Mewonders why Google is developing this. Sure, Google is pretty diverse, but medical technology still seems a bit out-of-scope.
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.
Google (Alphabet) has an entire division devoted to health and biotechnology: Calico. Like most mature technology companies, they tackle a wide variety of problems well outside their core revenue business.
Two divisions, actually: Calico and Google Life Sciences (where I work). We're making all sorts of really cool stuff, like glucose sensing patches for diabetes maintenance[1], solar-powered contact-lenses[2]. Calico is focused on life extension, GLS is much more practical.
That's cool! Can you tell us why Google is putting resources into the medical area? How does this pay off in the business sense? Are Calico/Google Life Sciences profitable?
The opposite - it makes the most sense for life sciences; it would seem to dovetail well with their existing projects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Life_Sciences
In particular, the contact lenses for glucose sensing, and the "disease-detecting nanoparticle platform," whatever that means. All of these have a flavor of less-invasive monitoring and diagnostics.
They are also working on a glucose-tracking contact lens. Continuous glucose monitoring is one of the last components of the "Artificial Pancreas" that could be employed by type 1 diabetics like me. Using the Dexcom CGM system with an insulin pump, an rpi, and Nighthawk, some actually have an artificial pancreas (skirting the FDA's approval latency). I would imagine Google sees this as a huge opportunity to affect a HUGE community with a chronic condition and demonstrate their prowess in yet another industry.
I presume the most practical application of this would be glucose testing for diabetics. There are many people who would prefer not to be sticking their fingertips all the time.
I'm diabetic (T1) and would kill for an Android Wear device that logged my blood sugar level. It would be life-changing for me. Even though I can calculate (usually very accurately) what my level is based on the last measurement and what I've done and eaten since, knowing for sure and having a full log would relieve some pressure and remove any doubt I have, whilst saving my fingertips.
I imagine this as integrated into some kind of Android Health or Android Fitness program, capable of detecting glucose levels for diabetics, a competitor to Apple's Health app.
Related to the snarky comments about how this relates to Google's search/advertising business...that raises an interesting question: why isn't this filed under Alphabet Inc. rather than Google? I thought that was the purpose of having Alphabet, to be the umbrella over old-Google's old and new businesses?
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.
They're probably patenting this to make sure nobody else does, and if Google's track record is any indication, they will probably make this available for free.
"Patenting it so someone else can't" is just something people say. Publishing the details of the technique would be enough to establish prior art--no need to file a patent. There is such a thing as defensive patenting, but that's more about building up a portfolio of patents in an area so that if someone sues you, you have something to counterclaim with.
> Make this available for free to anyone who doesn’t sue Google, doesn’t object to patents, etc
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.
> Make this available for free to anyone who doesn’t sue Google, doesn’t object to patents, etc
> 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]
"Validity" is a legal term of art in patents. Agreeing not to challenge the validity of the patent means, e.g., that you won't file an IPR seeking invalidation on anticipation grounds. It doesn't require you to subscribe to any set of political beliefs.
> 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.
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.
I’m more annoyed about Facebook (if you fight any patent in court that’s even related to any of theirs, you lose ALL licenses to anything they might own), but still.
You're very obviously conflating personal preference with law. What you said doesn't make any sense.
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.
No. The patent license of react says "this license becomes void if the user objects to the validity of software patents, KR questions the validity of any Facebook Inc. patent". (Quoted from memory, so not guaranteed to be accurate)
I believe they occupy different, but slightly overlapping niches in the chain of causation. Theranos' claim to fame is a method of blood testing that requires drawing of significantly smaller amounts compared to traditional/ contemporary methods of blood testing. The claim is that Theranos' method can produce satisfactory blood test results with smaller vials of blood. Google's patent however is specifically on the means of drawing. Therefore, a medical care provider could reasonably combine Google+Theranos' methods, unless of course Theranos' method has a strictly incompatible means of drawing blood. Hopefully someone more versed can shed more light on this
It'd be like claiming Berkshire Hathaway is scatter-brained because they're in railroads, insurance, metal working, car dealerships, newspapers and candy.
Alphabet is now a conglomerate by intentional design. Each unit is focused, in theory.
As a type-1 diabetic, to check my glucose, I have to use a spring-loaded device that pricks my finger with a needle which I then squeeze out to get a large enough sample, then pick up another device with a test strip attached where I collect the sample.
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.
That particular level of automation wouldn't be the end state for the technology. Why not a wristband you wear that just does all of that itself, when it decides to, and then either tells you to eat or communicates with some other device able to change your blood chemistry?
Well, it's not. It's using pressure differentials to cause small capillaries to burst(?), causing minimal damage as possible.
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.
Yes, it is shooting you with a tiny bullet and sucking up the blood splash that results. The patent calls it a "micro-particle", 10µm to 250µm caliber. It can be "dart-shaped" or spherical. Muzzle velocity may be supersonic. The suggested material is gold particles held together with biodegradable glue, which is a neutral material for humans. Or maybe just a water droplet.
It seems they've tested this thing. On Google employees?
This is rather a snide comment. But yet, how much more invasive is physiological monitoring than allowing video and audio monitoring of ones home? Or ones children, via dolls?
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.