Slashdot Mirror


BountyQuest CEO Patenting Lighting Toilet Water

theodp writes "Charles Cella, CEO of the widely-hyped Jeff Bezos and Tim O'Reilly funded patent reform vehicle BountyQuest, has filed for a number of patents since BountyQuest's demise, including one that covers illuminating water in a toilet bowl (see FIG. 7). Cella's co-inventors include principals of Color Kinetics, which has come under fire for strong-arm patent tactics and whose Board colorfully likens its IP to nuclear weapons."

38 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. Prior Art by Indy+Media+Watch · · Score: 3, Funny

    Bah!

    When I was young, we used to chug a pitcher of Plutonium and really light up the bowl.

    --

    Indy Media Watch-Proctologist of the Internet

    1. Re:Prior Art by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is valid prior art only if you published your research into peeing into the pool in a renowned and accesible publication on sanitation.

      --
      I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
    2. Re:Prior Art by digidave · · Score: 4, Funny

      I had it published in the American Sanitation Solution Providers Biweekly Edition (ASS PROBE).

      --
      The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
  2. Full of shit by Nazi+Pope · · Score: 4, Informative

    This guy is full of
    shit


    Have a read down the list below. If this patent is granted, we will all be
    taking dumps in the dark.


    The items in question:


    57. A method of providing illumination for a toilet, comprising: providing a
    light system with a plurality of LEDs and a processor for controlling a color of
    light from the LEDs; and disposing the light system in connection with a toilet.

    58. A method of claim 57, wherein disposing the light system comprises disposing
    it on the seat of the toilet.

    59. A method of claim 57, wherein disposing the light system comprises disposing
    it in the toilet bowl.

    60. A method of claim 57, wherein disposing the light system comprises disposing
    it in a rack above the toilet bowl.

    61. A method of claim 57, wherein disposing the light system comprises disposing
    it in connection with an odor control facility.

    62. A system for providing illumination for a toilet, comprising: a light system
    with a plurality of LEDs and a processor for controlling a color of light from
    the LEDs; and a toilet, wherein the light system is disposed to illuminate a
    portion of the toilet.

    63. A system of claim 63, wherein the light system is disposed on the seat of
    the toilet.

    64. A system of claim 63, wherein the light system is disposed in the toilet
    bowl.

    65. A system of claim 63, wherein the light system is disposed in a rack above
    the toilet bowl.

    66. A system of claim 63, wherein the light system is disposed in connection
    with an odor control facility.


    1. Re:Full of shit by Tx · · Score: 2, Funny

      IOW he's trying to patent any use of LED lighting anywhere in or around a toilet. Surely the requirement for inventions not to be obvious would prevent this patent from being granted.

      63. A system of claim 63, wherein the light system is disposed on the seat of
      the toilet.


      I like the recursive nature of this item though, maybe the guy is a GNU fan.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    2. Re:Full of shit by Craig_P92669 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Imagine the endless hours of fun you'll have creating a short in one of these toilets so that when your drunken buddies go pee......ZAPP!!!

      --
      http://xs4.xs.to/pics/04481/p556222.gif
    3. Re:Full of shit by Robotz · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wouldn't this toilet seat count as prior art? http://www.kiss-textil.de/galactikaen.htm

    4. Re:Full of shit by back_pages · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Surely the requirement for inventions not to be obvious would prevent this patent from being granted.

      I've said this countless times and my goal is to be eventually moderated Redundant instead of alternating between Troll and Informative.

      [Crash course]"Obvious" as regards a US patent means that you can produce multiple pieces of prior that can be combined to produce the claimed invention, AND you have documented motivation in the prior art (very preferably in one of those references).[/Crash course]

      See for yourself: MPEP 2143

      Many people seem to think that "obviousness" as regards patents has to do with "how hard it was to come up with", "how stupid the idea is", or "how trivial the invention is". This is complete fantasy.

      "Obviousness", as regards the US patent system, merely means that no single piece of prior art teaches the entire invention (that would be an issue of novelty). In this case, you would need to find prior art references that teach something along the lines of illuminating a toilet as well as WHY ON EARTH someone would want to illuminate a toilet. That hurdle crossed, illuminating with LEDs would be the easy part, as there are numerous sources documenting the advantages of LEDs over other light sources.

      I'm not trying to rant on you, but I've posted this little (extremely well) known secret about the US patent system at least 25 times in the last 5 months. It's not you, it's me ;)

      And I'm not saying that this won't be rejected under 35 USC 103 (obvious), but I'm definitely not an expert in the shit-bowl illumination technology. Actually, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if somebody from Japan invented this exact same thing 10 years ago. Something about this idea strikes me as distinctly Japanese, no offense intended to our robot-dog-making schoolgirl-anime-loving generally-culturally-insane Japanese friends.

      I like the recursive nature of this item though, maybe the guy is a GNU fan.

      That's a trivial issue under 35 USC 112, second or fourth paragraph (depending on how the examiner chooses to deal with it) for an improper dependent claim. If he can figure out what it's supposed to depend upon, he'll probably use fourth paragraph and require correction. If he can't figure out what it's supposed to depend upon, he'll probably use second paragraph to basically say, "I cannot figure out WTF you are trying to claim, correction is respectfully required."

      See, the patent system is so easy to understand, everybody CAN be an expert.

  3. I don't get it... by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is this him trying to get an utterly absurd patent to forward the cause of patent reform, or is he just the sort of whore who would take a CEO position at a patent-reforming company, then start patenting willy-nilly when it went belly up?

  4. inovation by ExKoopaTroopa · · Score: 4, Funny

    for all those who think that the sun shines out of their backside ...

    --
    Don't Tell Me What I Can't Do!
  5. What someone really needs to invent... by j0e_average · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is persistantly glowing toilet water, so when that Charles Cella goes in and drops that big brick (that he's so full of) and water splashes his undercarriage, he can walk around with a glowing backside!

  6. Oh yeah! Well... by binaryspiral · · Score: 2, Funny

    I filed a patent for turning the lighted water in a toilet bowl yellow.

    What kind of stupid moron thinks this patent is worth the paper its written on? Is there a large market for lighted toilet water? What kind of competition is out there?

  7. Here we go again by FhnuZoag · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yet another stupid patenting case. It's all getting pretty monotonous.

    What we really need is a patent that *hurt*. Nothing will get rid of this ridiculous system, until we find a way to grab the legislators in the balls.

    Maybe we need to play dirty. We need patents that compromise the US's national defense. Patents that prevent the IRS from doing its job. Patents that hurt lawyers, and politicians, and people in charge of the system who have no idea what they are doing.

    1. Re:Here we go again by tepples · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We need patents that compromise the US's national defense. Patents that prevent the IRS from doing its job.

      Those wouldn't help, as Congress could just authorize eminent domain and expense a token "just compensation".

    2. Re:Here we go again by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 2, Informative

      perhaps instead of small ip hoarding companies such as eolas suing microsoft, they should go after their customers - the US government. This would be much better for all involved (except microsoft, who it would hurt the same, prehaps more). hopefully the us goverment would get off their arse and get rid of software patents and supid patents in other fields.

  8. Is there an invention here? by russotto · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Or is it just a bunch of blue-skying about lighting things up?

    I think this is the sort of patent Justice Bradley described as the "foam" of the "advancing wave of improvement".

    1) People like things lit
    2) There's lots of ways of lighting things now.
    3) Here, we'll broadly patent lighting up a whole bunch of things.
    4) PROFIT

    Though I think the "inventor" must have been forced at gunpoint to write this patent... consider the line "Example: as your tidy bowl reached the terrifying point of not flooding the sewer lines with chlorine at every flush, your tiny tricolor LED would pulse RED hues to alert you."

    1. Re:Is there an invention here? by TyfStar · · Score: 2, Funny

      i'm thinking they just found SOME way to light things in water, or under water, with a microchip. Once discovered, you've got to CYA just in the off chance that it's used for something that actually makes money. You'll see EVERYTHING on there: shaving cream, perfume, any container, any container with a liquid.

      I'd be inclined to think someone told them "It's a good idea. Better include everything AND the kitchen sink on your patent." So they did.

      --

      "There is a reason Linux is free"

      ~me~

  9. K***** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just try patenting the illumination of plumbing fixtures. I work for a lighting company. One of our main clients is a plumbing fixture manufacturer whose name begins with K.

    We light commodes, suanas, showers, baths, and faucets all day long, and we won't stop anytime soon.

    See you at the National Homebuilders Show.

    (FYI, colors you will never see in our displays illuminating commodes or tubs: yellow or red. Think about it.)

  10. Am I in trouble? by digidave · · Score: 4, Funny

    If he has a patent on lighting toilet water and I have lights in my swimming pool... does that mean I can be sued if I pee in my pool?

    Oh wait, prior art. I did that twenty five years ago. *Whew*

    --
    The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
  11. Let's be honest about this by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Funny

    This shit is very illuminating!

  12. Prior art device to create lighted target in bowl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    It attached to the seat lid and shined a light into the bowl to provide a "lights out" target for stand-up pee-ers to aim at.

    I saw this at least 5 years ago.

    Also, Japan is so far ahead of the US for toliet automation -they haves seats/toliets that have lights, sprayed perfumes, measure blood pressure, urine sugar, fecal blood, spray water on your ass after you're done, etc, etc, etc.

  13. Next on the patent list...? by Linker3000 · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...lighting a fart?

    Unless someone claims prior (f)art??!!

    Sorry.

    --
    AT&ROFLMAO
  14. Bring on the Vogon construction fleets. by TractorBarry · · Score: 2, Funny

    Lighting toilet water ? Patenting it ? America truly leads the world in innovation.

    Bring on the Vogon construction fleets. Truly our species no longer has any worth.

    --
    Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
  15. This is absurdly pointless... by alchemist68 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why would anyone want to illuminate the poo floating or sunken in toilet bowl water? Is this guy patenting this for sake of doing it?

    FYI, most poo is brown (depending on your diet and health) and emits low molecular weight volatile organic compounds (this is why you smell it). I don't need to see it in the dark in the middle of the night. The next thing you know, they'll attach a linux cluster to it with sensors and cataloging every loaf-pinching session for monitoring your health, nutrient uptake, excretory efficiency rating, etc... Then when you're sick, the toilet can forward all the data to the doctors at the hospital.

    "Yup Mr. Smith, it's right here in your toilet's log, your daily intake of fiber decreased over a 7 month period. We recommend that you buy 42 coconuts with the soft fiberous shell intact, and eat the shreaded fiber for one week. This will remove all of the undigested red meat that is obstructing your bowels."

    Worse yet, I actually took the (wasted) time to write this scenerio.

  16. don't mix claims no. 6 and 12 together!!! by capsteve · · Score: 3, Interesting

    look at the ingredients they intend to illuminate... i hope it's not all together...

    6. A method of claim 5(container contains a fluid), wherein the fluid is selected from the group consisting of water, ammonia, bleach, window cleaner, insect repellant, insect killer, lotion, soap, liquid soap, kitchen cleaner, bathroom cleaner, shaving gel, cleaning fluid, lighter fluid, furniture polish, wood treatment, paint, primer, drain cleaner, disinfectant, room deodorizer, carpet deodorizer, room scent, perfume, cologne, shaving foam, toilet cleaner, aerosol, skin care fluid, suntan lotion, shampoo, surface cleaner, and liquid wax.

    12. A method of claim 1(lighting a product), wherein the household product is selected from the group consisting of a pencil, a pen, a fork, a knife, a spoon, a kitchen utensil, a whisk, a broom, a bottle, a glass, a mug, a coffee maker, a toothpaste tube, a dispenser, a shampoo bottle, a soap holder, a razor, an electric razor, a hair dryer, a picture frame, a marker, a jar, a makeup facility, a perfume dispenser, a brush, a lipstick, and a candle.

    IMHO the USPTO is giving out too many highly specific applications patents. maybe if i specify that my lighting system only illuminates the "toiletbowl-bound stream of urine just before surface impact, thereby creating a firework like display" i'll get a patent for lighting a toiletbowl too! then i can sue anyone who turns the light on to pee!

    --
    three can keep a secret, if two are dead - benjamin franklin
  17. Color Kinetics patent issues by GodBlessTexas · · Score: 3, Informative

    It looks as if Color Kinetics is about to have much, if not all, of their IP portfolio ruled invalid because of a plethora of existing prior art from as far back as the 1970's. All of this has come to light (no pun intended) after their lawsuit with Super Vision International. With that in mind, I don't now how to take this one. Is this a stupid patent that just injures Color Kinetics IP case more, or are they serious? Wouldn't the existing LED based technology that is used to illuminate pools be considered prior art, i.e. the Boca Flash products?

    --
    Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
  18. Two actual bona fide applications for this patent by G4from128k · · Score: 5, Interesting
    A couple of "real" uses for this patent include:
    1. Spectroscopic analysis of waste products to determine the health of the depositor. There has been some serious R&D on home healthcare monitoring system that analyze waste products (glucose in urine, fiber or blood in the stool, etc.). One scheme is optical or fluorescent spectroscopy of the bowl contents and LEDs could be the light source.
    2. Germicidal lighting: if they use a UV-C LED (280 nm wavelength), then this system could help kill bacteria and viruses in the bowl (And give a nice oval tan on the sitter's butt).
    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  19. A bit about multi-color LED lighting by maggard · · Score: 4, Informative
    For those out of the loop on this...

    LEDs emit light, directly or indirectly, only on a few narrow wavelengths. Therefore unless you're looking for just those few colors you're going to have to do mixing of multiple LEDs to get intermediate shades.

    Complicating things further is that not all wavelengths are emitted equally strongly, and also that the human eye doesn't perceive all color equally strongly. This isn't a case of RGB, or CMY, it's a few off-variations of differing intensities.

    Therefore to produce a specific shade, say Corporate Logo Color, Pantone #22578, isn't a no-brainer. The same is true for visually smoothly fading from shade to shade, it's not just a matter of turning down Bank A and turning up Bank B. Instead some calculations need to take place to make it all look decent, and that is the space where Color Kinetics has got their patents.

    BTW, for those interested, Color Kinetics makes a home product series, "Sauce". These are night-lights & light bulb replacements that can be set to strobe, flicker, cross-fade in different ranges, etc. They're pricey at US $10-20, are available at many toy stores, and tend to crap out after a year or two of use (the blue goes.)

    I use mine in my bathroom as a ever cross-fading night light, also set to one shade or another on on an empty white living room wall to 'punch it up'. I've friends who use their's for mood lighting in their bedroom.

    --
    I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
    1. Re:A bit about multi-color LED lighting by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 2, Informative

      Somebody at the patent office didn't see prior art on this. One of the electronics home experimenter magazines decades ago had a construction article with PWM-modulated LEDs for lighting control. Certainly earlier than the ten years ago the inventors claimed they started playing with LEDs in college.

  20. Re:WTF, third post marked redundant??? by ergo98 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Probably because the "patent on patents" joke appears in every single patent discussion. Redundancy isn't limited to submission.

    I also expect to see lots of "I patent using patents to get licensing fees". Always funny.

  21. Interesting Colr Kinetics LED patent history by Mononoke · · Score: 4, Informative

    Color Kinetics has a long history of overly broad patent schemes. Some were so bad that a their competitors in the LED lighting field were forced to form an alliance to combat the CK's over-reaching patent strategies.

    --
    NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
  22. Re:Prior art device to create lighted target in bo by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't think I'd feel safe if I dropped the soap in that bathroom.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  23. Sovereign immunity by redelm · · Score: 2, Informative
    Sorry, won't work. The US Federal government has the right to use any patent it wishes, royalty-free.

    Lawyers & politicians haven't been doing much new and innovative that might be stopped by patent. That's one of their many problems.

  24. Real Prior Art by ABaumann · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://inventionshowcase.com/jlhome.htm

  25. Re:Prior art device to create lighted target in bo by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Funny
    I don't think I'd feel safe if I dropped the soap in that bathroom.

    Don't worry. Robots never have any interest in abusing the orifices of innocent humans. Not even in Japan.

    That's the tentacle demons' job, and their union is very touchy about demarcation issues and has high-level contacts with the yakuza.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  26. Myth: Busted by don_carnage · · Score: 2, Informative

    Err...Mythbusters busted that myth. See the "Peeing on the third rail" episode. Apprarently, the urine stream is not solid, but rather made up of droplets after a certain distance. Informative!

    1. Re:Myth: Busted by don_carnage · · Score: 2, Informative

      There was another episode in which they followed-up on that "third rail" experiment using Adam as the test dummy. Hilarity ensued. He actually did get shocked by the electric fence, but then he was inches from it.

  27. Claim 1 by tuxedobob · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Claim 1 sounds not unlike a light switch or an internal refrigerator light, using a generic definition of "processor".

    1. A method of providing illumination (light) for a household product (wall), comprising: providing a light system (lamp) under the control of a processor (light switch + person) for providing illumination (light) of a selected color (white); and disposing the illumination system in proximity to the household product to light a feature of the household product (putting the lamp near a wall).

    Don't like a wall being considered a household object? Fine, pick something else.