The new movie, Flash of Genius, from its previews, looks awful–glorifying intermittent windshield wiper inventor Robert Kearns‘s use of the patent system to shake down the auto industry for $30M.
After all, it was already well known that existing windshield wipers were problematic–for example, “the blades often scraped across a windshield that was nearly dry. The resultant friction made an annoying sound and tore up the blades’ edges.” The solution was also obvious: “A solution that occurred to a number of inventors was an intermittent system–one that would wipe, pause for a few seconds, then wipe again.”
In 1963, Kearns came up with one way to do this, patented it, and eventually sued Ford and Chrysler for using a similar design. “Ford’s legal team argued that Kearns’s patents were overly broad and therefore invalid. As Ted Daykin, a former Ford engineer, told The New Yorker in a 1993 article, ‘An electronic timing device was an obvious thing to try next. How can you patent something that is in the natural evolution of technology?’ The intermittent wiper, according to Daykin, was really the work of dozens of anonymous engineers at Ford, Trico, and other firms.” Kearns won anyway–”$10.2 million from Ford in 1990 and $18.7 million from Chrysler in 1995, though both juries determined that the companies had not intentionally infringed on his patents.”
This movie is sure to annoy. It’s no wonder Hollywood likes it: it’s pro-IP and anti-capitalism. But Randians have a dilemma–it pits one hero (innovator, patent holder) against another (industry)!
Update: Aaaaand, as expected, here come the patent lawyer fanboys, cheering their moment in the sun. Nauseating.
{ 7 comments }
Worst of all it stars Greg Kinnear. He could ruin a Mises biopic.
I love it. The commie left moviemakers are defending a man’s right to profit off his work. Hilarious. If they were writing about a man who invented some kind of genetically altered potato that could solve world hunger, they’d make him the villain for trying to profit from it.
If they think that IP is actually property, yet they don’t believe in private property, why do they defend IP?
I like the Juries sat thru the FIVE trials.
Ford and Daykin argued the 35 patents were overly broad from 1967 to 1991. The weeks before trial Ford concluded this wasn’t true and NEVER argued that to the jury.
The patents withstood the test of 5 Jury trials. The Auto industry could argue anything before going to court. But if they argued that to the jury it’s obvious the jurrors would see that argument as inauthentic.
Leonardo DaVinci’s designs for the helicopter were simple and broad. Just hundred of years ahead of his time. Kearns patented designs were elegant and with 35 patents granted by the United States covered everything that worked well.
Dr. Ernst Fuhrmann, CEO Porsche, described it to me as one of the most elegant designs ever. He felt bad stealing it.
The Jury made no such determination regarding if Ford intentionally infringed. The question was proof of willful infringement. Difficult to prove without video evidence.
But it really isn’t about wiper designs.
It really is a story about a guy who went to school and learned about the american dream, worked and taught others.
Then was called and tested, to stand up as he had taught ,or sit down and fade away. Bob Kearns did not want to get relegated to a park bench, no matter how many millions he could spend on that bench.
Bob stood up for principle, no matter how many or how big the adversaries.
Maybe the Jesuit training, maybe the U S Marine training, maybe the OSS (Office of Strategic Services) training or maybe he just thought it was right.
Since you weren’t there and don’t know, why not leave the judgments to the jurors?
Or see the film?
I agree 100% with youre argument. But those this man know the IP debate, NO! The thing with this movie is not IP, it´s the classic Holywood argument Big Business vs. the Small Guy, which is nonesense. That would be my beaf with the movies message.
Bob stood up for principle…
He used bad laws to steal millions of dollars. I wouldn’t call that principled.
Well I just finished watching the movie. I thought that it was quit nice to actually watch a movie where no one was murdered, no explosions, no (real) swearing,
no end of the world as we know it. But that”s not why I am commenting. I tend to always find myself “screening” period films while watching them for accuracy. This film was done very nicely…….except for the scene where the family is sitting at the restaurant having dinner congratulating themselves. In the background outside the large plate glass window the viewer can see a white 2008 Toyota corolla coming out of the buildings garage!!! What the !!!??? Doesn’t anyone in Hollywood screen movies anymore?? I mean come on,, Couldnt the director of the film yell CUT!! and retake the scene WITHOUT the new Toyota? Hey Hollywood,, if you are really interested I am great at “proof watching period films, and am available anytime!
I’m an engineer involved in the research and development of Power supplies, amplifiers, and test equipment. You would think that might make me sympathetic to this guy whatever his name was, I forget. But no, there is nothing genius about this mans’ intermittent windshield wiper.
This movie tries to portray his work of assembling a “Transistorâ€, “potentiometerâ€, and “capacitor†in some “unique†combination, as if it were some sort of complex puzzle comparable to the Mona-Lisa. The truth is; I can’t put a variable resistor, capacitor and transistor together, and not accidentally make an intermittent windshield wiper.
Comments on this entry are closed.