Using Google blogs and YouTube

This course was different in that we used blogs and videos to keep track of what we learned throughout the course. I would like to talk about using them in class for 190G.

Patents are hard to learn about. I felt that the approaches that we took in class helped me learn the material better. I learned a lot through blogs. I was researching on several critical articles, analyzing the articles, summarizing the articles, and putting my own thoughts onto the blog. I felt that those were the most important lessons throughout the course.

As with YouTube videos, I felt that it is indeed different learning tool. As I was able to speak out what I wrote, I was able to learn the ideas and concepts with more clarity. 

As with comments, it was a good tool to interact with other classmates. I would have hoped that we limit comments to certain posts every week so that everyone can interact better.

These methods that we took in class were different from traditional learning methods because I was able to interact with other students more so than traditional methods. Usually, we take exams in classes and I felt I was stressed out at times. But in this class, I was able to focus more on learning as focus was geared towards learning. I feel that I can do even better if more students commented on my blogs and youtube videos. I didn't get to interact with everyone on weekly basis because some students never commented on my blog or YouTube. But I feel that is expected because there are over 25 students in the class.

I found out that there are various approaches to learning out of this class. Overall, I enjoyed it.

Experience in the class

Patents are hard to learn in general. From this class, I learned to analyze and summarize patents. I also learned general components of the patents and how patent is made up of. I learned about many cases involving infringement and patent trolls. I was also able to stay current on current technology and smartphone wars that are going on. Furthermore, it was interesting that I was able to interact with other students to learn the topic rather than taking an exam to prove my knowledge.

Learning in general is important because a person needs to keep updated with new knowledge to stay competitive. As I will be going into technology fields working as Software Engineer, I feel that patents are important to learn about. I will surely come across patents in the future in my career, and I hope that I can use what I learned from the class to apply them in the future.

Overall, the experience of this class was a lot different than my other core classes. It involved a lot of peer teaching and learning by researching online journals and cases. I believe I read over hundreds of cases of patent cases in this class, and they were all very informative.

Assignment 3 EC for this week - Silly Patent 3

For my last post on silly patent, I decided to do a post on more practical(?) patent.
This product is called office gym exercise kit.

As you may instantly know by the title, it's for exercising in your office. In your cube, you can transform your workspace into a gym. The kit provides a full range of arm leg and back exercises. It states that all you need is a chair to get exercise done.

To further describe, office gym kit is a portable exercise kit. It is capable of attaching about a chair post and chair back support to provide workout for the user. "User's body will be wrapped around the post and under the base of the chair then secured such that the flexible body remains in place around chair post."  Furthermore, "Both the flexible body and flexible band have retainers attached thereon. Several elastic straps are included in the kit. The elastic straps may be fastened to the flexible body and flexible band by latching onto the retainers. The user then exercises by extending the elastic straps with arms, legs or the like."

This sounds more practical than other silly patents that we have seen so far, both in class and on the web. Everyone seems to be working out now days to stay healthy. And the reason for making this product and making it patented seems to be somewhat of a good idea. For prior art, I have seen cases in which the companies sell products that can be easily done with household product. But, I have not seen anything that can be used in the office itself. As with usage, it seems that one could really use this if he or she was in the office alone. Or, if the worker is self-employed, this could actually be alternative to real gym. It would save time and money. However, when you are working with others, it will be difficult to actually use this because it will make you look like a fool. Also, I feel that this is a fast track to getting fired. Do note that this is specifically made for office/job environment. Would you use this while working?

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7137935.PN.&OS=PN/7137935&RS=PN/7137935

Assignment 2 EC for this week - Silly Patent 2

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4858627.html

For my second post, I found an interesting patent that seems to be silly. It is called a smoking hat. What it does is when a user smokes any tobacco products, the hat attached to the head of the smoker, takes the smoke inside and filters and removes the bad substance harmful to the environment. It also makes our environment clean and makes air smell nicer. This is a product that is suitable for smokers who are also interested in keeping the environment clean. I was able to get their exact abstract from the patent website.

 It is stated that, "A portable hat system enables the smoking of tobacco type products without affecting the environment includes a hat for covering the head of the smoker, an integral fan for intaking ambient air (contaminated and non contaminated) into the hat with this intake ambient air flowing in front of the smoker's face, a filtration, purification and deionization system for removal of combustion products, such as smoke odors and positive ions from the intake ambient air, and an exhaust system for expelling the filtered deodorized, deionized and optionally scented air from the hat."

<Source:http://totallyabsurd.com/smokershat.htm>

This is basically a hat attached to the person to prevent harmful substances from going out to the world. On the first look, it doesn't look too innovative because a smoker would not first think about environment in the first place(if the user was a smoker). Second, I feel that it would be cumbersome for smoker to use this because it would create more stress for the user. After all, many smokers smoke in order to get rid of stress. I was not find similar prior art for this patent. It may be because no one actually used this patent to get anything out of the world. To me this patent does not seem practical at all because no one would go that far to smoke. I feel that there is no practical use for this patent, so it should be invalidated, but as it's not obvious and there are no prior arts for this patent, it seemed to have been approved.

Assignment 1 EC(extra credit) for this week - Silly Patent

I did my first post on Anti-eating face mask.
The patent link is posted here at http://www.google.com/patents/US4344424.

Anti-eating face mask was created to prevent the growing problem of obesity. Lucy L. Barmby of Sacramento is credited as making this anti eating face mask. To describe what it does, this is the exact excerpt from USPTO stating what it does. "An anti-eating face mask which includes a cup-shaped member conforming to the shape of the mouth and chin area of the user, together with a hoop member and straps detachably engageable with a user's head for mounting the cup-shaped member in overlying relationship with the user's mouth and chin area under the nose thereby preventing the ingestion of food by the user."

After researching many patents out there, this is one of the top ten silly patents that I was able to find. It's interesting that someone invented this to prevent people from eating to prevent obesity. I find it amusing because one can just take the mask off in order to eat. It will be difficult, but I don't see why not. It's not obvious because I believe we wouldn't have thought of an idea to prevent food from going into our mouth. Based on my research, no prior art seemed to have existed regarding this invention. As such, patent is valid. Personally, I am not sure who would actually purchase this and use it on their daily lives. This should be suitable for weight-loss companies that are trying to develop a suitable program.

Assignment 3 for this week

After looking at cases, I can see how difficult it would be for courts to decide on matters relating to obviousness in technology. I saw from a source that over 80% of startups in Silicon Valley are software related companies. But again, how is it that software patents are so problematic? With all the software companies doing so well these days, what will happen to software patents?

While going through several articles on the web, I was able to look at this article. It states that Kelora patent was found obvious. And it also asked to the readers whether the software patents are dangerous or not? Some claim that software patents should be voided because many software patents are obvious over prior art. Courts also realized this and are trying to analyze software patents even more carefully. (Though I believe software should also be allowed to be patented since I know how hard it is to invent software)

Kelora had a patent on parametric search(faceted). This company is stated that it's a hybrid company between a patent troll and practicing entity offering search product. Kelora's suits included internet giants like Microsoft, Ebay, Target, Amazon, and NewEgg. Many others just went onto settle with Kelora rather than going to lawsuits. Many, however, believed that Kelora's patents should be invalid because it is prior art going early as 1960s. Many companies fought with Kelora that its patents were too obvious.

Finally, the courts decided with summary judgement that since client/server systems were well known as early as 1990s, it did not matter whether inventors did not know such system when they created it.

This is promising for companies because it shows that courts are taking one step further to analyze it through sophisticated interpretation. This patent was voided due to prior art under obviousness standard. Again, I feel that this issue of obviousness is problematic in patents. It creates confusion and problems for both the inventors and defendants of patents. It's stated that defendants of this case against Kelora used significant resources already, they were able to avoid going into full trial.

http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/26/kelora-obvious-software-patents/

Assignment 2 for this week

For my second post, I will further talk about obviousness of the patent cases.
The purpose of a virtual private network is to establish a secure, tunneled route between two points in an IP network(betanews).

The company called VirneX went one step further with VPN. This company called it Tunneled Agile Routing Protocol. The communication between VPN hosts are encrypted at on level, but routing information is hidden behind a second level. 
The purpose was to hide who was sharing is and what route its taking to get there in addition to hiding what's being shared or talked about.

Microsoft, on the other hand, implemented its own VPN technology. It built a VPN for phone network. To make internet work more like a phone, like people using a telephone console to be able to pick up the phone and dial. They argued that they shouldn't have to go to some dialog box and log in. Avoiding this option was exactly what VirnetX stated that Microsoft infringed.

Microsoft argued that the whole point of VPN was to establish secure and anonymous communication between two points. Therefore, the VirnetX's idea of inventing addition of anonymity was ridiculous because it's already there. Microsoft also argued that judge look up glossary to find the whole definition of VPN.

In the end, it became a confusion after confusion. It was all down to Judge's and Jurys' interpretation of VPN after looking up glossary and hearing from both sides. In the end, the Jury determined that Microsoft infringed on VirnetX's patents. The reason was because Microsoft wanted to patent this exact idea previously, but found out VirnetX already made it so they were denied. Also, Microsoft couldn't persuade the jury or the judge that VirnetX's VPN technology was so obvious that it was already covered by glossary definition. Also, trying to invent the same technology previously hurt Microsoft here big time.
The basis of the denial was prior art, which was existence of patent issued to VirnetX.

After looking at so many cases and articles relating to obviousness, it's clearly subjective. If Microsoft didn't file the patent before, they could have gotten away with it. I feel this is one of the major problem that exists in patent.

http://betanews.com/2010/03/17/microsoft-loses-another-jury-verdict-this-time-over-obviousness-of-vpn-patent/

Assignment 1 for this week

This week is another week for obviousness related cases.
It's hard to find cases solely based on obviousness because many cases seem to be dealing with several things. Also, they all have definitions mostly relating to obviousness rather than giving you an analysis.
Last week for extra credit, I went onto make posts relating to design cases relating to obviousness.

It's quite interesting and yet subjective. Everything about obviousness seems to be subjective because one cannot judge it crystal clear.

As I was digging up obviousness related cases, I was able to find that Microsoft had a case with Acceleration Software International Corporation. They filed patent against Microsoft saying they infringed on US patent 5933639 issued in 1999. The suit asked for $2.50 per copy of Windows XP sold. This amount would be something lie $600 million to $900 million.

Microsoft, on the other hand, argued that they did not infringe on the patent. They stated that there are several ways to improve boot speed of PCs and that Windows XP was one of the example that was done. They ultimately argued that they did not infringe on the technology in the patent.

The jury ultimately concluded that patent was invalid because it was too obvious and technology already exited. Acceleration Corp was created by Acacia after Acacia bought the patent and filed suit against Microsoft. So in all, they could be considered a patent troll.

Since obviousness is so subjective, it's very difficult to judge. Also seen in this case, Microsoft won the case because many other companies are utilizing ways to speed up the boot speed. It could be seen that this is one of the major problems in the US patent system today. It's also interesting that they tried to add Vista to the suit, but jury denied the request.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/139711/article.html

Extra credit assignment-3

For this post, I am going to talk about design patent rejections. Patentlyo has a good post about this articulating the problems of the current state. Apparently, the blogger combined 1049 file histories of design patents for the 12 month period. And of those, 5 were rejected on novelty grounds and 8 on obviousness. The majority of the patents(82%) were never rejected. According to the most recent USPTO report, design patents have a allowance of 90%. Clearly, something is wrong because the numbers seem to indicate that the US design patent is operating not as a patent system, but rather as a registration system. It's also interesting to see that the article talks about how it's easier to prosecute a design patent to issuance than to register a product design as a trade dress.

So why is that over 90% of design patents are allowed? Is it because of the unclear concepts of obviousness of design patents??

There are two steps in obviousness of a design patent.

First is to find a single reference showing design characteristics as the claimed design. After primary references are found, other references may be used to create a design that has same visual appearance as the claimed design.

I just wanted to clarify as the design patent issue seems to be most troubling.

Extra credit assignment-2

In my first assignment, I went on to describe the difference between designer's views and observer's views.

So in the past, people were confused that International Seaway Trading Corp v. Walgreens Corp completely changed the paradigm of design patents. Seaway sued Walgreens, claiming that the sale of certain clog like shoes infringd Seway's three design patents. Walgreens moved for summary judgement, and District Court granted Walgreen's motion. They found that patent were invalid based on the patents assigned to Crocs, inc., maker of colorful and foam clogs. Without addressing obviousness the District Court held that ordinary observer test was the sole test of design patent invalidity.

Seway appealed again and Federal Circuit confirmed that ordinary observer test is the sole test for assessing both infringement and anticipation. "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s holding that the ordinary observer test is the sole test of invalidity of a design patent.(Lawupdates.com)"

Did the courts fail or succeed? I know that I just went briefly into the topic and did not go in depth about whole case summary. In this case, the Federal Circuit Court eliminated the point of novelty test for analysis of anticipation and obviousness claims. They also affirmed that ordinary observer test as the sole test for design patent validity.

Extra credit assignment -1

The federal court clarifies tests for obviousness of design patents.

Who gets to decide whether design patent is obvious or not?

The panel of Judges O'Malley, Schall, and Wallach confirmed that the obviousness of a design patent is to be determined through the eyes of an ordinary designer. It is not done through ordinary observer.

You may ask what's the difference. The ordinary tests requires court to engage in more analysis that rely on expert testimony, usually. However, they do not have to have one. When obviousness analysis is done at higher level, the gap between prior art and design is easier to overcome because skill and knowledge attributed to the designer.

It makes it very easy to invalidate design patents on obviousness grounds. It means that courts are less likely to rule design patents invalid on summary judgement as competing facts will create fact issues for a jury to determine. 

For instance, this article talks about how International Seaway Trading Corp v. Walgreens Corp. stated that obviousness determination was to be made by the ordinary observer, but this decision clears up the confusion that was created.

So in all, it would mean that it's likely that the fate will be decided by the jurors not by judges on summary judgement. It's taking account into the fact of designer's minds at the time of designing rather than putting it out there with one's personal views. Personally, I think this makes sense because design patents are always hard to determine whether there were infringement or not.

Third post of this week

For my last post, I will be talking about obviousness. The article talks about Graham V. John Deere Co(1959) In this case, Supreme Court ruled that these 3 things must be defined.

1. The scope and content of the prior art;
2. The differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and
3. The level of ordinary skill in the prior art.

These are known as the Graham factors. They've been utilized by Court as controlling inquiries ever since. Court also mentioned secondary consideration to argue non obviousness

They are 1. Commercial success 2. long but unsolved needs 3. failure of others.

We can see these consideration as the following. Even if the patent or claims might seem obvious to the examiner, it can be explained by the petitioner if the applicant can present evidence that the product or invention achieved commercial success as result of invention. It proves that it's not something obvious as it's been clearly bought and used by others. Also, if evidence can provide that there was a long felt and un-resolved needs, then it must have not been obvious.

Lastly, if evidence suggests that many others tried to solve the issue but could not, it could also satisfy this condition.

So after all, it may seem like obvious, but it can always be talked about in these 3 conditions.

However, it's important to note that it's very subjective. It can vary depending on who the examiner is or who the jury/judge is. Patent world is very complex, as you already know.

Source:

http://www.the-business-of-patents.com/obviousness.html

Second post of this week

For this week, I am going to be talking about software patents and its relationship to obviousness.
This week, since our topic heavily deals with obviousness and patents, I thought going in depth about software was a good post to make. As we all know, software cannot be patented because many claim that it contains mathematical ideas.
Furthermore, many claim that everyone can think of certain algorithm, therefore, it's often perceived as non patentable.
Do you agree or disagree?

Personally, I believe that software should be allowed to be patented. Not all should be, but at least most should be allowed to get a shot. Even if it's dealing with math, I believe not everyone can come up with specific algorithms. In this article, it talks about how software dealing with system or hardware could be patented, but not pure software. Microsoft along with Adobe and HP try to justify why software should be patented.

Furthermore, there are various cases in which patents that were granted previously are invalid as a result of obvious issues. For instance, Google was awarded patents in 2005 and 2008, but it was decided that it was invalid due to them being too obvious. 

The issue at hand is that many software patents are too obvious. In the article, Tim Lee, an examiner, argues that Google Earth's patent is too general and too broad. It definitely meets the requirement of obvious. So, what should we do about software? This has been debate for decades for both sides, one supporting and one opposing. What do you think? When I think of obvious and non obvious part of patents, I immediately think of software patents. It's because many consider them to be obvious, meaning that it's not creation, but rather mathematical idea. Any ideas on comments are appreciated!

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060616/1032210.shtml



Source: http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-hp-adobe-try-to-justify-software-patents-7000027033/

First post of this week - Drug Patent

Maryland federal judge shut down Par Pharmaceutical Inc's bid to keep its formula for a drug that combats anorexia and extreme weight loss in patients with Aids. The court found that the company's invention was obvious in light of previous drug developments. This also proves that court can declare something to be invalid based on obviousness.

The court ruled that anyone with knowledge in this would be able to piece together information from the previous science on the subject to arrive at Par's patent conclusion. Par alleged that Taiwan based drug company sought to make its own version of Megace ES. TWi Pharmaceutical argued against it, and the judge agreed claiming that patent by Par was invalid.

Inventive step and non-obviousness reflect a same general requirement present in most patent laws. In order for the patent to be inventive it has to be non-obvious. Meaning, the invention has to be an adequate distance beyond or above the state of the art.

In this case, the court showed that they can rule out the patent even though it was already filed previously. I believe this is a legitimate decision because patents sometimes keep invention from being formed. I also agree that judge made the right call. If the judge believes that anyone with specific knowledge can make the drug, it indeed sounds correct. Just because you invented it first(which was derived from somewhere else), that doesn't mean someone can't think of same thing from different idea.

http://www.rkmc.com/resources/newsletters/generically-speaking-hatch-waxman-bulletin/generically-speaking-fall-2013/par-pharma-inc-v-twi-pharma-inc

Third post of the week- Microsoft and Google battle overseas

This one is also interesting. In addition to the battle going on here in the States, it's happening overseas. It looks like Microsoft doesn't want to lose either. And they are doing everything they can to win the edge against other companies, especially Google. We all know Google Maps. We use it all the time. Can you imagine it being going away for even a day? That's what Microsoft is basically claiming in German court. 

Microsoft states that both Google and Motorola had infringed on mapping patent. The patent in question covers "computer system for identifying local resources and method". It was filed in 1995, and it covers to meet an emerging need in the growing ecosystem. Furthermore, "According to the patent, it is not possible, using existing web search tools to answer questions such as 'where is the nearest hamburger restaurant?'" To solve this issue, the patent laid out a method of storing map data on a server. Then it attaches to another content, then makes it accessible by client devices.

However, the court in Germany invalidated the patent stating that the patent lacked invented step, according to the article. 

Inventive step means that patent should not be obvious. It should be sufficiently inventive, and that no one should think of an idea easily. To clarify, this may help people to understand the term. Taken from Wikipedia directly, "In other words, "[the] nonobviousness principle asks whether the invention is an adequate distance beyond or above the state of the art."

If the court in Germany ruled in favor of Microsoft, Google Maps should have shut down. Can you imagine it being gone suddenly due to patent infringement? That just shows why so many companies are trying to acquire patents to protect their products that they invested so much on. Microsoft is being aggressive with their tactics. They are suing other companies like LG, Samsung, and HTC to demand license costs. All these companies signed license contract with Microsoft, so they need to pay $15 per phone sold.

They are appealing to court in Germany. Will they win? Or will Google win? It would be interesting to see what happens next. I understand that they are filing litigation in order to get the most out of their patents. The battle will continue.

http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-loses-mapping-patent-tussle-in-german-fight-with-google-and-motorola-7000026978/

Post two of this week- Should all software be patentable?

I brought this topic earlier in few of my articles(even on my first post about twitter).

Should software be patent-able? As we all know, a lot of companies in United States are based on software. I can think of Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Apple, Oracle, Cisco(although they do hardcore hardware too), Twitter, Facebook. You name it. I am sure that they have some software in place.

We all know that software takes a long time to write. It's also very valuable since we can see that many software(or hardware companies doing software) companies are doing so well in the United States. Some say that software shouldn't be patented because mathematics cannot be patented in the US. Since software is involving heavily with theory and algorithms, it's really up to debate whether it can be patentable or not. In this article, Microsoft, HP, and Adobe tries to prove that software should be patented. I thought this was interesting because I do agree to some extent. But on some areas, it went too far. Microsoft tries to explain their claim through example they describe the evolution of the mechanical typewriter.

This is a direct excerpt from the article regarding Microsoft's statement:

Functionality previously achieved through gears and levers—like proportional font spacing — was re-developed using software that provided instructions to computing hardware. Those digital improvements served the same function as, and were no less technologically innovative than, their mechanical forebears. Accordingly, the inventions were patentable.

Basically, this is saying "This is the key mistake of the software patent problem: taking earlier mechanical inventions and re-implementing them in software is patentable."

And they go on to state:
Software is heavily dependent upon the use of algorithms. And it is “clear that a process is not unpatentable simply because it contains a * * * mathematical algorithm.” . . . Where a software patent describes a practical application of an algorithm as part of a process that produces a technological effect or useful result on a computer — e.g., encryption, data compression, higher- speed processing — that should be patent eligible under this Court’s precedent.

This is pretty much stating although it's the law that mathematical algorithm cannot be patented, fields relating to use of encryption, data compression, higher speed processing should be eligible for patents.

And, Microsoft also goes onto state that they will provide service with professional witnesses to USPTO if they cannot understand the patents. The article goes onto state that all software programs are list of symbols that embody ideas. I also thought it was interesting that the author mentioned that software implements abstractions on a computer. But United States court decided otherwise, and therefore, making software companies spend money on patents. So, should all software be patentable? Are Microsoft, Adobe, and HP doing the right thing? These are all valid questions that may come up in the later years, definitely.

Source: http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-hp-adobe-try-to-justify-software-patents-7000027033/

First post of this week- Interesting deal between Twitter and IBM

Who says internet startup-ish companies don't have to deal with infringement?
Well, Twitter, a well known company that feels like startup(!) had finished $36M patent deal
with IBM.

According to the article, I was able to find out that Twitter bought 1,000 patents from IBM.
This is the exact excerpt from article that states their claim.

"Companies in the Internet, technology and media industries own large numbers of patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets, and frequently enter into litigation based on allegations of infringement, misappropriation or other violations of intellectual property or other rights." 

So let's go into why they bought the patents in the first place. Last year when IPO was in the talks, IBM reached out to Twitter informing them that they had infringed IBM's three patents and basically informed them that either settle with us or let's fight at court. In all, IBM can be viewed as a smart company or bully. They knew that Twitter was going in the IPO-phase, so they decided to reach out to Twitter. IBM is a big company with large patent profile, so they probably had nothing to lose.

Twitter, on the other hand, is not. If news gets out that they are in litigation regarding patents, their stock could have significantly went down during the IPO phase. Not only that, they would have to deal with IBM in court. And the worse part is that they might lose. All in one, Twitter settled and bought the patents. Who won here?

Well, in my opinion, both companies won. As Twitter claimed, they avoided court fees and litigation in court. Also, they acquired 1,000 patents from IBM. They have avoided litigation talk during IPO. Also, they are now one of the biggest software companies, so they should be collecting patent profiles. We could say that Twitter did pretty well here. But, they did pay hefty price of $36 million. Though, I believe that that price was worth it.

IBM won too. They sold the patents, but they talked to Twitter and got $36 million in return. They didn't have to go into litigation. They also didn't need to do much work. They just approached Twitter and told them their intentions. In a way, IBM played the role of "patent troll". But, it turned out to be good price for both companies.

I am curious to know how software companies will deal with patent issues in the end. I know that Google has massive patent profiles, but they are not just a software company. Twitter and Facebook are centered a lot on social connection, so it will be interesting to see what happens next regarding patents.

Source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/08/twitter_ibm_patents_cost_36m_dollars/

Post 3- Apple wins once again

Apple is in the center of the world in terms of patents. It looks like they are actually doing well in suing others and defending themselves. Good job, Apple!

Apple won the dismissal of a 2.2 billion lawsuit in Germany over technology used to decide priority for calls on mobile networks. According to the news, the court in Mannheim ruled that Apple didn't infringe on two patents brought up by IPCom GmbH & Co Kg. It's interesting that HTC also won this dismissal of related suit by IPCom over other patents.

It's interesting because IPCom has been suing mother mobile device makers ever since it required patents from Robert Bosch GimbH in 2007. The article states that their crucial patent involves methods helping customers to place emergency calls.

As we talked about in class, IPCom is one of the patent trolls that does not make any products, but makes money by suing other companies. As we talked about in class, larger companies such as Apple and Google go into litigation even though it could be costly. It was also interesting to see that Apple, along with 19 other companies, petitioned the European Union to weaken the ability of non manufacturers to win injunctions in IP cases.

I like seeing Apple winning against patent trolls because it clearly puts stop to patent trolls. I understand the whole concept of starting the patents to protect ideas and products. But the ways that patent trolls are utilizing patents does not seem ethical, especially in case against smaller companies. 
It's interesting article indeed because larger it looks like larger corporations like Google and Apple would rather go into litigation to crush patent trolls even though the cost could be larger than the settlement itself, as we talked in class. It's also great to see Apple winning cases and defending well against patent trolls. 

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-28/apple-wins-dismissal-of-2-2-billion-patent-suit-in-germany.html

Post 2- Anti Patent Troll Bill

How do we prevent patent trolls from suing companies just to obtain money? We actually can't without proper reform act taking place. Technology companies, especially, smaller companies have long been struggling against patent trolls because they don't have resources to defend themselves. Even if they did have enough resources, it sometimes might not be worth as it median patent suits cost around 2 million dollars. 

Without the government actually doing something about it, it's difficult to see any changes to the current action. US House Representatives voted 325-91 last December to approve the bill sponsored by Robert Goodlatte. It encourages judges to hear patent cases to award fees to the winner of an patent lawsuit. It will be more affordable for defendants to respond to patent trolls in courts rather than settling since it would make it less costly for them to fight now.

It's interesting because Innovation Act also raises harsher penalties when case is filed and lost by plantiff. So it means that not everyone can just sue out of nowhere in order to gain settlement costs. Goodlatte commented that, "The tens of billions of dollars spent on settlements and litigation expenses associated with abusive patent suits represent truly wasted capital. The patent system was never intended to be a playground for litigation extortion and frivolous claims.”

I also agree with his statement. Innovation Act could actually solve the problems of patent trolls. At least, it could minimize the suits by patent trolls.
- It will cause patent trolls to re-think about suing smaller companies in order to gain settlement costs.
- Smaller companies will no longer be afraid of patent trolls as it will cost them less when they actually go to court.

It's also interesting to see that large companies support this measures including Cisco, Apple, Google, and other technology companies. Although there could be some downfalls, the bill looks promising.

Source:
http://www.insidecounsel.com/2014/01/30/president-obama-pushes-congress-to-pass-anti-paten

Post for this week-1 Startup and Trolls

Last week in class, we talked about patent trolls suing startups out of no where. This week, I want to see how extensive it is. Based on the article, I was able to see that this is a serious problem. Based on a number of non random survey of 223 technology company startups, 79 of them received a demand. That's more than 30%.

In this article, it states that companies with less than $100M annual revenue constitute about 66% of defendants to troll suits. 55% of defendants make $10M per year or less. It seems that smaller the company, the more likely it will be easy for trolls to manipulate with smaller companies. In the article, it also states that 40% of them felt that they were targeted because of their use of another's widely available technology.

I thought this was also interesting. 35% fought this demand, while 18% settled. 22% tried to resolve the demand. So more 40%, one way or another, tried to settle or resolve the demand. This could be the reason why trolls are targeting smaller companies.

It's sad that there's possibility of being sued just because a company is small. I understand that White House is bringing out reforms to prevent patent trolls, however, I feel that many are still being targeted today due to lack of money and resources. We talked about in class how a suit will cost them much more than settling or resolving the suit. Therefore, many smaller companies with only limited resources end up going that route. 

In order to promote better environment for startup companies to succeed, it's clear that something has to be done. I hope patent reform brings hope for new startups.

Article: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2146251

Third post of this week- Samsung v Apple

I am going to talk about recent findings by US court on patent cases of Apple v Samsung.
Judge Lucy Koh decided that Samsung's Android-based devices infringed on Apple patent's word recommendation, also known as autocomplete and also decided that Samsung patent on multimedia synchronization invalid. This is significant because it increases the likelihood of Apple winning the upcoming multi patent trial scheduled to start on March 31, 2014.

They both started with 5 patents each back in 2012, but as Lucy Koh declared, Samsung is now down to 4 patents while Apple is still asserting 5 patents. Just as previous outcome, this is clearly good news for Apple because they don't have to defend the validity of the autocomplete patent at the spring trial, most likely. Lucy Koh stated that it was clear that Samsung infringed on Apple's autocomplete patent that Jury didn't need to even evaluate whether or not there was infringement.

This is a big news for all the smartphone manufacturers as well as Google because they may also be liable for this autocomplete patent. Also, Samsung's multimedia synchronization method and device patent was dismissed on the basis that they bought this patent back in September of 2011 to counterclaim Apple's litigation.

This seems like a good news for Apple, while it's not such a good news for Samsung or other Android phone makers including Google. It seems that they have came a long way to date, and we may see another big decision in upcoming March. It seems though that Apple has advantage as of now as they have 5 patent assertions while Samsung has only 4.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/01/us-court-finds-samsung-to-infringe-one.html

Second post of this week

Google announced a ten year global patent license agreement with Samsung.
They already have a long cooperative relationship in place, so this is not surprising move at all. They both claim that this should be a model for many tech firms, an alternative to patent litigation. As they are involved with many other companies in litigation, I feel that they are referring to them when making this statement.

Samsung and Google own a lot of patents, but they weren't able to gain much leverage from those patents to fight against Apple and Microsoft. They, however, lost many patent wars with them. So this could mean like a decoy for them to show to other companies of FRAND demands. It's however stated that this deal wouldn't affect other companies because they already know that they are allies.

As long as Samsung makes Android phones, they wouldn't need to worry about Google. But if they start to make devices on different OS, Google may start to start litigation with them.

Also I found this statement interesting. They stated that "It's not just about making the enforcers look bad but also about giving the impression of being willing licensees"(FossPatents). It seems evident that what they mean by this is that they are willing to go in as ally if other companies are willing.
Another claim that was backed up was through this statement, "Prior to this announcement, the last Google patent license agreement with another major industry player that was announced was a deal with Yahoo that cleared the path for Google's IPO about a decade ago"(FossPatents).

http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/01/samsungs-patent-deal-with-google.html

First post for this week - Patent Reform

White House announced that they are proceeding with the patent reform. They intend to stop the patent troll by improving the design and methods of the system. It's stated that they intend to help creators and inventors to focus more on the product itself than the patent litigation that they might be involved in. It will be interesting if anything changes at all due to this action by the White House.

So here are the current process listed below.
Help for patent troll victims- They created websites to help consumers and businesses to make them understand the letter they get from the people who sue them. This is currently launched.
More Transparency - They implemented draft rules that will help enhance competition, facilitate faster technology transfer. And they also want to hide abusive actions and tactics by many. They want patent owners to accurately update record before they are involved in proceedings before the USPTO.
Higher Quality Patents- Implemented training programs to helps its examiners examine functional claims to check claims are valid and consistently enforced.
Outreach and Research- Engaging stakeholders to provide input on high tech patent issues and polices.
Exclusion Order Enforcement- Review of process and standard utilized during exclusion order enforcement activities.

And lastly, these are the additional things that White House announced yesterday(2/20).

Crowd sourcing prior art- To create new ways for people to help share the technical information needed to determine if an invention is truly original or not.
Training for patent examiners- A program to help patent examiners keep up with fast changing tech fields.
Pro bono legal help- provide resource for inventors and small business who lack legal representation.

Copying directly from pantentlyo, this is what was stated.
"In his State of the Union address, President Obama set an ambitious agenda to make 2014 a year of   action. As part of that commitment, and recognizing that innovation is the lifeblood of our economy, the Administration today is announcing major progress on a series of initiatives designed to combat patent trolls and further strengthen our patent system and foster innovation; issuing new executive actions to build on these efforts; and renewing its call on Congress to finish the job by passing common-sense patent reform legislation."

http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/02/white-patent-reform.html






?

My third post - Importance of Eastern District of Texas Courts for Patent Litigation

There are 94 districts in US federal courts. When there is a argument over patents, the plaintiff have the leeway to file lawsuits at which district to file them to. Recently, East District of Texas received a lot of patent lawsuits handed to them, particularly by foreign companies.

So what's the reason? It turns out defendants are unlikely to win a case on summary judgement since judges usually let juries rule on patent conflicts. In a way, it raises risks and costs for defendants.
Also, the advantage of Eastern District of Texas is that trials tend to be short. Since it's really difficult to put up with effective defense with multiple defendants, it is estimated that trials are over in a week.

For instance, Eolas went into trial with University of California claiming that they have the ownership of interactive web. It's stated that they demanded hundred millions from Google, Yahoo, and Amazon. However, the trial was over when jury invalidated the patent after 4 days of trial.

Furthermore, it's stated that jurors are likely to be more inclined towards large lawsuits. Also East Texas population has less experience with technology due to the high population of older generation. It is also stated that jurors are generally pro-plaintiff. Apparently, they have other qualities that prove why they are popular.They have plaintiff-friendly local rules as well as speedy dispositions.


Used these to write up my blog post. Visit them if you'd like!
Source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/east-texas-courts-are-back-on-top-for-patent-lawsuits/

Source: http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2010/03/east-texas-jurors-and-patent-litigation/

Why did Google sell Motorola?

Google bought Motorola for $12.5 billion and sold it off for $3 billion. Now an ordinary person may think
Google just lost ~$10 billion of worth in just two years. But is this true?

But when looking at the sources, it looks like Google didn't lose too much. Maybe, they just got what they wanted. At the time of acquisition, it turns out Motorola had no debt and had about $3 billion of cash. Also Google sold off Motorola's cable set top box business for around ~$2 billion. They just sold off Motorola to Lenovo, so when doing all the math, it's approximately $4-4.5 billion.

Now, one needs to know that Google had clear intentions for buying Motorola. They originally wanted Motorola to protect themselves from its competitors like Apple and Microsoft. Google's Android, which is still the top OS, was vulnerable at the time. But due to the acquisition of patents from Motorola, they were able to get what they wanted. When Google bought Motorola, it was skeptical to some because they paid so much. $12.5 billion was twice the profits that they had in 2010. However, it turns out that they just got what they wanted, just the patents. After doing all the math, the patents are worth about 4 billion, which is reasonable to Google because they didn't have a lot of options. Google was struggling with Motorola, and eventually sold it off to Lenovo. So what's next for Google, Motorola, and Lenovo?

It will be interesting to see what comes next.

Why did Google buy Motorola?

This is my first post of this week.
So last week, I wrote briefly about Motorola selling Lenovo.
This week, I want to talk about why Google bought Motorola in the first place.

It was general consensus that Google bought Motorola for patents. At that time, smartphone war was heating up all over the world. Google paid $12.5 for 25,000 patents. Now, that's a lot of money.
But, why not just buy just the patents? Motorola knew that Google needed those patents in order to protect
themselves(Android) from outsiders. But they could have licensed the patents, but they didn't. Back then, a lot of people thought that Google had bigger plans than just buying the patents. But it turns out they bought it for the patents only because it is revealed that they sold Motorola to Lenovo.
Also, the fact that Motorola pushed Google to buy them at a premium price had a big role in this acquisition.

The main focus is that they bought Motorola because they needed to protect Android from Apple, Microsoft, and other competitors. The amount of time that Google paid to buy Motorola at the time was twice the profits of 2010 alone. Apple and Microsoft were using patents to slow down Android, and it's evident that they had no other option but to protect themselves.

This article I found explains the concepts that I described above with evidence.
http://bgr.com/2011/08/16/is-googles-motorola-buy-the-only-way-to-save-android/

My fourth post

This is my fourth post(2nd of this week).

I saw an article just now Samsung has made 10 year mutual license agreement with Cisco. And also, I believe they also made 10 year license with Google a while back. They all are related in some way, and so I feel that they are making unions to share these licenses. I always thought it was about Google v Apple not Apple v any other company. So as we can see from this event, we can see that a lot of these companies are joining unions to share licenses(right to use patent) in order to minimize the risk of being sued by each other.

It's interesting because they are somewhat related to one another, and yet they are different. The competitors are all signing cross-license pact in order to prevent litigation from occurring. It's crucial for Samsung because they owe $930 million in damages for violating Apple's patent. So in all, we can say that they are doing damage control trying to prevent further litigation like this from occurring.

The best solution is to not infringe on others' patents, although it's very difficult to do so now days.

If you guys want to check out the article. I've attached a link below.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304680904579365220297306100?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304680904579365220297306100.html

Motorola

Hey guys,

This is my 3rd post. So in class,  the professor asked this question "Which companies failed in smartphone war?" I answered by saying Motorola. I still believe in terms of smartphone war, Motorola failed. I remember about 5-10 years ago, Motorola used to be a huge player in cell phone industry along with Nokia and the likes. It's around the time when smartphone was developed, that Motorola began to decline. So I still stand by my argument that it was a failure by Motorola in terms of smartphone development. And ultimately, it was around that time that they began to decline.

I brought up Motorola because recently, Google sold Motorola handset division(except the patents) to Lenovo. I saw this news <http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/29/us-google-lenovo-idUSBREA0S1YN20140129> when it was first announced. I already knew Google bought Motorola and Motorola was in decline in terms of smartphone development, but I was in shock as another American company was sold to China, once again. Maybe, other notable tech firms in United States might follow...?

When Google first bought Motorola, I thought they were going to use Motorola to build smartphones(to counter Apple), despite everyone claiming they bought it for patents. All in one, Google decided to sell Motorola's mobile division and keep the patents. I remember that Google was having a hard time with investors explaining why they bought Motorola for 12 billion. In any event, Google may have acquired patents, but by selling Motorola(even the name), it really is another big story for Americans. China is becoming a new giant and is taking over the world one at a time. Clearly, this will also lure Lenovo into the smartphone market.

We will see how important patents play for Google. They still hold rights to Motorola's mobile patents. It will be interesting to see if these patents will be worth ~10 billion in the long run. They probably will be in the long run as Google is one of the key players in the patent war, but let's see how it goes.

Why IEOR 190G

I am taking this course because this course looks practical and exciting at the same time. I feel that this course revolves mostly around discussion and activities which lead to students to actually learn about the subject matter. Also, the subject matter that's taught in the course is really useful in life. As a software engineer, I hope to gain insights about patents and apply it in the future. When I entered college as a freshman, I remember thinking about going to law school to become a patent lawyer after obtaining my B.S. in engineering discipline. Over the course of past decade, a lot have changed. New technologies, that directly impact people, have started to emerge. And I feel that patents play a great role in the emergence of technologies. I hope to learn a lot and have fun! No YouTube video was required for this post