#28 - Leaning anti-gravity method
Friday, May 3, 2013
#27-28 - Apparatus for high-five, and leaning anti-gravity method
#27 - Apparatus for high-five
#28 - Leaning anti-gravity method
#28 - Leaning anti-gravity method
#28 - Method and means for creating anti-gravity illusion (silly patents week)
In my scout for silly patents, I found this 'method and means for creating anti-gravity illusion' using specially design shoes. How it works is that a person can lean forward more than usual, giving the illusion and appearance of defying gravity by leaning forward without falling using these special shoes. (See the full patent here). This is patent 452.
Watch him defy gravity by leaning forward! Let's ask ourselves: is this novel? Well... it's a bit hard to say. I would say 'yes' given that the 'lean forward' motion in general is a dance move popularized by Michael Jackson in his routines and music videos. It is difficult to achieve without being superbly skilled at dance, so this method through using shoes allows a person to 'cheat' without mastering the move. In that way, I would say it's novel. It's a way of using the move without being skilled. The patent was also issued in 1993, which is around the time that the move was used as well... so we can see that it's possibly directly influenced by the culture.
Obvious or not? I would say nonobvious, because the real obvious way to do it would be to define the practice and regimen to achieve this without the shoes. And is this a valid patent? Well, despite the silliness, I would say yes, given the fact that while it's silly, it does feature something new and useful for those who might be in the field of dance.
#27 - Apparatus for simulating a high five (Silly patents week)
Among the world of silly and obscure patents, there exists one that is an "apparatus for simulating a high five," comprising movable arm movement with specifics regarding the action that needs to be taken. This is US patent 330. (See the full patent here)
Now, this is truly a silly patent given that it is not novel. Surely in someone had some time had used this as a gesture prior to 1994, which was the year that the patent was issued. Obvious or not? I think pretty obvious. Most people have used high fives as a gesture of accomplishment or satisfaction for centuries, and the mechanics of the arm movements are nothing new and unnoticed. The only thing new about this invention is that it is mimicking a high five as opposed to being one from a physical human being. So we have yet to answer--is this a truly useful device?
Observe the silliness that it truly is. The only usefulness might be for someone who has their arm paralyzed... but you might wonder what else an arm whose mechanics functions for a high five can do. Whether or not we should consider this to be a valid patent or not... well, I can't imagine that anyone or anything could infringe upon this. So we'll see.
Friday, April 26, 2013
#25-26 - Google vs. Apple for push notification patent & Microsoft licenses to ZTE
#25 - Google vs. Apple push notification patent case stayed in German courts
#26 - Microsoft is patent-savvy and licenses to China's ZTE
#26 - Microsoft is patent-savvy and licenses to China's ZTE
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
#26 - Microsoft, the "Best Licensing Team," licenses to China's ZTE
Microsoft as of late has signed a license agreement to collect royalties from China's large handset maker, ZTE. ZTE also makes Android smartphones and tablets, so the patents it has licensed relate specifically to various aspects of Android smartphones. (Foss Patents has an interesting take on this case on the blog here.)
Microsoft has one again shown its savvy nature in the realm of intellectual property management. It turns out that around 80% of Android phones sold in the US have licensed Microsoft's patents. This is an overwhelming number, given that Android phone adoption is expected to reach one billion by the end of the year (this is a projected and quoted number by Eric Schmidt from Google). That totals around 800,000,000 phones in the U.S with a Microsoft smartphone patent in it. Microsoft's patent portfolio highly lucrative as a result of this.
Ever since Google acquired Motorola Mobility, the relationship between Google and Microsoft has been an interesting one. They have achieved a relationship, no doubt, and the success of one drives the success of the other. Such a symbiotic relationship reminds me of the ecosystem between Apple and Samsung. Clearly the patents have bolstered Android phones, and apparently the device makers find the patents crucial to the success of the phones. Google, on the other hand, has apparently tired to dissuade Android device makers from signing license agreements with Microsoft. (This sounds quite anti-competitive to me, but Google manages to get away with a massive amount of things.) They are mutually benefiting each other and yet in the courts they are vicious to be the victors. The solution? Certainly the licensing system is a step closer to it, but there's no 'real' punishment. Even Microsoft, who has been crowned as the "best licensing team" by a widely-read IP magazine, can't guard all corners.
 |
| One of ZTE's smartphone models |
Microsoft has one again shown its savvy nature in the realm of intellectual property management. It turns out that around 80% of Android phones sold in the US have licensed Microsoft's patents. This is an overwhelming number, given that Android phone adoption is expected to reach one billion by the end of the year (this is a projected and quoted number by Eric Schmidt from Google). That totals around 800,000,000 phones in the U.S with a Microsoft smartphone patent in it. Microsoft's patent portfolio highly lucrative as a result of this.
Ever since Google acquired Motorola Mobility, the relationship between Google and Microsoft has been an interesting one. They have achieved a relationship, no doubt, and the success of one drives the success of the other. Such a symbiotic relationship reminds me of the ecosystem between Apple and Samsung. Clearly the patents have bolstered Android phones, and apparently the device makers find the patents crucial to the success of the phones. Google, on the other hand, has apparently tired to dissuade Android device makers from signing license agreements with Microsoft. (This sounds quite anti-competitive to me, but Google manages to get away with a massive amount of things.) They are mutually benefiting each other and yet in the courts they are vicious to be the victors. The solution? Certainly the licensing system is a step closer to it, but there's no 'real' punishment. Even Microsoft, who has been crowned as the "best licensing team" by a widely-read IP magazine, can't guard all corners.
#25 - Google v. Apple case over push notification patent in German courts
The proceedings in the German appeals court has been temporarily halted for a case between Google and Apple over the push notification patent. (See the full story on Foss Patents here.)
The history of this patent in courts has been long-winded. A real milestone was back at the end of 2012, during which a court in England ruled the invalidation of this particular patent. From there, this patent has been in contention, and this patent asserted by Google's Motorola Mobility arm was used to force Apple to turn off its iCloud mail push notifications. The reason for the invalidation of the patent in the UK primarily surrounded the lack of novelty and obviousness. Now that it's being investigated in German courts, and the German courts and headed toward the same direction as the precedent rulings. It's very likely that the ruling is invalid, but for now, both parties have agreed to a stay (I can't imagine why Google would agree to this, but it looks like they have.)
At one point, Microsoft was also involved with using the push patent notification patent. Even in this case, Google was found to not be entitled to an injunction against Microsoft over the push notification patent given that Google owed Microsoft a license under the previous ActiveSync license agreement they both undertook together. The best Google could have done in this case would be to claim past infringement for the periods prior to their acquisition of Motorola Mobility.
This particular case, for me, brought up some thoughts regarding the enforcement of patents. Other than licensing, joint ownership, and outright purchasing the patents, it's difficult to really effectively enforce and assert IP. Right now, the alternative to the aforementioned means is litigation, which is why we see six-digit and seven-digit dollar sized litigation cases that appear to be financially draining.
 |
| Push notifications pop-up on screen while you're working to let you know that something new has happened. |
The history of this patent in courts has been long-winded. A real milestone was back at the end of 2012, during which a court in England ruled the invalidation of this particular patent. From there, this patent has been in contention, and this patent asserted by Google's Motorola Mobility arm was used to force Apple to turn off its iCloud mail push notifications. The reason for the invalidation of the patent in the UK primarily surrounded the lack of novelty and obviousness. Now that it's being investigated in German courts, and the German courts and headed toward the same direction as the precedent rulings. It's very likely that the ruling is invalid, but for now, both parties have agreed to a stay (I can't imagine why Google would agree to this, but it looks like they have.)
At one point, Microsoft was also involved with using the push patent notification patent. Even in this case, Google was found to not be entitled to an injunction against Microsoft over the push notification patent given that Google owed Microsoft a license under the previous ActiveSync license agreement they both undertook together. The best Google could have done in this case would be to claim past infringement for the periods prior to their acquisition of Motorola Mobility.
This particular case, for me, brought up some thoughts regarding the enforcement of patents. Other than licensing, joint ownership, and outright purchasing the patents, it's difficult to really effectively enforce and assert IP. Right now, the alternative to the aforementioned means is litigation, which is why we see six-digit and seven-digit dollar sized litigation cases that appear to be financially draining.
Friday, April 19, 2013
#23-24 Videos: Google called out on 'search method' and Patent maintenance fees rise
#23 - Google is called out on search methodology by Apple
#24 - USPTO raises patent maintenance fees
#24 - USPTO maintenance fee increase and implications
A short blog post on PatentlyO brings to us news that the United States Patents and Trademarks Office (USPTO) has, of today (March 19, 2013) increased the patent maintenance fees. (See the full story here on PatentlyO).
The way that patent fees work is that there is an initial filing fee, depending on what type of patent you are filing. The maintenance fee is a separate fee that you continue to pay even after the patent has been filed and approved. These fees are paid at three intervals, the 3.5 years, 7.5 years, and 11.5 years marks.
As the graph illustrates, the fees climb at every interval. The interesting part here is that in the past, the fees grew somewhat proportionately at every interval. With the new fees in place, however, there is real curve ball at the 11.5 year mark, at over a 50% increase from the previous interval.
I actually think the fee hike is somewhat of a disincentive both to file and to keep a patent. Given that as the patent ages, the fees to maintain it rise, a patent owner would be convinced not to keep a patent that is both expensive to maintain and possibly outdated. Perhaps this is a way to reduce the less worthy content in the patent systems.
| Graph from PatentlyO |
As the graph illustrates, the fees climb at every interval. The interesting part here is that in the past, the fees grew somewhat proportionately at every interval. With the new fees in place, however, there is real curve ball at the 11.5 year mark, at over a 50% increase from the previous interval.
I actually think the fee hike is somewhat of a disincentive both to file and to keep a patent. Given that as the patent ages, the fees to maintain it rise, a patent owner would be convinced not to keep a patent that is both expensive to maintain and possibly outdated. Perhaps this is a way to reduce the less worthy content in the patent systems.
#23 - Google called out for flawed 'search methodology' by Apple?
An update on a case between Apple and Samsung comes to light regarding the search operations to identifying the relevant documents. This particularly interesting given the fact that an external factor such as the validity of documents is inherently a problem within the patent litigation system as well. (See the full source on Foss Patents here).
The first piece of search results, as I understand a large company would do, is to run automated searches over all company documents. The tricky part in this is that in order to identify the relevant documents, you need to use the appropriate search terms.
In this case, Apple is even proposing that they work with Google in this process to procure more relevant documents at a faster speed. This entails that Google provide a list of the search terms they planned to use. And part of Apple's suspicion here is that Google might be intentionally using search terms that aren't optimal. Foss Patents gave an example of this as being what Apple might call 'slick to unlock,' whereas on Google's side, they would have used a different term internally. All the while, Google says it is an unnecessary burden to be required to have full disclosure of its search terms. Google is actually a third party in this case but it is possible that the search is used in favor of its position with Samsung given the entire case dispute.
This article just brought some thoughts full circle to realizing that the patent litigation cases we see in the news all the time are indeed substantiated by the right data, the right documents, and are supplemented by the research tools of each company. As a result, the different companies to get involved in litigation cases with boast varying levels of research and technology capabilities, which might also have an impact in the duration and outcome of the case. If, for instance, a suing company cannot procure the necessary documentation, then their litigation efforts will be futile.
The first piece of search results, as I understand a large company would do, is to run automated searches over all company documents. The tricky part in this is that in order to identify the relevant documents, you need to use the appropriate search terms.
In this case, Apple is even proposing that they work with Google in this process to procure more relevant documents at a faster speed. This entails that Google provide a list of the search terms they planned to use. And part of Apple's suspicion here is that Google might be intentionally using search terms that aren't optimal. Foss Patents gave an example of this as being what Apple might call 'slick to unlock,' whereas on Google's side, they would have used a different term internally. All the while, Google says it is an unnecessary burden to be required to have full disclosure of its search terms. Google is actually a third party in this case but it is possible that the search is used in favor of its position with Samsung given the entire case dispute.
This article just brought some thoughts full circle to realizing that the patent litigation cases we see in the news all the time are indeed substantiated by the right data, the right documents, and are supplemented by the research tools of each company. As a result, the different companies to get involved in litigation cases with boast varying levels of research and technology capabilities, which might also have an impact in the duration and outcome of the case. If, for instance, a suing company cannot procure the necessary documentation, then their litigation efforts will be futile.
Friday, April 12, 2013
#21-22 - Design patents and Joint patent ownership
#21 Video - Design patents
#22 Video - Joint patent ownership
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
#22 - Joint patent collaboration and infringement
A post on PatentlyO (full article can be seen here) brought some interesting facts to mind--as well as their repercussions. In the blog post, Dennis Crouch brings up some of the conditions for joint inventorship. This specifically states that joint inventorship is: "when an invention is made by two or more persons jointly," but it does not require that the two parties need to "physically work together or at the same time," "make the same type or amount of contribution" or contribute to "every claim of the patent."
I actually personally find this a bit difficult to understand, given that there is still the requirement that these be undertaken "jointly." Does it mean, then, that anyone who had even a minute role in contributing to the idea and claim, are "joint inventors?" That would certainly make sense, but I can imagine how this can be a gray area for both the inventors themselves, and then subsequently in court if it is brought into a case. In the case that the PatentlyO poster observed, the case was dismissed as joint infringement given that there was no evidence of collaboration.
This really brought to mind some of the issues that joint inventorship will bring up in the space of mobile. Given that Google, Microsoft, Samsung, Qualcomm, etc., often own patents together in different relationships, it really creates a series of problems particularly around litigation. For example, who is responsible for the fees? And who puts the patents on their balance sheets? Then who amortizes these patents and recognizes the amortization expense on the profit and loss statements?
I actually personally find this a bit difficult to understand, given that there is still the requirement that these be undertaken "jointly." Does it mean, then, that anyone who had even a minute role in contributing to the idea and claim, are "joint inventors?" That would certainly make sense, but I can imagine how this can be a gray area for both the inventors themselves, and then subsequently in court if it is brought into a case. In the case that the PatentlyO poster observed, the case was dismissed as joint infringement given that there was no evidence of collaboration.
This really brought to mind some of the issues that joint inventorship will bring up in the space of mobile. Given that Google, Microsoft, Samsung, Qualcomm, etc., often own patents together in different relationships, it really creates a series of problems particularly around litigation. For example, who is responsible for the fees? And who puts the patents on their balance sheets? Then who amortizes these patents and recognizes the amortization expense on the profit and loss statements?
An example of this is Apple and Google going in together to buy Kodak's patents. While it prevented Kodak from starting a bidding war between the two companies, it also created this grey area for patent ownership and possible tensions between the two owning companies in the future. Joint ownership certainly can be useful, but it presents the grey areas as well.
#21 - Design patent applications: divided to conquer
The number of design patent applications has increased in the past few years, and it doesn't necessarily have to do with the fact that the number of new ideas has grown. A good percentage of this growth can be attributed to the fact that the filing parties are filing a group of design patent applications that claim a small piece of the overall design. (See the full story here on PatentlyO)
This is actually quite easily done, because in each patent filing only a small portion of the submitted designs and drawings have to vary from patent to patent. For example, in these patent application drawings, the solid lines can represent what is claimed, and everything that isn't being filed for can be illustrated in dotted lines. This means that, for each application, the only thing that needs to be changed from patent to patent is that you make parts of the drawing dotted and other parts undotted for whichever claim you represent.
Thinking about this, it's actually very strategic, because by dividing a design patent like this, competitors will find it difficult to even copy a small portion of the design. Furthermore, if a company is looking to make additional changes later on in the future, they can make changes and the patent can still hold to protect their design.
Translating this into what it means for mobile wireless design patents, we already know that design is such a contended space. The big case that everyone knows about is Samsung vs. Apple in the case of rounded corners. If any device maker goes to lengths to create a separate filing for each piece of the design, then competitors will find it difficult to even use a similar idea without infringing on the claim. Though at the same time, I think this would be somewhat anti-competitive given that competitors rely on the same basis of design. But it will then be a race to who can come up with the novel designs the fastest, then to patent each piece of the design, and conquer competitors.
This is actually quite easily done, because in each patent filing only a small portion of the submitted designs and drawings have to vary from patent to patent. For example, in these patent application drawings, the solid lines can represent what is claimed, and everything that isn't being filed for can be illustrated in dotted lines. This means that, for each application, the only thing that needs to be changed from patent to patent is that you make parts of the drawing dotted and other parts undotted for whichever claim you represent.
Thinking about this, it's actually very strategic, because by dividing a design patent like this, competitors will find it difficult to even copy a small portion of the design. Furthermore, if a company is looking to make additional changes later on in the future, they can make changes and the patent can still hold to protect their design.
Translating this into what it means for mobile wireless design patents, we already know that design is such a contended space. The big case that everyone knows about is Samsung vs. Apple in the case of rounded corners. If any device maker goes to lengths to create a separate filing for each piece of the design, then competitors will find it difficult to even use a similar idea without infringing on the claim. Though at the same time, I think this would be somewhat anti-competitive given that competitors rely on the same basis of design. But it will then be a race to who can come up with the novel designs the fastest, then to patent each piece of the design, and conquer competitors.
Friday, April 5, 2013
#19-20 Videos - Apple loses 'slide-to-unlock' in Germany & Android infringes text selection mechanism belonging to Apple
#19: Apple loses 'slide-to-unlock' feature in German courts
#20: Android devices found to infringe on text selection mechanism of Apple
#20 - Android's text selection infringe's Apple's patent
This is a case of demonstrating the benefits of first mover advantage. Surely Apple cannot have been the only one to think of a method for providing translucent images on a computer display, but ultimately Android phones have used a similar method for their text selection and therefore Apple is taking this chance to assert its patent claims in this ongoing investigation. (See the full story here on Foss Patents.)
Surely this idea cannot belong solely to Apple? Regardless, the results of the investigation show that Samsung's Android devices have infringed upon the claims in the patents under fire. Particularly, this refers to the text selection feature on the browser application, and also the translucent buttons of the Android photo gallery.
This brings to mind what it means to infringe upon a claim. Claims really are detailed, and yet they are broad enough to compass the potential workaround that competitors are using. Samsung's method of text selection is certainly not the same as that of Apple products, and yet it is similar enough that it appears to be the company's way of working around the great idea by using it but striving to be different enough that it doesn't infringe. Investigations unfortunately find it to actually infringe on the claims. So we'll see what the next clever workaround or new idea is. This is where patents come in to foster innovation, I think. Once a great idea has been played, it is up to the other competitors to come up with even better ideas.
 |
| An example of text selection on an iPhone. |
 |
| An example of text selection on an Android device. |
Surely this idea cannot belong solely to Apple? Regardless, the results of the investigation show that Samsung's Android devices have infringed upon the claims in the patents under fire. Particularly, this refers to the text selection feature on the browser application, and also the translucent buttons of the Android photo gallery.
This brings to mind what it means to infringe upon a claim. Claims really are detailed, and yet they are broad enough to compass the potential workaround that competitors are using. Samsung's method of text selection is certainly not the same as that of Apple products, and yet it is similar enough that it appears to be the company's way of working around the great idea by using it but striving to be different enough that it doesn't infringe. Investigations unfortunately find it to actually infringe on the claims. So we'll see what the next clever workaround or new idea is. This is where patents come in to foster innovation, I think. Once a great idea has been played, it is up to the other competitors to come up with even better ideas.
#19 - Apple loses 'slide-to-unlock' patent in Germany?
It looks like Apple's infamous "slide-to-unlock" has been invalidated in German courts. This is a win for the top contenders including Samsung and Google in this space, given that this very basic yet crucial functionality might be removed from Apple's repertoire. (See the full story on Foss Patents here)
Apple has tried to salvage their patent by editing it fourteen times after the case was brought to light, but to no avail. These claims surrounding 'unlocking' a device by performing gestures on an unlock image such as the swipe left-to-right button on iPhone screens have been deemed to be invalid. This was the ruling of a panel of multiple judges, of whom many also had engineering backgrounds). An appeal is still up for grabs by
Apple, but they've already tried to amend the claims and it hasn't seemed to cause the panelists to flinch in any way.
It turns out that this case might be specific to Europe, given that European patent laws requires any software patents to solve technical problems with technical means. In this case, the slide-to-unlock doesn't fulfill that requirement with its basic visual representation, and it really doesn't fall in the category of technical innovation.
Despite Apple's hold on this patent in the past in Germany and elsewhere, competitors have found workarounds that embrace a similar idea of not allowing phones to be randomly unlocked in the pockets. You might even argue that this has allowed other phone makers to be more innovative. HTC, for example, has an unlock screen that requires you to swipe simply across nine dots in a pattern that you set in advance. This is relatively easy to do, and it also doubles as a 'password' mechanism, so you won't have to unlock AND type in a password after that.
I'm sure Apple is rushing to find a way to get their patent protected again in Germany, but I believe that other companies have developed even better mechanisms to unlock phones. In fact, it might even be the case that Apple is bogged down in this and haven't taken the time to come up with even better ways to get this done. I personally like HTC's way to unlocking and I think other cellphones offer similarly great ways to unlock with the typical 'slide-to-unlock' that Apple is so famous for.
Apple has tried to salvage their patent by editing it fourteen times after the case was brought to light, but to no avail. These claims surrounding 'unlocking' a device by performing gestures on an unlock image such as the swipe left-to-right button on iPhone screens have been deemed to be invalid. This was the ruling of a panel of multiple judges, of whom many also had engineering backgrounds). An appeal is still up for grabs by
Apple, but they've already tried to amend the claims and it hasn't seemed to cause the panelists to flinch in any way.
 |
| Apple's infamous 'slide-to-unlock' |
It turns out that this case might be specific to Europe, given that European patent laws requires any software patents to solve technical problems with technical means. In this case, the slide-to-unlock doesn't fulfill that requirement with its basic visual representation, and it really doesn't fall in the category of technical innovation.
Despite Apple's hold on this patent in the past in Germany and elsewhere, competitors have found workarounds that embrace a similar idea of not allowing phones to be randomly unlocked in the pockets. You might even argue that this has allowed other phone makers to be more innovative. HTC, for example, has an unlock screen that requires you to swipe simply across nine dots in a pattern that you set in advance. This is relatively easy to do, and it also doubles as a 'password' mechanism, so you won't have to unlock AND type in a password after that.
| HTC's unlock screen that doubles unlocking with password entry. |
Friday, March 29, 2013
#17-18 Videos: Google patents for PR and Skyhook vs. Google postponed
#17 - Google patents for Public Relations
#18 - Skyhook vs. Google case consolidated and postponed to the next year
#18 - Skyhook vs. Google trial consolidated into the future
Back in 2010, Skyhook Wireless and Google were embroiled in a patent infringement case. Google had "bullied" some potential partners for Skyhook out of a partnership for its location-position software, which was also anti-competitive behavior. This case should have been looked at (along with the two patents asserted in the case), but it was merged with another case of Skyhook v. Google for another NINE patents. Now, both of these cases will be looked at in the coming year. (See the full analysis on Foss Patents here)
A strange thought comes to mind--this industry is evolving so rapidly, and more legal procedures have been put in place since 2010, and yet a patent infringement filed three years ago is still delayed another year. This patent war is even more about patent infringements: by delaying these court cases, you're also delaying the competitor's actions and therefore gaining benefit in profitability. It's all so tactical.
This really brings to light the fact that the patents wars aren't just about patent litigation anymore. Companies are using patents as resources for competitive advantage. IP isn't even entirely about securing the rights to your ideas anymore, but about keeping others out of your space, and often using them as legal tools to delay the course of your competitors. In this case, perhaps Google anticipated the hairy legal implications of its meddling in Skyhook's affairs, but it had done a cost-benefit analysis to realize that it would benefit from this more than it would take damage.
 |
| The Skyhook vs. Google case form 2010 consolidated with recent filing and postponed a year. |
A strange thought comes to mind--this industry is evolving so rapidly, and more legal procedures have been put in place since 2010, and yet a patent infringement filed three years ago is still delayed another year. This patent war is even more about patent infringements: by delaying these court cases, you're also delaying the competitor's actions and therefore gaining benefit in profitability. It's all so tactical.
This really brings to light the fact that the patents wars aren't just about patent litigation anymore. Companies are using patents as resources for competitive advantage. IP isn't even entirely about securing the rights to your ideas anymore, but about keeping others out of your space, and often using them as legal tools to delay the course of your competitors. In this case, perhaps Google anticipated the hairy legal implications of its meddling in Skyhook's affairs, but it had done a cost-benefit analysis to realize that it would benefit from this more than it would take damage.
#17 - Google's patent news is just a PR stunt?
Around eight years ago, a few large companies including tech giants like IBM and Sun Microsystems, pledged to not assert patents against open source software to support its movement in the industry. Unfortunately, these promises didn't exactly hold up in the court of law to help in the avoidance of lawsuits. No other industry players joined these companies to create the listing of patents that would not harm open source IP. (See the full story here at Foss Patents)
Google pledged a total of 10 patents (yes, only 10 while IBM pledged around 500). You can imagine that this is just a microscopic size of its patent portfolio.
As you can imagine, there was no real commitment in Google's pledge other than the positive press that it could achieve by supporting the open source movement. If one tried to find out exactly how many patents Google owns, they would have a hard time, because its very own patent search tool doesn't reassign new owner to second-hand patents unless asserted in court.
Google pledged a total of 10 patents (yes, only 10 while IBM pledged around 500). You can imagine that this is just a microscopic size of its patent portfolio.
 |
| Google owns at least 17,000 patents, by estimates. |
So the issue still stands: Google has the power and the right to sue open source developers over at least the 17,000 or so patents that it owns that are not covered under the pledge. So this humongous concept that had good intentions of standing in solidarity for open source--well, it will be even less effective if Google's planning to use those 10 to support open source.
Friday, March 22, 2013
#15-16: Ericsson dispute vs. Google's allies in court
#15: Ericsson's extended dispute vs. Samsung
#16: Google's allies in court vs. Apple
#16 - Qualcomm, BlackBerry stand with Google vs. Apple
Once again, FRAND pledged SEP's are back on the scene, and this time Google has an allies with Qualcomm and BlackBerry backing the defense of SEP-based injunctions against Apple. (Read the full story here on Foss' Patent Blog.)
 |
| I imagine this is how Apple is reacting right now |
But in all seriousness, Apple has quite a bit on its hands right now with its case against Samsung being taken to Federal Courts for the first time, and in the meanwhile they've got their allies and their foes against them alongside Google.
In the complicated web of patent litigation, it turns out that Apple is actually a customer of Qualcomm for its OS ecosystem, but Google's Android platform is as well. The real tipping point for Qualcomm, I would think, is that they are the world's largest SEP-centric company, so their business model very much depends on the enforceability of SEP's. As a result in this case, Google's measures aligns more with their operating model.
Another unexpected ally for Google is BlackBerry. And it turns out that Blackberry is not an avid, official supporter of any specific party per say, but BB clearly opposes the judge's stance and hence is mostly on Google's side.
This is becoming a hairy mess. They've even brought in law professors with specialty knowledge in IP litigation, and still not everyone emerges a winner. I suppose when something is brought into court, whether or not you've been business partners or not will have no bearing on your stance in court.
#15 - Samsung deflects Ericsson's 15 patent claim assertion
Ericsson gets in on the action of patent litigation in the increasingly complex web of offensive and defensive actions taken in the mobile device space. In this case, Ericsson adds fuel to the fire in its attempt to tack on 15 additional claims to its ITC complaint against Samsung (view the full analysis on Foss Patents blog here.)
After Ericsson brought this amendment to court, Judge David Shaw decided not to accept the 15 add-ons, partly because the original investigation already involves more than 130 claims. Samsung apparently had chimed in declare it unfair to tack on fifteen new claims given the already broad scope of investigation that will take approximately 15 months to complete as it is.
As usual, the patent war is taking twists and turns that often are hard to justify. In this case, the judge could have chosen to accept Ericsson's assertion, but instead it chose to narrow the case by focusing on the investigation at hand rather than broaden the scope of claims examined, which essentially would have dragged out the length of the case. At the same time, Ericsson could have waited for patent reissue before bringing the ITC complaint against Samsung. Meanwhile, Samsung is busy fending off dozens of litigation cases all at once. I can imagine that they've hired a humongous legal department to deal with this all.
As usual, the patent war is taking twists and turns that often are hard to justify. In this case, the judge could have chosen to accept Ericsson's assertion, but instead it chose to narrow the case by focusing on the investigation at hand rather than broaden the scope of claims examined, which essentially would have dragged out the length of the case. At the same time, Ericsson could have waited for patent reissue before bringing the ITC complaint against Samsung. Meanwhile, Samsung is busy fending off dozens of litigation cases all at once. I can imagine that they've hired a humongous legal department to deal with this all.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
#13-14 Videos - Germany Patent Battles: Apple v. Samsung and Google v. Microsoft
Video 1: Google v. Microsoft over Google Maps infringement
Video 2: Apple v. Samsung gives another go in Germany
Monday, March 11, 2013
#14 - Re-trial for Samsung in Germany for 3G patent... Again
Samsung's dashed hopes have been revitalized as German courts ordered a retrial scheduled for this coming summer 2013. (See the full story here)
For those who have been following this case for a long time, we know that in Germany, the previous ruling was that Samsung was required to stop its shipments for a time. This particular trail was against a 3G standard-essential patent. Samsung managed to show the courts after the ruling that Apple had technically not yet shown its burden of proof given its position as a defendant. Furthermore, Samsung now potentially qualifies to file for damages caused by the dispute. Samsung continues to try to sue Apple for damages over SEP's, but in the UK it hasn't worked in Samsung's favor.
Samsung's first try at three SEP assertions against Apple in Germany failed since the courts couldn't identify the infringement. Samsung really has been unsuccessful on this end, and it's tried in courts nearly 25 times and failed each of those times in Germany.
Even more than the 3G SEP, Samsung's other German lawsuits have also flopped. Some of these trials included iPhone's voiceover feature, and also a emoticon input method patent. There is really just some small functions that these debates surround. Our guest lecturer in the patent course this week, Mr. Jonathan Wells, shared with us the statistics that there are nearly 250,000 patents relevant to a single smartphone. This is really an astounding number.
This is not to say that Apple is a victor in Germany, either. Apple tried to assert a patent claim against Samsung for a design-related issue with Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1, and though it hasn't stopped Samsung altogether, it did manage to create a temporary ban on the device.
As the patent battle moves to international spaces, we'll see how it unfolds.. There is no clear victory
#13 - Microsoft burns Google Maps in Germany
How can anyone use a smartphone without Google Maps? And wasn't Google the first one to get into this space? Turns out that Google is likely to be held liable in court for infringement of a Microsoft patent regarding computer systems for identifying local resources and method thereafter. (See the full story here!)
Europe uses a different patent system than the US, but Microsoft has ownership of the European equivalent of the patent as well. So far, Google has failed to persuade the German courts that their interpretation does not align with Microsoft's patent. And so Microsoft is seeking a patent injunction against the Google Maps service (the same one that we see on our mobile devices, except in Germany). If this goes through fully, Google will be forced to stop selling the Google Maps app in Germany, and will even need to disable existing access to Google Maps for users with German IP addresses.
The interesting part is that Microsoft initially started out by suing Motorola over the distribution of the Google Maps app. Motorola denied to have knowledge of how Google's servers work and so Microsoft swooped Google into the accusation. But other Android device maker's using Google's systems have already recognized that the Android mobile OS uses Microsoft's patented technology, and so they have already set up license agreements. On the other hand, Motorola has refused to admit to the use of Microsoft's technology, but with this recent battle on the horizon, Google ought best to be truthful and submit to a license agreement before they are banned completely.
 |
| Google maps running on Android devices. |
The interesting part is that Microsoft initially started out by suing Motorola over the distribution of the Google Maps app. Motorola denied to have knowledge of how Google's servers work and so Microsoft swooped Google into the accusation. But other Android device maker's using Google's systems have already recognized that the Android mobile OS uses Microsoft's patented technology, and so they have already set up license agreements. On the other hand, Motorola has refused to admit to the use of Microsoft's technology, but with this recent battle on the horizon, Google ought best to be truthful and submit to a license agreement before they are banned completely.
Friday, March 8, 2013
#11-12 Videos: Google's Motorola Patents & Nokia on the patent scene
Video 1: Google's Motorola Patents
Video 2: Nokia rises in the patent scene
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
#12 - Court invalidates Google's Motorola patents?
Around a month ago, news emerged that the US Court had ruled 13 of Google's patents gained from its Motorola acquisition as invalid. (See full article here)This was triggered by Microsoft's assertion that patent claims asserted by Motorola against Microsoft were actually indefinite in function. We actually just learned about what is patentable and what is not patentable in class, so in this case, these patents were deemed to have not fit the criteria of what qualifies as a patent.
As part of this, the courts went through all of the said patents and highlighted which claims in the patents were invalid. While many of the claims in the examined patents were deemed invalid, there were also some patents that survived for now, meaning that they might later be examined for reasons other than indefiniteness.
A lot of this had to do with the specific wording, in the form of "means-for-xfunction." Phrases like "means for using" versus "means for decoding" clearly delineate the intent of the functions, but don't provide clarity for the computer invention means for the algorithms, so the court had to invalidate all patent claims containing these elements.
This goes to show that in filing patents, one must be aware of making the intent, configuration, and purpose very clear. Another thing is that these patents should be better streamlined in the filing process so that it doesn't become a problem later on to determine whether or not they are valid or not. Then we'll have less subjectivity in all of these patent cases.
Two giants stake it out in the patent war house.
As part of this, the courts went through all of the said patents and highlighted which claims in the patents were invalid. While many of the claims in the examined patents were deemed invalid, there were also some patents that survived for now, meaning that they might later be examined for reasons other than indefiniteness.
A lot of this had to do with the specific wording, in the form of "means-for-xfunction." Phrases like "means for using" versus "means for decoding" clearly delineate the intent of the functions, but don't provide clarity for the computer invention means for the algorithms, so the court had to invalidate all patent claims containing these elements.
This goes to show that in filing patents, one must be aware of making the intent, configuration, and purpose very clear. Another thing is that these patents should be better streamlined in the filing process so that it doesn't become a problem later on to determine whether or not they are valid or not. Then we'll have less subjectivity in all of these patent cases.
#11 - Nokia and Apple team up against Samsung on infringements
Patent war update: the battle ensues (as expected), and this time, Nokia has stepped in in support of an injunction against Samsung. (See more behind the cut here )
(How I envision the battle lineup)
As of late, the Apple v. Samsung dispute has been leading to ""compulsory-licensing system wherein patent holders are forced to license patented technology to competing firms, which could in turn harm incentives to innovate," which concerns Nokia. In general, this type of system will stifle innovation if rivals all have access to the technology, which would result in a battle of marketing cash spend. This is potentially a great concern to smaller companies with inadequate cash flow spending. This would be very anti-competitive.
The strange thing to me about this whole patent war is that Samsung is found to have infringed against dozens of IP (mostly patents) in the court of law, and yet the firm is not called out as guilty for it. It really speaks the flaws of the existing patent system if there is so much subjectivity involved that different judges would potentially have different rulings. Instead, the case rulings should be more grounded in specifics like first filing date, and the intent of the original inventors.
Speaking of inventors, I'm curious how the inventors have a stake in the entire Apple vs. Samsung battle. Given that the infringement of any patent would require understanding of the intent of the original claim, I'm curious how a company understands an intent once it owns the patent, if it wasn't the first one to own it. And, even if it is the first one to own it, it is not the inventor speaking for the patent in the court of law.
So now we're at the stage where Nokia has filed its amicus brief in the good name of innovation and fair competition. I'm not sure how much longer Samsung can deflect these criticisms in the public eye, so we'll have to wait and see. My feeling is that it won't be terribly deterred, but it may face more restrictions going forward to be less blatant about benchmarking specs in competitors' products.
Friday, March 1, 2013
#9-10 Videos - Patent Filing, Apple v. Samsung
Basics of Patent Filing
Apple vs. Samsung continues in Japan--Samsung loses?
See you next week!
#10 - Apple +1 vs. Samsung in Japan
This patent war has really escalated to be global in nature. An interesting turn of events came about in Japan recently, as Samsung's accusation of Apple's infringement was rejected. It turns out that the scope of their patent war spans about 10 countries, with a dozen or so cases pending in Japan.
A few months ago, Samsung won a case regarding patent infringement. This particular case that was recently overturned has been considered since nearly two years ago. Samsung has claimed that Apple is using one of its data transmission techniques without paying the licensing fee. If this case had gone through in Samsung's favor, there was the likelihood that Apple's products could have been banned in Japanese markets.
The real interesting part of it all is that I had assumed that Samsung was playing the defensive consistently. Now that the firm is playing the offensive, there is a lot more interesting patents that come to light. Data transmission is one, but we also can't forget that there are design patents too, like the rounded corners that Apple has so publicly fretted over.
A few months ago, Samsung won a case regarding patent infringement. This particular case that was recently overturned has been considered since nearly two years ago. Samsung has claimed that Apple is using one of its data transmission techniques without paying the licensing fee. If this case had gone through in Samsung's favor, there was the likelihood that Apple's products could have been banned in Japanese markets.
The real interesting part of it all is that I had assumed that Samsung was playing the defensive consistently. Now that the firm is playing the offensive, there is a lot more interesting patents that come to light. Data transmission is one, but we also can't forget that there are design patents too, like the rounded corners that Apple has so publicly fretted over.
#9 - Patent Filings 101
In our last class we went through a patent from beginning to end.
Some key things to point out on the first page includes the patent number. Usually, one refers to the patent by the last three digits of the assigned patent number. This is located in the top right corner of the patent filing. The information is divided into two even columns, and the first part of the left column gives basic information about patent ownership. This includes the names of the patent authors, and this often includes multiple authors. Following that, the assignee, or the person who owns the patent, is listed. Blackberry actually owns a ton of patents in the space of mobile devices, so I wager the company is capable of getting attractive acquisition offers at some point in time.
In many patents, there are illustrated diagrams of the patent being explained. These diagrams clarify what the particular idea being patented looks like, and is a helpful reference when browsing through the body of the patent literature.
The important part toward the end of the patent filing is the claims, and the claims are made up of different elements that are clearly enumerated. Our guest speaker warned us to be aware of the language, especially around the technical construction of the patent. For example, a platform might exist under LAN if specified as so, but could be a new process and idea for another type of data transmission.
Ultimately, the takeaway was that one must be concise with the language used.
Some key things to point out on the first page includes the patent number. Usually, one refers to the patent by the last three digits of the assigned patent number. This is located in the top right corner of the patent filing. The information is divided into two even columns, and the first part of the left column gives basic information about patent ownership. This includes the names of the patent authors, and this often includes multiple authors. Following that, the assignee, or the person who owns the patent, is listed. Blackberry actually owns a ton of patents in the space of mobile devices, so I wager the company is capable of getting attractive acquisition offers at some point in time.
In many patents, there are illustrated diagrams of the patent being explained. These diagrams clarify what the particular idea being patented looks like, and is a helpful reference when browsing through the body of the patent literature.
The important part toward the end of the patent filing is the claims, and the claims are made up of different elements that are clearly enumerated. Our guest speaker warned us to be aware of the language, especially around the technical construction of the patent. For example, a platform might exist under LAN if specified as so, but could be a new process and idea for another type of data transmission.
Ultimately, the takeaway was that one must be concise with the language used.
Friday, February 22, 2013
#7-8 Videos - Apple's Litigation Legacy & Patent Inefficiencies
Video 1 - Apple's Litigation Legacy
Video 2 - Patent inefficiencies
See you next time!
Video 2 - Patent inefficiencies
See you next time!
Monday, February 18, 2013
#8 - Apple's Legacy of Litigation Lives On
What started out as Apple's ambitious attempts to slow down its rivals in a series of litigation cases has turned somewhat sour on its reputation, and doesn't seem to have the intended effect.
Still, despite the lack of success, Apple's suing frenzy ensues after Job's departure. Despite the publicity brought to light of the Apple versus Samsung case, Samsung product sales are skyrocketing and in fact surpassing Apples sales. Overall, the Android adoption rate is outgrowing that of iOS, and now Apple is racing to patent even its most common features.
Admittedly this is a tough case to crack. While Apple seems to be playing the 'victim' since other phone manufacturers have simply copied its best features, it does happen that these features are industry-wide 'best practices.' In a competitive market like smartphone devices, why wouldn't a rival look toward 'best practices' to improve upon its own products?
The other qualm I personally have about these litigation cases is this: While companies like Samsung are actively looking to improve its own products, such as by tailoring its products to international markets and making successes there, and looking to reinvest in the product development based on feedback, Apple would rather spend its cash balance on litigation. Those billions of dollars, in my opinion, would have much better gone to improving its own products rather than trying to stop others from selling their existing products. In the technology space, turnover of new ideas and products is fast. Therefore it is conducive to look toward the future rather than focus on what's done.
Still, despite the lack of success, Apple's suing frenzy ensues after Job's departure. Despite the publicity brought to light of the Apple versus Samsung case, Samsung product sales are skyrocketing and in fact surpassing Apples sales. Overall, the Android adoption rate is outgrowing that of iOS, and now Apple is racing to patent even its most common features.
Admittedly this is a tough case to crack. While Apple seems to be playing the 'victim' since other phone manufacturers have simply copied its best features, it does happen that these features are industry-wide 'best practices.' In a competitive market like smartphone devices, why wouldn't a rival look toward 'best practices' to improve upon its own products?
The other qualm I personally have about these litigation cases is this: While companies like Samsung are actively looking to improve its own products, such as by tailoring its products to international markets and making successes there, and looking to reinvest in the product development based on feedback, Apple would rather spend its cash balance on litigation. Those billions of dollars, in my opinion, would have much better gone to improving its own products rather than trying to stop others from selling their existing products. In the technology space, turnover of new ideas and products is fast. Therefore it is conducive to look toward the future rather than focus on what's done.
#7 - Patents of Wars and Trolls
An interesting column in the New York Times caught my eye (the article can be found here). Posner, a je udge for thUS Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for nearly three decades, has volunteered his time to sit in patent litigation trials on order to learn how to rectify the existing messy system. The article uses words such as "desperate," "time-consuming," and "prideful" to describe the need for a new process.
The existing patent system at the USPTO is, according to the article, understaffed yet overwhelmed with needless patent filings. There exists such a thing as "patent trolls" who spend their time creating patent portfolio in order to extort fees from companies that use the idea behind the patent. Billions of dollars have gone in litigation cases over patents, of which the one in the spotlight as of late seems to be Google's $12.5 billion dollar spend on Motorola Mobility to get their hands on the patents.
There is often the argument that patents protect innovation, and a clear example of it may be in the pharmaceutical industry in which firms are forced to develop better and more effective ways to solving the same problems. In the technology industry on the other hand, products are short-lived and there is the idea that you can let others develop the technology first. For technology giants, this means to sit aside and watch the little guys come up with the brilliant ideas, then to use their excess cash flow to buy out the small guys to scale the technology.
It's a clever tactic, but is it a sustainable strategy, and does it hinder innovation?
The existing patent system at the USPTO is, according to the article, understaffed yet overwhelmed with needless patent filings. There exists such a thing as "patent trolls" who spend their time creating patent portfolio in order to extort fees from companies that use the idea behind the patent. Billions of dollars have gone in litigation cases over patents, of which the one in the spotlight as of late seems to be Google's $12.5 billion dollar spend on Motorola Mobility to get their hands on the patents.
There is often the argument that patents protect innovation, and a clear example of it may be in the pharmaceutical industry in which firms are forced to develop better and more effective ways to solving the same problems. In the technology industry on the other hand, products are short-lived and there is the idea that you can let others develop the technology first. For technology giants, this means to sit aside and watch the little guys come up with the brilliant ideas, then to use their excess cash flow to buy out the small guys to scale the technology.
It's a clever tactic, but is it a sustainable strategy, and does it hinder innovation?
Friday, February 15, 2013
#5-6 Videos - Apple & Samsung Patent War Continues; Design Patents
(1) Apple & Samsung Patent War Continues!
(2) Design Patents for the Mobile Wireless Device Makers!
(2) Design Patents for the Mobile Wireless Device Makers!
See you next week!
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
#6 - The Symbiotic Relationship between Friend and Foe: Apple & Samsung
The heat rises, the heat falls, and the end is at the horizon!
It seems that the proclaimed 'patent war' is finally reaching its stalemate. According to a recent MSN news article, it appears that the prospects of any major confrontation are slimming by the day. (See the article here)
Beyond recent activity, what has been interesting throughout Apple and Samsung's heated patent dispute has been a long-standing 'symbiotic' relationship, so to speak. This relationship starts with Samsung's highly diversified corporate level strategy in business lines such as chips, multimedia devices, and more. The firm's manufacturing edge has given it the supplier power in serving Apple's products with its flash memory chips. Highly reliant on these parts, Apple should have had a bit of reluctance in its attack.
Interestingly enough, Apple really set the stage for the advancement of its wireless mobile devices, thereby creating the space and testing the waters for Samsung to fully leverage its own core competencies in entering with strong products. Given the tested space and tested products, Samsung is perfectly vertically-integrated to produce and deliver products that are on par with Apple's products.
The patent war introduces an interesting implication for the relationship of these longstanding partners and rivals. Despite their different business level strategies in the mobile device space, they manage to bump heads to compete for the same group of customers. Apple pursues a broadly differentiated strategy, whereas Samsung tweaks its products to meet local tastes with strong market penetration in developing countries.
As their rivalry ensues, the only certain thing is that patents will serve to be valuable in claiming 'first-to-market' ideas in which the device makers strive to create network effects by this advantage.
It seems that the proclaimed 'patent war' is finally reaching its stalemate. According to a recent MSN news article, it appears that the prospects of any major confrontation are slimming by the day. (See the article here)
Beyond recent activity, what has been interesting throughout Apple and Samsung's heated patent dispute has been a long-standing 'symbiotic' relationship, so to speak. This relationship starts with Samsung's highly diversified corporate level strategy in business lines such as chips, multimedia devices, and more. The firm's manufacturing edge has given it the supplier power in serving Apple's products with its flash memory chips. Highly reliant on these parts, Apple should have had a bit of reluctance in its attack.
Interestingly enough, Apple really set the stage for the advancement of its wireless mobile devices, thereby creating the space and testing the waters for Samsung to fully leverage its own core competencies in entering with strong products. Given the tested space and tested products, Samsung is perfectly vertically-integrated to produce and deliver products that are on par with Apple's products.
The patent war introduces an interesting implication for the relationship of these longstanding partners and rivals. Despite their different business level strategies in the mobile device space, they manage to bump heads to compete for the same group of customers. Apple pursues a broadly differentiated strategy, whereas Samsung tweaks its products to meet local tastes with strong market penetration in developing countries.
As their rivalry ensues, the only certain thing is that patents will serve to be valuable in claiming 'first-to-market' ideas in which the device makers strive to create network effects by this advantage.
Monday, February 11, 2013
#5 - What is Patent-able & Nokia Lumia's Revealing Design Patent
Our class detailed the defined classes for what is patent-able in the wireless mobile device area. Aside from different class types such as machine, composition, and process, it is interesting to think about what is NOT patent-able.
As we discussed in the last class, a design such as the rounded corners of Apple's products is a distinctive look that the firm has claimed. Aside from design, I'm curious what other categories can be classified for patents. I'm thinking along the lines of function vs. design, but perhaps there are more divisions.
Speaking of design patent, the Nokia Lumia's mystery design was revealed through a patent that the firm followed. (Read more here: http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/8/3967082/mystery-nokia-lumia-design-revealed-in-patent)
The shape features a flat front-screen and a reverse concave back that will offer many different colorful plates. I trust that the angled back will provide utility to users holding the phone for long periods of time since the rounded shape will fit more comfortably in the palm of a hand.
I suppose my question at this point it: what controls are in place to stop a company from patenting just about every conceivable idea out there as it sprouts in their R&D labs? Or, is this even a concern for anyone? Further, I pose the question of how different patents have to be from each other in order to be considered an infringement. For instance, if I had chosen to round out the top corners of a mobile device but not the bottom two corners, would Apple chase me down as well?
This remains a gray area, so I hope to fill in this knowledge in coming weeks.
As we discussed in the last class, a design such as the rounded corners of Apple's products is a distinctive look that the firm has claimed. Aside from design, I'm curious what other categories can be classified for patents. I'm thinking along the lines of function vs. design, but perhaps there are more divisions.
Speaking of design patent, the Nokia Lumia's mystery design was revealed through a patent that the firm followed. (Read more here: http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/8/3967082/mystery-nokia-lumia-design-revealed-in-patent)
The shape features a flat front-screen and a reverse concave back that will offer many different colorful plates. I trust that the angled back will provide utility to users holding the phone for long periods of time since the rounded shape will fit more comfortably in the palm of a hand.
I suppose my question at this point it: what controls are in place to stop a company from patenting just about every conceivable idea out there as it sprouts in their R&D labs? Or, is this even a concern for anyone? Further, I pose the question of how different patents have to be from each other in order to be considered an infringement. For instance, if I had chosen to round out the top corners of a mobile device but not the bottom two corners, would Apple chase me down as well?
This remains a gray area, so I hope to fill in this knowledge in coming weeks.
Friday, February 8, 2013
#3-4 Videos - Exploring IP and the Race for Patents
Video 1: Exploring Copyrights and Trade Secrets!
Video 2: Race to create: Nokia's Heat Concept Phone
Video 2: Race to create: Nokia's Heat Concept Phone
See you next week!
#4 - Patents for unproved concepts - Nokia's Heat Phone
I discovered upon chance an article in a tech enthusiast's blog about Nokia's concept heat mobile phone. Essentially the phone is able to capture heat from any external source, whether it is your body, the heater, or even your car driving wheel if it manages to get hot enough, and transfer the energy to charge your phone.
This is a very forward concept that addresses the issue of poor battery life. The concept itself aims to solve the issue of not only battery life, but also to not have your phone die on you (in case you need the time or need to send one last text before meeting someone).
http://mobilepatent.tumblr.com/post/1303402511/nokia-concept-heat-mobile-phone
The backside of the phone resembles a cork or dried land, and that is the part that works to take the heat energy from your surroundings. Imagine just sitting down and having your phone charge without an external charger!
The interesting idea that this brings up is that companies will often experiment with very forward ideas like this and then patent it. I'd guess that most companies have cabinet fulls of patentable ideas that came out of their R&D labs, and they are waiting for the prime time when the technology systems and the demand will support the ideas. In this case, I think it's a close step toward the direction that wireless mobile phones are headed. More than being able to access networks wirelessly, don't you think it's time that our phones charged wirelessly too?
This is a very forward concept that addresses the issue of poor battery life. The concept itself aims to solve the issue of not only battery life, but also to not have your phone die on you (in case you need the time or need to send one last text before meeting someone).
http://mobilepatent.tumblr.com/post/1303402511/nokia-concept-heat-mobile-phone
The backside of the phone resembles a cork or dried land, and that is the part that works to take the heat energy from your surroundings. Imagine just sitting down and having your phone charge without an external charger!
The interesting idea that this brings up is that companies will often experiment with very forward ideas like this and then patent it. I'd guess that most companies have cabinet fulls of patentable ideas that came out of their R&D labs, and they are waiting for the prime time when the technology systems and the demand will support the ideas. In this case, I think it's a close step toward the direction that wireless mobile phones are headed. More than being able to access networks wirelessly, don't you think it's time that our phones charged wirelessly too?
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
#3 - All Different Kinds of Intellectual Property!
I was enlightened to learn about four different types of intellectual property, both unprotected and protected types. The ones I found particularly interesting include the following plus their eample
(1) Trademark
I was surprised to learn about the different types of visuals that could be trademarked. Many mobile device makers take care to build their brand equity around the ubiquitous presentation of their trademark stylizations. Google, for example, is distinguished by its
(2) Copyright
Interestingly enough, Copyrights are something that we all have access to. Something interesting I learned about individualized 'copyrights' is that you can share the right to use your work through "Creative Commons" license. This is an interesting concept of claiming ownership of your work, but allowing others to use your work when properly crediting it to you. For example, if I put a Creative Commons license on a sound track that I create from scratch, I will enable download on the song and allow others to use it for mash ups and videos as long as they credit me somewhere in the process. It's an interesting concept to share your work but still retain the credit for it.
(3) Trade Secrets!
What I'm slightly concerned about with 'trade secrets' is how long and how feasible it is to keep a 'formula' or 'recipe' secret for long. If, for example, Coca Cola believes that its recipe is truly secret, I am thinking, why not just patent it? First off, some employee somewhere is going to leak information regardless of whether they pledge their alliance to the firm or not. And secondly, in this day and age, I'm not sure that it's too difficult to reverse engineer the components through looking at its contents under microscopic lens (I have butchered scientific terminology there, so pardon my language).
Rather, if Coca Cola had chosen to patent their formula for success, they would have legal protection for it, and hence inhibit competitors from making the same formula. I think this would be great for innovation as well, since competitors would race to develop something better (maybe carbonated juice--oh wait, oops. That already exists...)
There are so many ways to coin your intellectual property. I'm interested in the cost-benefit analysis a company goes through to determine which is the best route to take.
(1) Trademark
I was surprised to learn about the different types of visuals that could be trademarked. Many mobile device makers take care to build their brand equity around the ubiquitous presentation of their trademark stylizations. Google, for example, is distinguished by its
(2) Copyright
Interestingly enough, Copyrights are something that we all have access to. Something interesting I learned about individualized 'copyrights' is that you can share the right to use your work through "Creative Commons" license. This is an interesting concept of claiming ownership of your work, but allowing others to use your work when properly crediting it to you. For example, if I put a Creative Commons license on a sound track that I create from scratch, I will enable download on the song and allow others to use it for mash ups and videos as long as they credit me somewhere in the process. It's an interesting concept to share your work but still retain the credit for it.
(3) Trade Secrets!
What I'm slightly concerned about with 'trade secrets' is how long and how feasible it is to keep a 'formula' or 'recipe' secret for long. If, for example, Coca Cola believes that its recipe is truly secret, I am thinking, why not just patent it? First off, some employee somewhere is going to leak information regardless of whether they pledge their alliance to the firm or not. And secondly, in this day and age, I'm not sure that it's too difficult to reverse engineer the components through looking at its contents under microscopic lens (I have butchered scientific terminology there, so pardon my language).
Rather, if Coca Cola had chosen to patent their formula for success, they would have legal protection for it, and hence inhibit competitors from making the same formula. I think this would be great for innovation as well, since competitors would race to develop something better (maybe carbonated juice--oh wait, oops. That already exists...)
There are so many ways to coin your intellectual property. I'm interested in the cost-benefit analysis a company goes through to determine which is the best route to take.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
#1-2 Videos - Self-intro & Why I am taking IEOR 190G
Self-introduction behind the cut:
And I go into why I am taking the patent engineering course:
And I go into why I am taking the patent engineering course:
See you next week!
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
#2 - Introduction to Me
To sum up my life and interests in the shortest possible way, while revealing how I took the path that lead me en route to this course:
School: I'm a business administration major at the Haas School of Business undergraduate program, and I enjoy taking fun courses such as entrepreneurship, competitive strategy, and finance courses. With this background, I've developed an unquenchable interest in technology and dream of being a product manager at a high-tech company (in the space of Internet e-commerce or cloud SaaS) without the technical background. As part of my desire to gain a better understanding of technical matters, I am taking this course and am pursuing a side project with some fellow classmates to build out an application.
Activities: I have the honor and opportunity to serve as Berkeley Women in Business' president this school year, and I'm continuing my role this semester with new events for students on campus. (Quick plug: Visit our lovely website here.) As part of my interest in social impact, I'm one of the undergraduate student consultants part of the MBA-level Social Sector Solutions group, and I am partaking in the advising of a local nonprofit client in regards to business plan matters and implementation planning. My third big-scale activity is that I am a member of the Haas undergraduate case competition team to be competing internationally in Montreal, Canada this March. I am excited for all of these opportunities, and equally delighted to take my first course in the Industrial Engineering department.
Hobbies: I have a passion for art, and I'm a freelance graphic design artist as well as a hobby comic book artist. I'm not the most skillful per say, but I carry lots of love for the things I create and I have a bounty of ideas. Given that I was a self-taught artist, my craft stems from interest and hobby rather than for commercial or character-breeding purposes.
Weird facts: I used to be right-handed, but now I'm left-handed and I can't write with my right hand. I'm a new year's baby. I love to eat different cuisines, and in particular I like vegetable dishes. I am allergic to mushrooms, and I don't eat beef or pork.
Pleasure to meet you!
Activities: I have the honor and opportunity to serve as Berkeley Women in Business' president this school year, and I'm continuing my role this semester with new events for students on campus. (Quick plug: Visit our lovely website here.) As part of my interest in social impact, I'm one of the undergraduate student consultants part of the MBA-level Social Sector Solutions group, and I am partaking in the advising of a local nonprofit client in regards to business plan matters and implementation planning. My third big-scale activity is that I am a member of the Haas undergraduate case competition team to be competing internationally in Montreal, Canada this March. I am excited for all of these opportunities, and equally delighted to take my first course in the Industrial Engineering department.
Hobbies: I have a passion for art, and I'm a freelance graphic design artist as well as a hobby comic book artist. I'm not the most skillful per say, but I carry lots of love for the things I create and I have a bounty of ideas. Given that I was a self-taught artist, my craft stems from interest and hobby rather than for commercial or character-breeding purposes.
Weird facts: I used to be right-handed, but now I'm left-handed and I can't write with my right hand. I'm a new year's baby. I love to eat different cuisines, and in particular I like vegetable dishes. I am allergic to mushrooms, and I don't eat beef or pork.
Pleasure to meet you!
#1 - Introductory Post - Patent Engineering Course
Greetings to citizens of Planet Earth:
As part of a patent engineering course I'm taking in the Ind. Eng department this semester, I've created this blog as a creative outlet to discuss some relevant topics covered in class.
Some goals I have in mind in taking this course include the following:
As part of a patent engineering course I'm taking in the Ind. Eng department this semester, I've created this blog as a creative outlet to discuss some relevant topics covered in class.
Some goals I have in mind in taking this course include the following:
- Improving my technical understanding of the discourses behind patent differences and similarities
- Understand the business aspect of the patent process as well as its measurable benefits
- Stay up-to-date with patent litigation cases going on in the technology space by reading recent news and having the brainpower to take a position and argue for one side or the other
- Practice my ability to assess news critically rather than have it feed into my brain as fact
Being the first course I've taken in the Ind. Eng department, I am slightly worried about being less technical than my fellow peers (already in the first day, my classmates were discussing the 'definitions' of mobile wireless systems, which I understand to a good degree but that I lack the knowledge of terminology and jargon for).
The goal for myself would be to bring in my business savvy to this environment and be able to fill in my weaknesses with the knowledge of my classmates. I look forward to sharing our writing and teaching each other tidbits of our strengths this coming semester.
Cheers,
Sandy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)