place)?

Price-guarantees aside, a service like Scanbuy, should offer the option to “buy it now” that lets the user purchase a product using their phone from the online retailer with the lowest price. E-commerce continues to expand. The ability to purchase products with your phone while standing in a retail store maybe the next step in the evolving way we purchase goods.