1. An illumination device, comprising:
a light source, comprising an array of a plurality of light emitting devices;
an illumination uniformizing means disposed in front of the light source to uniformize a light emitted from the light source, the illumination uniformizing means comprising:
an incident plane, the light emitted from the light emitting device array is incident therefrom;
a bottom plane, comprising a scattering pattern thereon;
a projection plane opposite to the bottom plane, wherein:
the light incident from the incident plane being scattered by the scattering pattern, while the light incident from the incident plane being totally reflected between positions of the bottom plane other than the scattering pattern and the projection plane; and
a reflective side plane opposite to the incident plane, wherein the scattering pattern is gradually condensed from the incident plane towards the reflective side plane; and
a polarization converter, disposed between the illumination uniformizing means and a light valve, to polarize the light from the illumination uniformizing means into a polarized light.
I don't think it makes sense to allow patents on good ergonomic design for the same reason we don't allow patents on food recipes or fashion designs, or board game rules.
Actually, board games, food recipes, and fashion designs are all patentable.
Board Games: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/12/22/patenting-board-games-101/id=21356/
One million is a drop in a bucket. A good legal team can burn through that in about three months. It will take a lot more than that to get through the 10,000 or so patents owned by the big trolls like Intellectual Ventures.
The court docket is here:
Disclosure: I run this site.
1. Heightened pleading standards would require about two or three hours of attorney-time per defendant. It could conceivably help, but only marginally. Most plaintiffs would find what they need on the internet.
2. This already is the rule. To sue on a patent, you must own the patent. If you want someone else to sue, you create shell company, assign the patent to the shell company and get them to sue. Your specific suggestion wouldn't change a thing.
3. Looser pays would help fix the troll problem, but it's also a pretty intense fix and could end up hurting lots of IP holders with valid infringement claims.
4. You can already directly appeal most non-final orders. It's called a mandamus and is only allowed in relatively egregious cases. Allowing a mandamus in more routine cases would likely increase the cost of defense, not decrease it.
5. This would have no effect. The complaint must already be verified by an attorney, many complaints are already signed by multiple attorneys, and many of the attorneys are admitted by the USPTO.