Mushrooms, a Most Challenging Crop

How familiar are you with commercial mushroom crop production? If you're at all like me, then you've likely thought about it very little and and know even less.

Fortunately, I spent most of last week attending a science boot camp for librarians (shout out to fellow PTRC rep Denise Wetzel, who organized this year) and had an opportunity to learn about it from the foremost expert in the field: Dr. John Pecchia of Penn State's Mushroom Research Center and Mushroom Spawn Lab. Since the vast majority of American crop mushrooms are grown in Pennsylvania, a land grant university would take great interest in such a substantial industry. 

In the US, the most commonly consumed mushrooms are Agaricus spp., labeled variously as baby bellas, button, white, cremini, and full-sized portobella mushrooms depending (primarily) on age and color. However, Agaricus are among the most difficult to cultivate. They are picky about growing conditions, demanding as much as a year after inoculation and pasteurization before significant growth is possible. After that, they require 7.5-9 weeks to mature, at least a month longer than other domestic crop mushrooms. In addition, they are all harvested by hand, because there is no mechanical option available that does not damage such sensitive fungi.

Not that any variety people enjoy eating is easy to produce. Most edible mushrooms are particular about growth substrate and light, temperature, and humidity levels. There are lengthy preparations before growth cycles can begin. And consumers prefer mushrooms to have recognizable, attractive appearances that can only be achieved via certain methods.

What does any of this have to do with IP, you ask? Well, allow me to assure you that Dr. Pecchia did bring up the topic.

Presently, many people consider finding an efficient, effective and stable method for producing morel the "Holy Grail" of commercial fungi cultivation. Though they seasonally appear easily enough in the wild, consistently growing a morel cop has escaped most growers and researchers.

Therefore, enormous interest was garnered when a China-based company filed a patent for morel growing in 2019. Many patents and patent applications for mushroom growing and cultivation methods exist; however, most are aimed at small-scale production, improvements to the systems and products already generally in use, for oyster (Pleurotus ostreatus), shiitake (Lentinula edodes) and Agaricus mushrooms. 

For example, patents 11,678,618 (Mushroom Growing Apparatus, Systems and Methods); 11,582,921 (System for Growing Mushrooms); and 11,166,418 (Methods and Devices for Producing Mushrooms) are all improvements to the most common methods for commercial mushroom growing. Each features an indoor array of stacked trays, with a growing substrate and controlled climate. 

11,582,921 includes a conveyor belt to move the trays to harvesters.

11,582,921's conveyor belt improvement for harvesting and picking

11,678,618 is mostly focused on environmental controls, like temperature and humidity levels, but also monitors pressure and water levels. 11,166,418 claims a unique tray configuration and steps to preparing them for mushroom growth.

US 11,166,418 image showing the unique tray shape and configuration

It is the focus on morels that sets US 11,277,980 (Planting Method for Morels) apart. No other mushrooms are mentioned, and the method is meant for morels alone. For many years, many have hoped to successfully domesticate them as crops.

Cover page from US 11,277,980

It is difficult to say if Sichuan Three Point Water Biotechnology Co. Ltd has indeed obtained the Holy Grail of commercial mushroom cultivation, but the fact that there hasn't been a major increase in morel production, new patents for improvements, and Dr. Pecchia's seeming skepticism, all suggest that there's still quite a ways to go.

Nonetheless, this got me thinking about commercial mushroom cultivation patents in general. And I'm pleased to let you know that there are many more! But as this post as grown lengthy, check back later for some IP related to mechanical and/or robotic mushroom harvesting.

MOOG: Inventor, Company, and IP

How much do you know about synthesizers or theremins? If you're an electronic music fan, or a modern musician, chances are you've at least heard about them, and likely the name Moog. And if you do, chances also are you've seen news about Moog Music.

Robert (Bob) Moog (pronounced MOHG) was one of the greatest American synthesizer and theremin designers and engineers. He invented what amounted to the first commercial synthesizer, the eponymous "Moog Synthesizer" in 1964. In 1970, he created a portable version, the "Minimoog". And while working towards his PhD in engineering physics at Cornell (earned 1965), he designed multiple theremins.

Moog's symbol, used since 1964

But this isn't strictly about Bob Moog, or how he impacted modern music. It's about the cruel vagaries of IP, and the IP saga surrounding Dr. Moog, the companies he founded, and its current fate. 

Despite his ingenuity in designing electronic musical equipment, Moog was never a savvy businessman. He founded his original company, R.A. Moog Co., in 1953. It was a small start-up that sold mail-order self-assembled theremin kits. It mostly funded his education in the beginning, but later grew in size and produced Moog synthesizers. 

TESS information on the Moog symbol, first registered by R. A. Moog, Inc.

In 1969, Moog was granted his patent, US 3,475,623, for "Electronic High-pass and Low-pass Filters Employing the Base to Emitter Diode Resistance of Bipolar Transistors", which may be credited with creating the distinct Moog synthesizer sound. No patents were pursued by or issued to Moog or his business(es) after that.

Diagram image from US patent 3,475,623 for the high-pass filter function

In a simplified version of the company's history in the early 1970s, it was briefly acquired by muSonics and renamed Moog Music. Shortly after, due to financial issues, it was sold to Norlin Musical Instruments. Moog remained working as a designer for Norlin for a few years, but lost control of his musical equipment trademark. Of the 10 US patents that credit Moog as inventor, 8 belong to Norlin.

US Patent 4,050,343 Electronic Music Synthesizer, one of Moog's most important Norlin inventions

When Moog left Norlin in 1977, he moved to North Carolina and started a new synthesier company, Big Briar. He was completely disconnected from his namesake trademark in music.

Moog Music and Norlin declared bankruptcy in 1987. But the Moog trademark did return to Bob Moog. Another entity purchased its rights when the registration expired in 1994; Don Martin owned Moog's eponymous trademark.

While the 1980s saw a decline in popularity of analog synthesizers characteristic of Moog Music equipment (like the Minimoog), the trademark and its associated inventor never completely diminished. Moog continued to be an important name in the electronic music industry across the decades.

Moog Music, Inc. trademark, reg. no. 2473815

In 2000, a legal battle over Moog Music and associated trademarks ensued, with Moog working to regain the rights. Therefore, it was a triumph for Dr. Moog when he finally won the case and ownership of Moog Music in 2002.

Big Briar, of Asheville, NC was dropped and Moog Music reinstated. A resurgence in popularity of analog synthesizers, starting in the 2000s, meant the business had a real market. Bob Moog returned to creating new products. The Moogerfooger of Big Briar was accompanied by the Minimoog Voyager and more.

A specimen image of a Moogerfooger, provided for the trademark registration (no. 2379940)

Unfortunately, Dr. Moog was never meant to enjoy a lengthy career as a successful businessman. He died from brain cancer complications in 2005, just a few years after he finally owned his trademark again, after almost three decades.

Yet the IP story of Moog Music hardly ends there. After Bob Moog's death, his business partner took over, and shifted about 40% of the shares in the company to its employees, creating a largely employee-controlled business in 2015. This became a core part of the Moog Music reputation and brand identity.

Figure from US Patent 10,229,664 Voltage Controlled Oscillator with Variable Core for Electronic Musical Instrument and Related Methods, Moog Music's last

As mentioned above, electronic music equipment engineers and creators evidently are not known for business savvy (this trajectory of losing control of a business is just one; see Dave Smith of Sequential Circuits or Alan R. Pearlman of ARP). Moog Music survived the employee-directed format for less than a decade.

Here we reach the part of the tale that has demanded recent news attention. Moog Music has once again been sold to another company. It almost certainly will not be employee-controlled, as they have little ownership in the current circumstances. And it's hard to say what the future will be for one of the most famous names and brands in electronic music.

inMusic, the new owner, is a conglomerate and holds multiple music brands already. Their website is simply a list of those (Moog not yet included). It is probably accurate to assume that Bob Moog would not have been in favor of this arrangement; yet it is undeniable it follows a similar pattern from his lifetime.

Resources: 

https://moogfoundation.org

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moog_Music