I also wanted to discuss another silly patent that I happened to read about besides the metal pieces that Aereo passed off as antenna. There was a patent that happened to be approved back in the 1960s for a firearm with whiskey attachment. I do find that this patent seems to be definitely not novel even if it is for a plastic gun. While I do agree that every person has a right to bear arms, I do not think it is such a good idea to do that after having some alcohol.
The firearm or plastic gun seems to be having this movable arm where the whiskey glass is supposed to be held. The schematics also seem to be confusing since it is also possible that the glass can be flipped when operating the gun. In terms of obviousness, the invention does seem unique in that no everyday person would dream of coming up with this contraption. Also, the device does not seem really novel since it is fairly easy to just attach a mount on a gun.
Also, the invention does not seem useful since it ends up encouraging the behavior of drinking with operating guns. As statistics have shown that people that text and drive do not perform well, the operation of a gun while having access to whiskey can only lead to unintended consequences potentially. In light of recent events, this invention would probably meet a lot of social opposition as well.
Some people may argue that the invention is intended for plastic guns which are harmless. However, plastic guns are often considered to be toys which kids often use so I am sure such a device would not be popular to have kids with alcohol. Overall, the invention may have been more useful if it was a scope or helped focus the aim or even a safety lock.
There was a recent article discussing the patent dispute between Medtronic and the Edwards Life Science company. This debate is interesting in looking at whether certain patents should be upheld if it affects the well-being of people in society.
I believe the article also brings up an interesting point of whether the needs of many outweigh the interests of the company. In this case, the Edwards company is capable of making a large profit if Medtronics is banned from selling their aortic valve replacement. Is it better to keep the business interests satisfied over those of the patients? The patients would be the ones adopting the use of the new device. It is also important to realize that this case is related to many life and death situations. The aortic valve device is capable of saving lives and if providing a Medtronic device can save more lives that may be beneficial.
Another point is the expired patent has already been proven to be infringed by Medtronics. It may be important to have Edwards Life Science company look past the patent and perhaps allow a competitor coexist in the marketplace. However, it is understandable that Edwards is trying to remain dominant in the aortic valve replacement market.
It may be also important to realize that the ones with the patent may not be the ones to stay in the market. In the case of Johnson & Johnson, this company was dominant in the stent market until it started charging ridiculous prices for the device. As a result, they made a market exit even with the patents but were also able to obtain payment from the other competitors that infringed. In the case that Edwards Life does win, it may be important for them to historically look back and realize that their actions may affect the business and alienate patients.
In this week's post I would like to focus on an article related to the necessity of specific patents. In some cases, the patents may not be necessary or end up having unintended societal consequences. In the case of the Aereo company, the introduction of small antennas has caused a great stir on the validity of their invention design.
For the broadcasting companies, this invention provides a huge issue given now that a third party is able to make a profit off the programs these companies provide. Now, the question in the courts come down to contesting whether the stream service that Aereo provides through their individualized antennas is public or private. If private, the claims of the broadcasting companies cannot be upheld.
A more important issue to look at is if this patent is really necessary. It may seem that the device presented in the patent is not truly novel. There are preexisting products out there like TV Slingbox that have been around before this device that provide similar streaming services. Is it important for the court to recognize this point and throw Aereo's case out the window? I do agree that it may be interesting to have these low cost tiny antennas that can go to mobile devices but it just does not seem that innovative.
I am also concerned about the strength of the business plan here. The idea is that people will be buying this device and realizing that there are other alternatives out there. Streaming services like Netflix and Hulu can definitely cover the entertainment needs of the consumers. Also, any news coverage can be easily shown at the consumer's finger tips through app services like CNN and the New York Times.
The question now becomes whether this patent is actually necessary and has it made a huge impact on the technology? It seems that the patent is at least effective in stirring up some conflict between the broadcast groups and Aereo. It has been banned in some states but it will be interesting to see what the national ruling would be here.
The article this week revisits the idea of patent validity. Even in the past cases, it is clearly shown that the Supreme Court has difficulty coming to a consensus on issues including the Bilski case and Alice vs. CLS Bank case even on the basis of obviousness. With the patent landscape filled with patent trolls, it has become more important for patents to be shown to be non-obvious.
For some larger companies, there is a push for patents especially for software patents in proving that the patents are actually necessary. What is interesting is patent holders are pushing for a section 101 test rather than a 103 test (basis on obviousness). However, it may make sense since software patents are different other types given the patent can last for 20 years. The patent could become obvious over the 20 year duration especially if other competitive software can replicate the same features.
Another interesting point is that different companies want to push for different patent tests. The two tests of interest are section 101 and section 103. Groups like Google, Microsoft and Netflix seem to champion a section 101 test on the abstractness of the patent claim to accelerate the processing. However, other groups like IBM seem to want section 103 tests to be adopted more widely to allow better patent processing especially since they do focus on many software patents.
It seems that it may be difficult to determine the best way or if a combination of patent tests need to be done upfront to minimize damage from patent trolls. Despite this issue, it is important to filter patents that seem obvious even if they are obvious.
For this week , I will be talking Micron's victory over the patents held by the University of Illinois. This case is interesting since it focused on the specific claims that were present in the three patents of the university.
Since 2011, Micron and the University of Illinois has been in case on these patents related to semiconductor production with deuterium for better performance. However, the Micron company decided to file for inter partes petition as a response to the situation. This petition is interesting since it officially requests the patent trial and appeal board (PTAB) to examine the claims for any instance of obviousness. As a result, the patent office was unable to accept the patents especially on the basis of obviousness on claim 10 of patent 6888204.
In the patent 688204, there is an instance of obviousness that exists in one of the claims. Claim 10 is describing the semiconductor production process. In fact, the process does not seem that different from making a standard semiconductor device with the right expertise. Also, the PTAB made assumptions that the miniaturization of the technology would seem obvious to the expert. Overall, it seemed that the decision by the PTAB may have been debatable.
Regardless of the situation, the legal team for Micron made very smart strategies that could be implemented by entities facing patent litigation. The petition for inter partes review seems to be a powerful technique since it does disregard the prior decisions on the validity of the patent. Also, the only difficulty with this strategy is that it requires examination of nearly all the parties and patent claims. The inter partes review requires that one of the individuals would be highly capable of proviing one of the claims as invalid.
More surprisingly, the PTAB used the decision in KSR vs Teleflex to indicate that their decision could be based on what an expert in semiconductor production would do. One of the major weaknesses in the claims was the statement of a gate insulating film with thickness of 55 angstroms or less. With at least one claim shown invalid, the overall patent is greatly weakened. It is interesting that they relied on this expert resource to greatly shape the final decision.
For this week, I found an interesting article discussing the Licensing Executive Society (LES) conference being held in Moscow. It is interesting to realize there is a global group dedicated to dealing with intellectual property and patent issues.
Primarily, this conference brings to mind the issue of licensing. It seems that licensing is a huge general trend that people have been moving towards recently. Rather than suffering the costs of litigation, licensing appears to be a compromise to minimize the number of patent disputes. I am not certain though converging to licensing is always the best idea. However, it seems great to have open communications between patent attorneys, judges and the WIPO (world international property organization) director.
Even in other cases, there are efforts to ensure fair competition and help regulate the patent system. However, it will be interesting to learn if any progress can be made through improving the patent process with all of these high officials here. Again, the issue is that the parties involved in this conference has different perspectives and thoughts on patent disputes. For example, Chief Judge Randall Rader has been involved in cases distinguishing patent ownership from copyrights (Federal Circuits: Author post).
Even with the judicial court hammering down on false advertising and patent ownership, it does not prevent patent trolling or endless patent litigation today. However, it was pointed out that lawyer Hess was present at this LES conference who was responsible for helping Microsoft circumvent the Motorola appeal. Hess provided very clear arguments for non-experts to understand in the Microsoft case. Perhaps this style that Hess provides might be necessary to bring up in this conference as a standard for patent litigation.
This week, I recently read a new article that discusses the nuances of patent ownership. It is interesting since there is a distinction between authorship and inventorship. Here, I will be looking at this issue through the case of the StoneEagle company.
The situation was that there were two men, Gillman and Allen, who worked on the collaboration and wrote up patent No. 7,2792,686. Gillman was not on the document officially but later claimed that he possessed the original documents. However, he did not win in court due to the dispute that the Federal Court found on the jurisdiction to rule on this case. The StoneEagle company was able to retain control of the patent that was filed under Allen's name.
The important issue here is determining the extent of the legal jurisdiction. The court decided that there was controversy between Gillman and StoneEagle company but the ownership dispute was related to a local law. As such, the dispute remained in the realm of local laws and processed by local courts. Since Gillman helped write the draft, he was considered a drafter and not necessarily an inventor. I do agree with the article that it would have been more helpful to prove Gillman was an inventor rather than writer for the patent.
Another interesting point was the case was conducted in Texas. Given the significance of location, the case may favor the individual pursuing the disputed patent. However, Gillman did not win the case and could not concretely prove he was part of the inventing process. Allen's name is only shown on the patent which the USPTO had allowed.
Gillman could have made alternative strategies if he was unable to acquire the patent. It would have been possible for Gillman to prove that the patent is invalid and should be revoked. In this case, StoneEagle would not be able to benefit from the patent. Looking at other patents, there is another healthcare payment system patent filed earlier by Lieberman which could have been used to show that StoneEagle did not make something novel.
Also, the Gillman legal group could consider disputing the patent on grounds of obviousness. This tactic could greatly weaken the validity of the patent. If a skilled expert in payment systems would be able to look at an earlier patent and show that it would have been obvious to implement StoneEagle's system, then the patent would have been invalidated and Gillman would have at least prevented others to benefit from it.
There was an interesting case of a twenty-five year old patent application. The issue here is the patent office found the application still violated one of the three main features of a good patent: non-obviousness.
For the patent, the inventor, Mr. Rudy, submitted this application of a special fishing hook that was a) translucent and b) nature-inspired. The issue was that there was prior art that existed in two different patents that focused on each aspect of the claim that Mr. Rudy tried to file. More specifically, it seemed that the patent office found it violated on the fact that prior art was already released even though the prior art came from two different patent applications.
Also, the subjectivity comes to determining if an expert in fish hooks could look at these two older patents and come to the same conclusion. It is a debate if Mr. Rudy simply came up with a slightly better mousetrap (a device that builds on previous inventions in the same area). It is possible that Mr.Rudy may not have been aware of the two patents for the past twenty five years. However, he did not add on the existing technology; he simply combined two technologies that came from seemingly related areas.
There are also other possible considerations that Mr. Rudy can take regarding future appeals if he continues to do so. These secondary considerations are taken into account for patent applications. If Mr. Rudy was able to prove that his idea had commercial success, the patent office would be able to reconsider their original decision. Also, Mr. Rudy could have made a convincing case that demonstrates his idea was something the fish hook industry went away from during his initial patent filing. Another possibility is that his idea solved a major problem that the fishing industry needed. However, it seems possible that fish hook users could have easily added feathers and drawn eyes to make the hook more appealing.
Here, it seems that common knowledge would have led to Rudy's invention even without experts in the area. Also, the sheer number of appeals may have not pleased the patent office and affected the relationship with the examiners.It does seem odd that the examiners continue to reject the appeals and amendments even on the basis of "persistence." What's even more interesting is that the USPTO made the final decision here without any involvement of the judicial system. It does seem interesting that Mr. Rudy never sought legal aid to get his patent approved if he really wanted to. It may be that the law prohibits such a case being pursued since I do not have an appropriate legal background.
I recently read an article this week that discusses another dispute between Google and the Vederi company. The issue was whether the technology truly infringed upon the patents kept by Verdi.
Also, the obviousness was not evident based on the results or images. It does not seem Google was using it to maintain commercial dominance in terms of profits. As Judge Kozinski initially stated, the term "substantially elevations" seemed to limit the type of image possible for this Street View technology. This difference in interpreting the term indicates that the difficulty in making these decisions. What is obvious for one person may not be obvious for another; the detail may be open to interpretation. This conflict in perspective may require another third party to look at the issue or the best alternative since the two judicial decisions do not agree with each other.
Perhaps, it is also important to look at the influence of power in determining obviousness. In the case of the judicial system, there is already a power difference between the ninth court of appeals compared to another federal circuit. Especially in this case, the judicial system may be subjective in determining if the image technology of the companies are different. In fact, this issue brings to light the issue that it may be obvious that the images taken by Google and the images described in Verdi's patent are quite different but it is up to the judge to determine the outcome. Here, the case indicates a classic example of absolute power since one federal circuit judge is trying use their authority to show Judge Kozinski's decision was unjustified.
In recent news, Apple and Samsung have continued their long struggle in pursuing patent infringements at least in California. It is interesting that Samsung quickly went for appeals based on dissatisfaction with some of the decisions made in this case.
One interesting outcome was that Apple was denied an injunction but did not have any of their claims invalidated by the court. This decision is problematic since there is a huge discrepancy between the decision of the USPTO and the court. Ultimately, it comes down to which decision will be considered more dominant and not necessarily on validity-arguments can be made for both sides. With something as broad as a pinch-to-zoom feature, does Apple's patent help only itself or is it beneficial to other people including consumers. Perhaps, is it important to reevaluate specific patents especially if the market changes to the point where it has become a common feature. It is possible that clinging on to the patent may not help the market evolve at a faster rate given companies would be focused on trying to resolve these litigation disputes.
Another important issue presented is the idea of causal nexus. Causal nexus generally means a link between the cause and effect. In patent infringement, it would be possible that the claims of patent violation would cause harm to the respective company. In this case, it would be very difficult to have strong evidence that harm has come to either Samsung or Apple from patent infringement (especially since the companies are so large). In fact, Samsung has so far not been required to pay damages for any of the claims in this case since it is going on to the third trial.
In light of the causal nexus argument, the issue could tie back to entitlement. The inventors granted patents are not necessarily guaranteed to injunction. And so, it has become a difficult issue to determine if some of the people are entitled to these claims whether through a legal or technical basis. It would be interesting to follow how the USPTO will continue to deal with this issue of entitlement and determination of what would be a "valid" patent claim.
It is interesting to look at a recent discussion on the validity of patents related to natural law and phenomena. Generally, a patent is defined to be an exclusive agreement between the government and the inventor or person responsible for the idea. The two major issues is the type of people involved in the infringement decision as well as the process in evaluating a claim.
Often, the judicial members and the patent office examiner are both heavily involved in the infringement case. The issue is that there is a distinction in the type of knowledge that the jury has compared to that of the examiner. Even with the new training, the examiners still do not have the necessary legal knowledge to effectively communicate with the jury. Ineffective communication will not convince the juror that the examiners' decision was correct especially that the pinch-to-zoom claim would not be helpful for the competition and innovation. It could be helpful to have universal guidelines that would also be considered for both the examiners and judicial officials to minimize the number of patent infringements claims that the jury makes. It will be interesting to see how much commitment the USPTO has in closing the gap between the legal mind and technical mind.
Also, I think there are some problems in some of the process steps involved in evaluating the claim. The process is similar to a flow chart for a code program. The claim is valid if it falls under statutory category such as process, machines or composition. The most interesting part of the evaluation that examiners follow is determining claims fall under judicial exception that includes abstract concepts and natural laws. It is an issue since there is subjectivity in determining if the claim is "significantly" different from what constitutes a judicial exception. In essence, ideas such as natural phenomena should not be patented since it could be an integral part of how hundreds of other patents function (such as electricity). However, it is possible to see patents on how one models a phenomena in the sense that there could be different theories associated with it.
Many regulatory clauses provided by the USPTO still does not straighten the chaos present in the patent world. In the Hoffman-Lund case, a fundamental problem in the current patent system is presented: the lack of prototype as requirement for patents. Interestingly, the issue lied in the patent rather than the system.
For Hoffman and Lund, a patent office examiner found several flaws in the idea being patented-a method of weakening tropical cyclones. Normally, the patent would be granted if the concept seems logical. However, the inventors made three flaws in unwarranted assumptions and calculation errors, specifications lacking experimental verification and lack of expert support. The rejection went on appeal but the original decision was upheld by the federal court.
Also, the original inventors seemed to have drawn up the patent document rather than professionals. Speculation may suggest the inventors wanted to avoid the cunning nature of the lawyer. Undoubtedly, the professional touch to the patent claim would not have helped since professionals did not support the concept. Perhaps, experimental data would have provided a better chance to get the patent accepted. Also, the diagram for the document does not seem very detailed.
Ultimately, there are limitations to the patents filed to the USPTO. However, this case does raise flags since people were willing such submissions. For the inventors, there is not a very transparent access to some of the regulations including 35 U.S.C. §112 unless there was an active search for it. Some would argue that those filing patents should be aware but the changing landscape of patents does make it difficult to keep up. The lessons are be sensible and ensure the patent claim meets the general requirements of novelty and practicality.
Recently, there has been a visit to the past looking at the patent dispute claimed by Alice corporation. Again, regulations and laws remain elusive in how patents should be handled. More specifically, the debate continues to focus on the validity of software patents.
In the past Bilski case, the U. S. Supreme Court found the hedge fund program not patent eligible. Now, the Supreme Court is faced with a similar case since it did not set the groundwork on restricting what constitutes something to be patented. The four patents under scrutiny appear to represent very general methods such as a "system for exchanging obligations." A system for exchanging obligations sounds very similar to the method people use to purchase and sell stock depending on the definition of "obligation." Already, the Alice group's claim did not look very promising.
In the federal circuit, the decision was not unanimous but agreed the patent claims to be invalid. This decision did bring concern since opponents wanted the claims to be upheld so any business method could be patented and profitable. This decision is crucial since it points out the issue of software patents (Do software products fit the patent definition?). Patents are supposed to be novel, practical and not obvious. For the Alice patents, the software appeared to novel and practical but the non-obvious aspect is debatable. A system to exchange obligations is not so unique except the process of risk assessment.
The problems posed in this court case has strong relevance to smartphone software. For operating system like Android and iOS, a lack of support for software patents could be harmful in the future. While the federal court did not lay out general guidelines, it provided little support for software patents. Potentially, NPE could find this court decision to be murky enough for attacking the patents of companies of providing smartphone software.
Previously, I discussed the relevance of eastern Texas for patent lawsuits of NPE. In recent event, it is interesting to see the update on the status of the Rockstar lawsuit in eastern Texas that companies like Google and ASUSTeK has to face. It seems the companies have made some progress in responding to the lawsuit by claiming to dismiss. Google and many of the other companies wish to continue the case in northern California (to establish first to file outside of Texas). Again, the location has become more relevant as the Rockstar case has progressed. The main issue is having the case either dismissed or transferred to a different area outside of Texas. Of course, Rockstar is attempting to keep it in Texas for a more favorable outcome.
Interestingly, Google is trying to fight the lawsuits through a different angle by stating Rockstar's claims involves more companies beyond the Android system. The argument is to insinuate hardware is being infringed upon and not the software. In this situation, Google would benefit more since the fault would lie more on the device manufacturer rather than the Android OS. The use of the customer-suit exception by Google may be invalid since the rule is only valid for resellers of the Android device. As a result, the lawsuit is still trying to be resolved since the debate is now whether Rockstar's claims should be dismissed based on the broad claims of the infringement. Dealing with larger corporations, it may be difficult to see what is the correct route since letting the big companies win could be problematic. The decision of this court case may determine the future of some of these rules such as the customer-suit and how the USPTO may possibly deal with these matters.
Incidentally, the smartphone patent issue have continued between Microsoft and Voxx Electronics. Not all patent conflicts have ended as peacefully as successfully as the Microsoft-Voxx scenario. More specifically, it is interesting to look at how successful Microsoft has been to ensure companies to be licensees.
Looking at the list, there are countless agreements that Microsoft has reached from Acer, Viewsonic and many other companies. It is the strength of Microsoft's patent portfolio that has helped the group negotiate these deals with companies. It would be rare to see smaller companies implementing this same strategy unless they are a NPE seeking profit from lawsuits. These collaborations are strongly beneficial for Microsoft to continue gaining more influence in the smartphone market given low shares from the last 2013 quarter. In this sense, Microsoft may be getting short term gains or safety but still would need to do more for long term gains. It would be interesting to see how the company deals factor in to Microsoft's long term plan or if they are looking at a long term goal to gain dominance in the smartphone market.
Furthermore, Microsoft had many of these deals to license with companies after the Google-Motorola deal. In fact, one could consider these deals to be a response to the Google deal. Microsoft may have fears of Google gaining more traction in the smartphone market considering the fact that Google obtained many important patents. In this sense, Microsoft has implemented a seemingly mutual collaboration or truce to maintain some status quo in a chaotic market. With all these deals, it is unclear whether the companies in these deals are truly benefiting or will suffer. Maintaining some leverage, Microsoft may be capable of trying to make more gains at the expense of other companies or remain complacent. For any company in the industry, it is important to maintain some control to avoid being forced to develop new products (R&D is costly) or forced to settle through payment.
The Exela case is interesting as it provides an unconventional approach in dealing with patents. It brings to light some of the issues with the current patent system and a possible need to rectify the situation.
Exela is a pharmaceutical entity that has a patent on injecting acetaminophen. What happened was the USPTO allowed the Cadence group to file a patent application past the intended deadline on the premise of unintentional delay. Later, the Exela was sued for their acetaminophen product and ended up suing the USPTO for improperly reviving the opportunity to file a patent late. Currently, the case is played out with Exela using the APA (Administrative Procedure Act) as part of their argument. However, USPTO argues that the six year statute of limitations makes the claim invalid.
This case puts the USPTO group under a lot fire and forces people to really look at our current patent system. As an extension of government, the USPTO is intended to ensure that patents are allocated to individuals and groups in a proper manner. In light of Exela, it becomes difficult to determine if the USPTO is something that should have the final say on patents. Relying on older laws and government, the USPTO may be making important decisions but is it for the benefit of the people or to maintain order? If this case falls to favor Exela, it would be a pivotal point since it would show the limitations of the USPTO to reinforce its policies. However, it is important for the USPTO to make these decisions with careful deliberation. While I am confident USPTO took a hard look before allowing the case revival, it begs to question whether court cases are necessary to get a third party feedback on these cases. Broadly speaking, the case is a debate between government and company interests. It comes down to whether the government interest or company interest is best for consumers and society. There is no villain in this situation since everyone has a role in the patent scene. Governments need to update some of these regulations to keep up with technology and companies need to ensure fairness and promote innovation rather than hinder it. Even if a group was even set up to watch over the USPTO, it is still the same scenario leading to one group with the final authority.
I am not sure of definite solutions. However, it would be necessary to have the USPTO update certain regulations that would help make the patent process not as difficult. While the companies need patents to keep business afloat, it may be difficult to argue in favor the company and finding fault with the U.S. regulatory group. This point does not mean the USPTO can do whatever they see fit. The organization should bear more transparency and be open in their decisions involving the companies. While it may take a long time before business and government work these issues outs, the decision of this case can be a step in the right direction.
Based on this week's recent discussion of location, the Rockstar lawsuit against Google seems to be an interesting one. The situation underlies the importance of location in pursuing a patent lawsuit. In the case of Texas, Rockstar is leveraging the favorable leanings towards patents in the eastern District of Texas.
Generally, Rockstar and its subsidiary is employing a common tactic of attempting to milk the money from patent lawsuits. In theory, Rockstar would be able to get payment and possibly royalties if the court in the eastern District of Texas recognizes the claim. Also, it is important to keep in mind that Rockstar is a NPE (non-practicing entity) indicating their sole purpose is to buy up patents and sue these companies to make profit. This approach seems almost too perfect since they were solely formed to sue companies for infringing patents they own but do not create their own products. It would be difficult for other companies to counter-sue since the Rockstar group is essentially a bunch of patents. Some would argue that Samsung should have no problem since this claim is only being pursued on the eastern District of Texas. However, the success of this law suit may encourage other NPE (patent trolls) and companies to attack Samsung on other grounds. A barrage of patent lawsuits can be enough to disrupt the titan in the market as demonstrated with Nokia and Apple. It becomes difficult to determine the NPE's intention and whether it is in the best collective interests of both the consumers and the companies.
In the complaint, there are lawsuit claims on violating patents related to "electronic device carrying electronic component, navigational tool for GUI and integrated message center" to name a few. The issue with these examples is that the patents seem generic in description. Even after looking up the navigational tool patent, I find the patent to not be all inclusive of all present smartphone designs especially in the case of using a "navigational circle" in browsing. At best, the designs presented in this patent is maybe an archaic version of the patent at hand. In the case of the integrated message center, I could see some similarity in the feature that are provided but I am not sure of how else to create a message center without using any variation of quit, sent and received. These patent infringements appear to show Rockstar just blindly taking all the fish out of the barrel, hoping to find the prize (a legally-recognized patent infringement). It does seem obvious since Rockstar happened to snatch the purchase of these patents out of Google's reach in a previous auction. Evidently, the situation goes back to the vicious cycle of gathering patents and suing competitors to keep an edge in the market. Is it necessary to force the companies to change and innovate leading them to cut costs and continue to innovate.
It largely comes down to the location and if Google can get the case moved to northern California. As the population in northern California differs from that in eastern Texas, the jury in both areas would have different leanings for either Samsung or Rockstar. This case will drag on since Rockstar has made an amendment to the claim and Google has recently joined with Samsung. It will be interesting to see how these events turn out.
For many companies, the benefits of patents are just too good to pass up. As a result, many technological companies involved in smartphone technology have focused on maintaining and acquiring patents.
Historically, the smartphone patent war has been going on for years with different companies involved such as Apple and Samsung. With so many companies suing each other over infringements, it begs the question to at what point does the infringement cases appear to be too much? In some cases, the premise of some of these lawsuits can overstep the boundaries of what seems to be appropriate. Appropriate is defined to be developing and fighting over these patents to promote innovation but not cause hindrance. While proponents may argue these fights are better for the consumer and innovation, many of these litigation cases can hinder the technology and product development. Forcing groups without patents to seek an alternative design can be discouraging and put strain on the company. Companies may not be inclined to innovate and provide more negative problems with the group. Certain people may believe that the smartphone market should regulate itself. In reality, the market is wasteful through this self-regulation since companies forced to build new products due to patent infringement have to spend more resources to try to innovate (no guarantee the attempt would be successful).
It is also important to consider the needs of the consumer or people purchasing smartphone technology. For the smartphone wars, the companies may be trying to get the technology that consumers desire most. These features can be graphical widgets or even gestures. The smartphone wars can be viewed as a theater front that targets the consumer brain. The consumer desires high quality products at low costs and so the tech companies would want these patents to maintain revenue and be able to make products at reasonable costs. It may be necessary to look at policies related to patents and see what would be necessary to maintain the interest of both the companies and the consumers.
From the company's view, the patents are necessary and worth the legal fights. Recently, Google sold Motorola to Lenovo. However, the Motorola manufacturer was sold and not the patents. This offer emphasizes the importance of patents to companies to give them the competitive edge and prevent people from stepping on the finding. On average, patents can take three years or more to be filed and approved. With this slow process, current patents become more attractive than ever for the technology companies. The fate of some of the large technology companies rely on dominance in the smartphone space.
Recently, there have been discussions of the patent war that demonstrates the strategic importance companies place on patents. Furthermore, there has been many legal battles to maintain control over patents.
Based on recent discussion, the tech giants such as Google or Apple can use these patents to ensure royalties and benefits. These litigation cases help provide a competitive edge for the company. The competitive edge comes from the fact that the other companies who do not have a patent are forced to work around it. Bottom-line, the companies need more time and funding to develop different products. This trend can be strongly seen in the recent case of Google recently being fined $125 million for push notification technology.
For smaller innovators, there is an interesting alternative to dealing with patents. The larger technology companies such as Apple have all the resources to pursue and successfully obtain patents. Smaller inventors and companies do not have the same resources and can look to these middle group organizations such as IV
(Intellectual Ventures). One way to look at these groups is to imagine "a Costco warehouse that provides patents for people to use" (NPR). This method can provide a possible solution to dealing with these larger companies and infringement issues without the need of the smaller guy going toe-to-toe with Google or Apple. Mind you, these groups were around three years ago but they are still operational today. In this manner, they may be able to foster innovation in a more positive manner rather than being legally driven to that point. Innovation can then occur by the pure desire of the company or individual without being so focused on beating the competition.
I found the 190G class appealing for many reasons. Patent engineering is a very useful topic whether I pursue a career in industry or quickly jump to starting a company. Initially, I had taken a seminar course with speakers from different groups and companies that first sparked my interest in entrepreneurship. I later participated in the Big Ideas competition to further validate my entrepreneurial interest. As a result, I would like to take this class to gain more knowledge and awareness in taking my own projects and interests to the next level. From my current background, I have very little experience in viewing engineering works in terms of patents. I also would like to better understand the connection between patent engineering and current smart technology.
My name is Norman Bae. I am currently a bioengineering undergraduate at UC Berkeley. Over the course of my college experience, I have done research in systems biology and biophotonics. My current academic interests are in drug delivery and therapeutics such as developing skin grafts and nerve conduit channels. I also enjoy cafe hopping, reading and having a good time with friends. I also hope to work in the biotechnology industry after graduation and possibly start up a company in the future.
Blogs have been an effective tool for communication. Prior to this class, the greatest extent of personal social media usage has been through services like Facebook and Twitter. This class has shown that social media can be effectively used for professional pursuits.
Through the blogs and video posts, I was able to show development in looking at important patent issues such as the impact on technological innovation and business development. I realized this tool could then be helpful in demonstrating the other people how I can articulate my analysis on topics like patent engineering. In comparison to traditional tools, the video blog can allow me to incorporate tone and emotion to better engage the viewers. The traditional editorials can convey ideas but cannot show the added emotional depth that videos are able to provide. In addition, the social media tool can provide more intellectual conversation compared to the traditional learning tools. If one was just writing reports on the different weekly topics, there would be virtually no interaction with the other students. Through blogs and videos, students in my class were able to start engaging threads that helped me get a better understanding of some of the more difficult topics such as obviousness. For personal improvement, I can use the full potential of the blogs and video tools by engaging more people in the comment threads. Given a diverse background in the classroom, people were able to add unique insight into the conversation on topics. It is a two-way learning experience since I was able to learn from other people's discussions and other people were able to learn about my thoughts on the given topic. I can continue to make use of the collaborative nature of the blog by continuing the current blog or making a new blog that addresses technological innovation. From this class, I have truly enjoyed the experience of using social media in an academically constructive manner. I hope to employ some of these skills in my future endeavors. Thank you.
During this class, I have had the pleasure of learning about the basics of patent engineering with people from different backgrounds. It was a really pleasant experience being able to interact with people in order to grasp some of the more difficult concepts in patent engineering.
I found it important to be willing to try out this patent process with any new ideas that people can come up with in many fields. While the patent trolls or NPE make today's process a little difficult, I realized it is important to try in order to promote innovation through sharing ideas with others in patents. The patents still provide the inventor with recognition even if it become disclosed. Another important skill that I found valuable in this class is the ability to articulate myself in a short amount of time. Through the video blogs, I had to find a way to distill the essence of my written posts into a two minute video summary. The consistent assignments allowed me to develop my oratory skills and writing ability. I also learned to develop a different set of analytic skills through reading patents. Learning the basics of the patent had me start to focus on the important parts of the documentation. With the knowledge from this class, I will be able employ these skills in the long term. My current career plan is to gain industry experience before going into starting an engineering group. With patent knowledge, I would be better prepared to deal with the technical legalities of developing a product and having it recognized under law. Especially in today's patent system, the documentation and process can often be confusing. With a basic framework in the patent process, I would be able to develop my ideas and be able to make a difference in the biotechnology field.
