IEOR 190G is the first class I've taken that uses social media to a large extent. I agree with Professor Lavian that online discussions open up whole new dimensions of learning that didn't exist before. Ordinarily, assignments are a one-on-one relationship with the instructor; your essay is read and graded by the instructor and given back to you. However, with a social media environment, feedback is democratized and peer-reviewed.
The most interesting aspect of this democratized education is that peers can reflect not only on each other's work, but also on the comments. More often than not, I ended up responding to comments of videos rather than the videos themselves. This kind of feedback is a great way for students to support each other and foster community learning. Further, publishing posts online made the assignments mean more because they would be seen by other students.
Especially in the beginning of the semester, I had trouble finding interesting material and writing blogs. My writing was often shorter than others' because I never had the experience of sharing my thoughts on social media. Sometimes, I refrained from writing all of my opinions because I didn't feel comfortable opening myself up to community review. However, as I posted more blogs and got used to the class format, I started to enjoy learning through social media.
I wouldn't recommend changing anything in the future. Although many students have trouble with blogging and vlogging, they're both skills that are very helpful in the professional world. When I look at company websites, especially for startups, I see lots of branding through blogging. As for vlogging, I think it's good practice for interviews; if I can't articulate my thoughts in front of a computer screen, how would I speak in professional settings?
On the whole, I felt like IEOR 190G was taught in an innovative and adaptable way. I appreciated Professor Lavian's willingness to improve upon the assignments and take student feedback into account. Social media education is something unique to our generation, and I see lots of potential for that to become the norm in the future.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHxWhsmWpG8
Friday, May 2, 2014
What I got out of this class...
I first became interested in intellectual property during a study abroad last summer. I went to Estonia with 30 Berkeley students for a startup bootcamp, where companies were formed in just 3 weeks. During the program, one of my favorite lectures was on IP. A partner from a prestigious IP law firm spoke about the practical value of IP and methods to secure, protect, assert, and monetize various types of IP. As a young entrepreneur, I was intrigued, and that's why I signed up for IEOR 190G.
I liked that this class focused on real-life concepts of IP rather than theory. Usually, my friends are surprised to hear that I enjoy a class on IP because they immediately think of tedious case-studies and rote memorization. On the contrary, IEOR 190G approaches this fascinating field through the perspective of technology entrepreneurship, which makes the material relevant for undergraduates like myself.
The most valuable experience I've had in class was learning the basics of filing and appealing patents. To hear about Professor Lavian's experiences dealing with examiners and his advice on writing patents was awesome. After taking this class, I know how crucial it is to find a good lawyer and pay more for better service. The story about the graduate student who thought of Google's search engine before Google made me realize how IP can make or break someone's return on innovation.
On a "softer" side, I appreciated learning about the ethics behind IP. Sometimes, patents are abused to hurt the very ideals that they should uphold. While patents should encourage innovation and reward fair compensation, trolls use them as ammunition. This problem, while largely unknown outside of the technology industry, has a huge effect on society that I was able to realize in IEOR 190G. On a positive note, it was inspiring to see companies like SynPat turning the table against trolls by "reverse-cheating" the system to protect fair players.
In the near future, I intend to launch a social venture through a technology startup. As a prospective entrepreneur, I'm fortunate to have taken IEOR 190G. Now that I know the average costs of litigation, filing process, patent trolls, and more, I feel prepared to handle IP in an informed and confident way. What I learned this semester will definitely come in handy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTdWLFag6tM
I liked that this class focused on real-life concepts of IP rather than theory. Usually, my friends are surprised to hear that I enjoy a class on IP because they immediately think of tedious case-studies and rote memorization. On the contrary, IEOR 190G approaches this fascinating field through the perspective of technology entrepreneurship, which makes the material relevant for undergraduates like myself.
The most valuable experience I've had in class was learning the basics of filing and appealing patents. To hear about Professor Lavian's experiences dealing with examiners and his advice on writing patents was awesome. After taking this class, I know how crucial it is to find a good lawyer and pay more for better service. The story about the graduate student who thought of Google's search engine before Google made me realize how IP can make or break someone's return on innovation.
On a "softer" side, I appreciated learning about the ethics behind IP. Sometimes, patents are abused to hurt the very ideals that they should uphold. While patents should encourage innovation and reward fair compensation, trolls use them as ammunition. This problem, while largely unknown outside of the technology industry, has a huge effect on society that I was able to realize in IEOR 190G. On a positive note, it was inspiring to see companies like SynPat turning the table against trolls by "reverse-cheating" the system to protect fair players.
In the near future, I intend to launch a social venture through a technology startup. As a prospective entrepreneur, I'm fortunate to have taken IEOR 190G. Now that I know the average costs of litigation, filing process, patent trolls, and more, I feel prepared to handle IP in an informed and confident way. What I learned this semester will definitely come in handy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTdWLFag6tM
Thursday, April 10, 2014
How to Troll Patents - Thinking Like the Enemy
We've talked a lot about patent trolls so I thought I'd publish a best-practices guide for successful trolling. So, for anyone aspiring to be the next big troll, here are a few pointers.
Obviously I'm not being serious :)
1) Your primary business model is to acquire low-quality patents that can be exploited. You have no product. Assertions are your product. Therefore, assert hard and assert often.
2) It takes hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, to properly handle a patent lawsuit. Target entities that can't do this; you'll win the fight before it even begins.
3) Also, attack big corporations. Companies like Apple, Google, Samsung, etc are likely to see you as a nuisance and distraction, therefore paying you to leave them alone rather than wasting precious resources fighting you.
4) Acquire patents that look complicated and legitimate, but are actually pretty ambiguous. As Uzi Aloush mentioned, a potential co-founder of SynPat made his living by asserting vaguely engineer-like patents. If you're lucky enough to get such a patent approved by the USPTO, good for you.
5) There's nowhere better to assert bad-quality patents than the Eastern District of Texas. The less educated the jury, the better.
Case Study:
TQP Development won a patent lawsuit against Newegg in the Eastern District of Texas by attacking the defendants' credibility in front of a clueless jury. Whit Diffie, inventor of public key cryptography, and Ron Rivest, the man who made it practically applicable, were cheated out of $2.3 million because TQP Development played the right cards. A committed patent troll, with the right legal team and favorable geographic conditions, can pull off even the most unreasonable of assertions.
* Most of the information was sourced from:
http://www.wired.com/2013/06/everything-you-need-to-know-about-trolls-the-patent-kind/
http://www.businessinsider.com/biggest-patent-holding-companies-2012-11?op=1
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/jury-newegg-infringes-spangenberg-patent-must-pay-2-3-million/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=togkSqKAvkE
Obviously I'm not being serious :)
1) Your primary business model is to acquire low-quality patents that can be exploited. You have no product. Assertions are your product. Therefore, assert hard and assert often.
2) It takes hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, to properly handle a patent lawsuit. Target entities that can't do this; you'll win the fight before it even begins.
3) Also, attack big corporations. Companies like Apple, Google, Samsung, etc are likely to see you as a nuisance and distraction, therefore paying you to leave them alone rather than wasting precious resources fighting you.
4) Acquire patents that look complicated and legitimate, but are actually pretty ambiguous. As Uzi Aloush mentioned, a potential co-founder of SynPat made his living by asserting vaguely engineer-like patents. If you're lucky enough to get such a patent approved by the USPTO, good for you.
5) There's nowhere better to assert bad-quality patents than the Eastern District of Texas. The less educated the jury, the better.
Case Study:
TQP Development won a patent lawsuit against Newegg in the Eastern District of Texas by attacking the defendants' credibility in front of a clueless jury. Whit Diffie, inventor of public key cryptography, and Ron Rivest, the man who made it practically applicable, were cheated out of $2.3 million because TQP Development played the right cards. A committed patent troll, with the right legal team and favorable geographic conditions, can pull off even the most unreasonable of assertions.
* Most of the information was sourced from:
http://www.wired.com/2013/06/everything-you-need-to-know-about-trolls-the-patent-kind/
http://www.businessinsider.com/biggest-patent-holding-companies-2012-11?op=1
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/jury-newegg-infringes-spangenberg-patent-must-pay-2-3-million/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=togkSqKAvkE
Google's Open Patent Non-Assertion Pledge
In the last lecture, Duane Valz mentioned Google's fair practices in terms of intellectual property. I was curious about the specifics, so I found the Open Patent Non-Assertion Pledge online. I've summarized its provisions below.
Google promises not to attack anyone for using "Free or Open Source Software" or "Pledged Patents," which are Google patents that are usable by other entities. Entities are safe under Google's pledge as long as they agree to the conditions in writing and make subsequent transferees do the same. Additionally, Google reserves the right to "Defensive Termination" if an entity asserts or profits from asserting patents against Google or its affiliates. With "Defensive Termination," Google will act as if the pledge was never extended to the asserting party in the first place. However, if Google mistakenly initiates lawsuits against non-asserting entities, it promises to try to terminate legal proceedings within 60 days.
Full pledge: https://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/pledge/
Google's Open Patent Non-Assertion Pledge seems like a very fair and reasonable way to handle intellectual property, and demonstrates Google's commitment to innovative creation above financial gain. Google could easily turn into the most powerful patent troll ever, hindering both technological and commercial progress for less powerful entities. Its policy, however, stresses a win-win concept that benefits everyone.
As I've written in past posts, innovation has outpaced patent reforms, necessitating some way of upholding intellectual property while preventing excessive aggression. Although it's easy to lose hope in this situation and assume the worst, Google's policy proves that the patent landscape is contingent on more than trolling, enforcement, and regulation. If the culture of intellectual property could be fostered in a way that promotes mutual respect and fairness, gray zones in the patent landscape will be less likely to be exploited.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcX-kUT3XF0
Google promises not to attack anyone for using "Free or Open Source Software" or "Pledged Patents," which are Google patents that are usable by other entities. Entities are safe under Google's pledge as long as they agree to the conditions in writing and make subsequent transferees do the same. Additionally, Google reserves the right to "Defensive Termination" if an entity asserts or profits from asserting patents against Google or its affiliates. With "Defensive Termination," Google will act as if the pledge was never extended to the asserting party in the first place. However, if Google mistakenly initiates lawsuits against non-asserting entities, it promises to try to terminate legal proceedings within 60 days.
Full pledge: https://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/pledge/
Google's Open Patent Non-Assertion Pledge seems like a very fair and reasonable way to handle intellectual property, and demonstrates Google's commitment to innovative creation above financial gain. Google could easily turn into the most powerful patent troll ever, hindering both technological and commercial progress for less powerful entities. Its policy, however, stresses a win-win concept that benefits everyone.
As I've written in past posts, innovation has outpaced patent reforms, necessitating some way of upholding intellectual property while preventing excessive aggression. Although it's easy to lose hope in this situation and assume the worst, Google's policy proves that the patent landscape is contingent on more than trolling, enforcement, and regulation. If the culture of intellectual property could be fostered in a way that promotes mutual respect and fairness, gray zones in the patent landscape will be less likely to be exploited.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcX-kUT3XF0
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Response to Lecture about KSR v. Teleflex
KSR v. Teleflex was a huge event in patent law, not only because it showed a clear disconnect between the Supreme Court and lower courts, but because of the precedent that it overturned. The Graham v. Deere case of 1966 was an IP case in which the Teaching, Suggestion, Motivation (TSM) test was put into standard practice. Hindsight bias was supposed to be mitigated by screening patents for obviousness through a rigorous TSM test. In KSR v. Teleflex, the Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts' opinion that the TSM test should be applied strictly.
The Supreme Court upheld common sense above the TSM test, which overturned a precedent of almost a half century. The problem was the overly rigid application of the TSM test; the Supreme Court asserted that people of ordinary skill are also people of ordinary creativity, and as such, allowed for more interpretation and implication in the test.
I think the implication of this decision will influence the way that patents are examined at the USPTO and the way that they are ruled on in court. Because we now apply the TSM test with more perspective and restraint, the opportunity arises for filers and holders of patents to create and exploit bad-quality patents. Such actions would lead to trolling, by allowing for a gray zone to exist, in which dangerous patents can emerge. However, the Supreme Court's ruling also allows for more flexibility and creative thinking in analyzing patents, which I believe is a great thing for modern times.
As we've seen, innovations in technology have outpaced reforms in IP regulations, which is the reason for gray zones in the patent war that are exploited by savvy lawyers. Additionally, it's what created the hostile environment in which technology firms seem to operate. In large part, IP regulations and the patent landscape dictate how industry players decide to engage each other; currently, it seems like companies are instinctively suspicious and defensive towards each other.
I think the Supreme Court's decision to value critical thinking and flexibility, by mandating a looser application of the TSM test, is a step in the right direction. When our laws and regulations don't complement technological innovations properly, it's necessary to allow for more case-by-case thinking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJcoluK3_mc
The Supreme Court upheld common sense above the TSM test, which overturned a precedent of almost a half century. The problem was the overly rigid application of the TSM test; the Supreme Court asserted that people of ordinary skill are also people of ordinary creativity, and as such, allowed for more interpretation and implication in the test.
I think the implication of this decision will influence the way that patents are examined at the USPTO and the way that they are ruled on in court. Because we now apply the TSM test with more perspective and restraint, the opportunity arises for filers and holders of patents to create and exploit bad-quality patents. Such actions would lead to trolling, by allowing for a gray zone to exist, in which dangerous patents can emerge. However, the Supreme Court's ruling also allows for more flexibility and creative thinking in analyzing patents, which I believe is a great thing for modern times.
As we've seen, innovations in technology have outpaced reforms in IP regulations, which is the reason for gray zones in the patent war that are exploited by savvy lawyers. Additionally, it's what created the hostile environment in which technology firms seem to operate. In large part, IP regulations and the patent landscape dictate how industry players decide to engage each other; currently, it seems like companies are instinctively suspicious and defensive towards each other.
I think the Supreme Court's decision to value critical thinking and flexibility, by mandating a looser application of the TSM test, is a step in the right direction. When our laws and regulations don't complement technological innovations properly, it's necessary to allow for more case-by-case thinking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJcoluK3_mc
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Secondary Considerations of Obviousness
The initial checklist to detect obviousness is the scope and content of prior art, the differences between alleged innovation and prior art, and what constitutes ordinary skill in the art. However, the article linked below discusses secondary considerations.
http://www.the-business-of-patents.com/obviousness.html
1) Commercial success
2) Long-felt but unsolved needs
3) Failure of others
Commercial success points to the market demand for the alleged innovation, which validates both societal need and practicality. If many people are willing to pay for an invention, the invention clearly merits the appreciation and approval of the public.
Long-felt but unsolved needs refer to innovations that make life easier or better by addressing inconveniences and inefficiencies. An outstanding example is the folded cardboard holder for take-out coffees. Before it was invented, people had do deal with excessively hot cups with nothing to shield their hands from the heat. Cup holders were invented so that this unsolved problem could be addressed.
Failure of others refers to previous attempts at addressing some unsolved need. The guiding principle is that a new innovation, if it attempts to do what others failed to do before and benefits society, wouldn't be considered obvious. The problem might have been obvious but the solution was clearly innovative in some way, to distinguish itself from past failures.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQn32A_UgZY
http://www.the-business-of-patents.com/obviousness.html
1) Commercial success
2) Long-felt but unsolved needs
3) Failure of others
Commercial success points to the market demand for the alleged innovation, which validates both societal need and practicality. If many people are willing to pay for an invention, the invention clearly merits the appreciation and approval of the public.
Long-felt but unsolved needs refer to innovations that make life easier or better by addressing inconveniences and inefficiencies. An outstanding example is the folded cardboard holder for take-out coffees. Before it was invented, people had do deal with excessively hot cups with nothing to shield their hands from the heat. Cup holders were invented so that this unsolved problem could be addressed.
Failure of others refers to previous attempts at addressing some unsolved need. The guiding principle is that a new innovation, if it attempts to do what others failed to do before and benefits society, wouldn't be considered obvious. The problem might have been obvious but the solution was clearly innovative in some way, to distinguish itself from past failures.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQn32A_UgZY
Saturday, March 22, 2014
Patenting Software
Today's blog is about the article below, from the Harvard Office of Technology Development. Specifically, I'll try to simplify the section on "Patenting of Computer Software."
http://www.techtransfer.harvard.edu/inventions/ip/patents/
The USPTO won't grant patents on items of "…pure scientific discovery, or a method of doing business, or a process which does not require hardware, or one that simply duplicated the "mental steps" of a human being." Essentially, the USPTO won't allow abstract ideas to be patented. Whether software can be patented or not depends on three categories.
1) "A computer or other programmable apparatus whose actions are directed by a computer program or other form of software may be considered a 'machine.'"
2) "A computer-readable memory that can be used to direct a computer to function in a particular manner when used by the computer is presumed to be an 'article of manufacture.'"
3) "A series of specific operational steps to be performed on, or with the aid, of a computer is deemed a "process.'"
These guidelines for patenting software opens up debate debate among software engineers, lawyers, USPTO examiners, and scholars. Matters of software patents are currently reviewed on a case by case basis rather than a set of concrete rules. For that reason, I think software patents should be a high priority in the effort to reform and optimize IP regulations. Any gray zone in the legal system in a lucrative area like IP will be exploited by trolls. In the case of software patents, the lack of rules and precedents opens up opportunities for bad/dangerous patents to be created and exploited.
Going forward, it'll be interesting to see whether the USPTO can keep up with the growth in IT industries. As technology gets more complicated and interconnected, it'll be necessary to adapt regulations so that new problems can be addressed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-EpaHbRKL0
http://www.techtransfer.harvard.edu/inventions/ip/patents/
The USPTO won't grant patents on items of "…pure scientific discovery, or a method of doing business, or a process which does not require hardware, or one that simply duplicated the "mental steps" of a human being." Essentially, the USPTO won't allow abstract ideas to be patented. Whether software can be patented or not depends on three categories.
1) "A computer or other programmable apparatus whose actions are directed by a computer program or other form of software may be considered a 'machine.'"
2) "A computer-readable memory that can be used to direct a computer to function in a particular manner when used by the computer is presumed to be an 'article of manufacture.'"
3) "A series of specific operational steps to be performed on, or with the aid, of a computer is deemed a "process.'"
These guidelines for patenting software opens up debate debate among software engineers, lawyers, USPTO examiners, and scholars. Matters of software patents are currently reviewed on a case by case basis rather than a set of concrete rules. For that reason, I think software patents should be a high priority in the effort to reform and optimize IP regulations. Any gray zone in the legal system in a lucrative area like IP will be exploited by trolls. In the case of software patents, the lack of rules and precedents opens up opportunities for bad/dangerous patents to be created and exploited.
Going forward, it'll be interesting to see whether the USPTO can keep up with the growth in IT industries. As technology gets more complicated and interconnected, it'll be necessary to adapt regulations so that new problems can be addressed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-EpaHbRKL0
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Detecting obviousness in the midst of complex technical rhetoric
The article linked below, titled "A Patent on Seven Simple Lines of Code," discusses the problem of obvious and abstract ideas being patented through the use of lengthy text and complicated jargon.
Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International (also linked below) deals with patents on third party escrow, which is just a fancy way of saying "two parties exchanging money through a third party." It's an abstract concept of trade that's been used throughout history, between parties seeking to exchange currency through a mutually trusted party. What's concerning is that a claim involved in the case describes a computer, linked to a data storage unit and a communications controller, to:
10 LET account1 = 200.00
20 LET account3 = 300.00
30 INPUT “Value to exchange for transaction”; exchange
40 IF account1 < exchange THEN PRINT “Inadequate value”: STOP
50 account1 = account1 – exchange
60 account3 = account3 + exchange
70 PRINT “Instruction to 1st institution: adjust 2nd account by ”; -exchange
http://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/a-patent-on-seven-simple-lines-of-code
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5APIZLCrKy8
Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International (also linked below) deals with patents on third party escrow, which is just a fancy way of saying "two parties exchanging money through a third party." It's an abstract concept of trade that's been used throughout history, between parties seeking to exchange currency through a mutually trusted party. What's concerning is that a claim involved in the case describes a computer, linked to a data storage unit and a communications controller, to:
"electronically adjust said first account and said third account in order to effect an exchange obligation arising from said transaction between said first party and said second party after ensuring that said first party and/or said second party have adequate value in said first account and/or said third account, respectively."
In short, the claim addresses a computerized system of third party escrow. Despite the lengthy rhetoric and an impressive array of technical jargon, the patents involved point to an abstract idea, which is nothing more than 7 lines of BASIC code. If one account has enough money to transfer to another, then the transfer happens, and "inadequate value" is returned otherwise. Simple.10 LET account1 = 200.00
20 LET account3 = 300.00
30 INPUT “Value to exchange for transaction”; exchange
40 IF account1 < exchange THEN PRINT “Inadequate value”: STOP
50 account1 = account1 – exchange
60 account3 = account3 + exchange
70 PRINT “Instruction to 1st institution: adjust 2nd account by ”; -exchange
An abstract trade concept, used throughout history, was patented because obviousness wasn't properly detected. Amidst the complicated technical jargon and lengthy text, 7 lines of code were able to slip through. In the future, I think we'll be seeing more abstract ideas being patented, under the guise of being sophisticated technical concepts. For this reason, we should be vigilant of skillful lawyers who write dangerous patents and keep our patent workers and regulations updated on this kind of problem.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/alice-corporation-pty-ltd-v-cls-bank-international/http://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/a-patent-on-seven-simple-lines-of-code
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5APIZLCrKy8
Friday, March 7, 2014
Google, Samsung strike patent cross-licensing deal - CNET
Google and Samsung filed a 10-year agreement for cross-licensing patents, in an attempt to benefit both parties through cooperation. This is in stark contrast to the prevailing mentality of the mobile patent war, in which corporations seek to slow each other down through litigation. Google and Samsung's cooperation marks a new and positive step for intellectual property, in which patents are enforced and respected without slowing down technological progress.
An underlying question, though, is whether Google and Samsung have an ulterior motive. Because they're both major corporations in the mobile device space, their collaboration/alliance could be bad news for competitors like Apple.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57617807-94/google-samsung-strike-patent-cross-licensing-deal/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7l3Obj3Wvk
An underlying question, though, is whether Google and Samsung have an ulterior motive. Because they're both major corporations in the mobile device space, their collaboration/alliance could be bad news for competitors like Apple.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57617807-94/google-samsung-strike-patent-cross-licensing-deal/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7l3Obj3Wvk
Qualcomm buys major mobile patent portfolio from HP, including Palm patents - gigaom.com
This week's post is about an article on gigaom.com, that addresses Qualcomm's purchase of HP's patent portfolio, which includes both issued and pending patents. The benefit for HP was that their $1.2 billion purchase of Palm was somewhat justified by Qualcomm's purchase of relevant patents. For Qualcomm, the newly acquired patent portfolio is an opportunity to assert themselves in the world of mobile devices, which calls into question whether Qualcomm will use HP's patents to attack other companies.
The way I see it, Qualcomm made the right move, whether they plan to use HP's patents offensively or not. By possessing the patent portfolio, Qualcomm has a better defensive position. Also, considering that every patent is an intellectual monopoly, Qualcomm is in a better position.
http://gigaom.com/2014/01/23/qualcomm-buys-major-mobile-patent-portfolio-including-palm-patents/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr5hJFA81bs
The way I see it, Qualcomm made the right move, whether they plan to use HP's patents offensively or not. By possessing the patent portfolio, Qualcomm has a better defensive position. Also, considering that every patent is an intellectual monopoly, Qualcomm is in a better position.
http://gigaom.com/2014/01/23/qualcomm-buys-major-mobile-patent-portfolio-including-palm-patents/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr5hJFA81bs
Friday, February 28, 2014
Patent Reform 2014: Via Executive Action - Patently-O
Here are some of the proposed executive actions from 2013 which I thought were interesting.
1) Making "real party in interest the new default," which would mitigate the problem of having shell corporations and legal maneuvering hide those who truly stand to gain by winning the case, will increase transparency in patent litigation and make trolls think twice before attempting a lawsuit.
2) Empowering downstream users, which means that "Main Street" and ordinary people won't be blamed or targeted in patent lawsuits, is a measure that will significantly reduce the effect that trolls have on regular people who use their products as instructed.
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/02/reform-executive-action.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XscWuM4cYkA
1) Making "real party in interest the new default," which would mitigate the problem of having shell corporations and legal maneuvering hide those who truly stand to gain by winning the case, will increase transparency in patent litigation and make trolls think twice before attempting a lawsuit.
2) Empowering downstream users, which means that "Main Street" and ordinary people won't be blamed or targeted in patent lawsuits, is a measure that will significantly reduce the effect that trolls have on regular people who use their products as instructed.
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/02/reform-executive-action.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XscWuM4cYkA
Syndicated Patent Acquisitions Corp. (SynPat)
SynPat is unique for an IP law firm, in that it's a combination of social consciousness and profit-oriented business. The business model is unique, as there's always an alignment of interest between participating groups, and only willful infringers of patents are attacked. The basics are outlined below.
1) SynPat recognizes a portfolio of dangerous patents and acquires them, say, from a university. Dangerous patents are those that trolls are likely to use to corner businesses.
2) In order to fund the purchase, SynPat gets a group of corporations together to front the costs.
3) Now that SynPat owns the patents, licenses are given to the participating corporations.
4) Then, SynPat sells licenses to other parties for an increased price.
5) Finally, willful infringers are sued, while SynPat provides a legitimate marketplace for licensing of dangerous patents.
The key here is that early participation is highly encouraged, and more importantly, participation guarantees a portion of SynPat's profits. For example, the university would get 1/3, the participating companies would get 1/3, and SynPat would get 1/3. In this way, a win-win-win situation is created.
I think the perfect business model is one that contributes to society, preserves the business's integrity, and generates large profits. In SynPat, it seems like this exists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sngs3-Mmj4w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sngs3-Mmj4w
Friday, February 21, 2014
ITC Institutes Investigation (337-TA-905) Regarding Certain Wireless Devices, Including Mobile Phones And Tablets II - ITC Blog
Based on a claim filed by Pragmatus, Inc, the US International Trade Commission is instituting an investigation into mobile devices such as cell phones and tablets. Those currently being investigated are listed:
ITC Blog
http://www.itcblog.com/20140123/itc-institutes-investigation-337-ta-905-regarding-certain-wireless-devices-including-mobile-phones-and-tablets-ii/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn_8Wyh93wM
- Nokia Corp. (Nokia Oyj) of Finland
- Nokia, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California
- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of South Korea
- Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey
- Samsung Telecommunications America, L.L.C. of Richardson, Texas
- Sony Corp. of Japan
- Sony Mobile Communications AB of Sweden
- Sony Mobile Communications (USA), Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia
- ZTE Corp. of China
- ZTE (USA) Inc. of Richardson, Texas
ITC Blog
http://www.itcblog.com/20140123/itc-institutes-investigation-337-ta-905-regarding-certain-wireless-devices-including-mobile-phones-and-tablets-ii/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn_8Wyh93wM
PATENTLYO: Micro Entity Status: Who is Filing for Micro Entity Status?
Micro entity status is a concept designed to help less powerful parties stand a fair chance against bigger companies when acquiring patents. Skeptics might suspect that this rule somehow causes bigger companies to exploit the system; for example, a big company could create many small companies with micro entity status. However, this not the case. 82% of those filing micro entity status are ordinary individuals and groups. 1% are businesses and 17% are universities. So far, the regulations on micro entity status seem to be working well.
PATENTLYO
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/02/entity-status-filing.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbDpkEPLH-E
PATENTLYO
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/02/entity-status-filing.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbDpkEPLH-E
Are patents the next big commodity?
This post is a response to an article by FOSS Patents, "Samsung, Google lawyers to represent patent licensing firm in tomorrow's $2 billion Apple trial." IPCOM filed for $2 billion in damages in Germany, in litigation involving parties such as Nokia, HTC, Apple, Eriksson and PCom. Combined, they employ a multitude of high profile law firms.
The fact is, besides the situational differences in many IP cases, they share common attributes. One of those attributes is the fact that ideas seem to be the next big commodity; just like we chased gold, silk, and oil in the past, we're now chasing intellectual property. It's incredible that patents, mere pieces of paper, can cause so much legal and financial strife.
Having read a lot of content on patent litigation and the enormous ramifications that sometimes happen, I wanted to focus on what might be an underlying problem; we might be overestimating the worth of patents and enabling practices that seek to hinder progress rather than cause it.
FOSS Patents:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/samsung-google-lawyers-to-represent.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EozQSMpeWno
The fact is, besides the situational differences in many IP cases, they share common attributes. One of those attributes is the fact that ideas seem to be the next big commodity; just like we chased gold, silk, and oil in the past, we're now chasing intellectual property. It's incredible that patents, mere pieces of paper, can cause so much legal and financial strife.
Having read a lot of content on patent litigation and the enormous ramifications that sometimes happen, I wanted to focus on what might be an underlying problem; we might be overestimating the worth of patents and enabling practices that seek to hinder progress rather than cause it.
FOSS Patents:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/samsung-google-lawyers-to-represent.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EozQSMpeWno
Friday, February 14, 2014
Medtronic v Mirowski - 2014
This post is a response to Patently-o's article below.
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/01/reverses-patentees-infringement.html
In a unanimous vote, the Supreme Court reversed a Federal judgment on IP litigation between Medtronic and Mirowski. The district court sided with Medtronic because Mirowski couldn't prove infringement. However, the Supreme Court disagreed on the following grounds:
"(1) the Patentee ordinarily bears the burden of proving infringement; (2) the Declaratory Judgment Act is only procedural; and (3) the burden of proof is a substantive aspect of the claim."
I think that the concept of proof is powerful in IP litigation because it's what eventually decides who walks away with some sort of intellectual monopoly. Since the Supreme Court's vote was unanimous, it seems like the situation was handled in the right way at the right time. However, it's unfortunate that the Supreme Court only ever takes a small percentage of cases that they are requested, due to time constraints. For every case like this, there are many more that slip through the cracks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngHDaJiWjeQ
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/01/reverses-patentees-infringement.html
In a unanimous vote, the Supreme Court reversed a Federal judgment on IP litigation between Medtronic and Mirowski. The district court sided with Medtronic because Mirowski couldn't prove infringement. However, the Supreme Court disagreed on the following grounds:
"(1) the Patentee ordinarily bears the burden of proving infringement; (2) the Declaratory Judgment Act is only procedural; and (3) the burden of proof is a substantive aspect of the claim."
I think that the concept of proof is powerful in IP litigation because it's what eventually decides who walks away with some sort of intellectual monopoly. Since the Supreme Court's vote was unanimous, it seems like the situation was handled in the right way at the right time. However, it's unfortunate that the Supreme Court only ever takes a small percentage of cases that they are requested, due to time constraints. For every case like this, there are many more that slip through the cracks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngHDaJiWjeQ
Why Google Bought Motorola in the First Place
The bullets below indicate Google's official statement of why they bought Motorola.
- Google and Motorola Mobility together will accelerate innovation and choice in mobile computing. Consumers will get better phones at lower prices.
- Motorola Mobility’s patent portfolio will help protect the Android ecosystem. Android, which is open-source software, is vital to competition in the mobile device space, ensuring hardware manufacturers, mobile phone carriers, applications developers and consumers all have choice.
The third and unstated point, however, is that Motorola Mobility's patents will not only protect the Android ecosystem but also be used to attack the iPhone. It seems like Google wants to stockpile as many patents as possible, so that its own technologies are defensible while competitors' technologies are open to litigation. For almost a decade, the patent war has become more and more hostile.
Companies employ a no-holds-barred method to their IP litigation, even when their actions are morally questionable. An outstanding example is the frequency of IP litigation in The Eastern District of Texas. It's obvious that plaintiffs want easy judicial processes and an uneducated jury. Although this kind of strategy is morally questionable, prominent companies want to do everything possible to protect themselves and slow competition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKVI4EO4SVM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKVI4EO4SVM
Why Sell Motorola?
Recently, Google seemed to have made a huge mistake; they sold Motorola, which they bought for $12.5 billion, to Lenovo for $2.91 billion. What looks like a $9.5 billion negative, however, is a brilliant move by Google. Google sold Motorola without its patents, so they still own the IP value within Motorola. In essence, Google owns the brains while Lenovo controls production.
The implications for the smartphone industry are enormous. In an age when IP is worth billions of dollars, Google retains a large body of patents with which to promote the Android system. For a competitor like Apple, Google's deal with Lenovo is an inconvenience; it's negligible that Motorola was sold, as long as Google maintains control of legislative ammunition in the form of patents.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7iLKXnXb60
The implications for the smartphone industry are enormous. In an age when IP is worth billions of dollars, Google retains a large body of patents with which to promote the Android system. For a competitor like Apple, Google's deal with Lenovo is an inconvenience; it's negligible that Motorola was sold, as long as Google maintains control of legislative ammunition in the form of patents.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7iLKXnXb60
Friday, February 7, 2014
Smart Watches: The New Frontier of Patent Wars
When smartphones first came out, most of us didn't imagine the kind of impact it would have on our daily lives. In humanity's search for more portability and convenience, it seems like companies such as Apple and Samsung are looking towards wrist devices.
Sony has released the Smartwatch 2, Apple is rumored to have an iWatch, and Samsung has presented the Galaxy Gear. If consumers adopt these devices like they've adopted the smartphone, we could be experiencing a whole new front in the patent war. As powerful companies scramble for dominance in the world of mobile devices, patent litigation is inevitable.
The article below is from The Guardian, which addresses the issue of smart watches.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/16/samsung-apple-smartwatch-galaxy-gear-release
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7iLKXnXb60
Sony has released the Smartwatch 2, Apple is rumored to have an iWatch, and Samsung has presented the Galaxy Gear. If consumers adopt these devices like they've adopted the smartphone, we could be experiencing a whole new front in the patent war. As powerful companies scramble for dominance in the world of mobile devices, patent litigation is inevitable.
The article below is from The Guardian, which addresses the issue of smart watches.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/16/samsung-apple-smartwatch-galaxy-gear-release
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7iLKXnXb60
Obama vs Patent Trolls
Just 7 years since the first iPhone and Android devices were released, it seems like we have a patent war that not only causes many judicial problems, but also warrants intervention by the President himself. Below is an article in The Guardian that discusses how President Obama is taking measures against those who collect patents just to use them as legal weapons.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jun/05/obama-patent-trolls
As intellectual property becomes more and more valuable, companies end up fighting over small details. For example, Apple took legal action against Samsung for using a rounded rectangular shape for smartphones. Although many design and technology elements may look trivial on the surface, they can be grounds for intense litigation.
Obama's propositions seek to encourage patent litigation only when the cause is really worth fighting for. Among other points, he calls for full disclosure of those who stand to gain from litigation and awarding of legal costs to the winners.
As we move towards a more modern society, in which intellectual property is worth millions and billions of dollars, I think it's necessary to take measures to prevent patent trolling. Those who use patents as weapons of litigation are not only harming legitimate companies, but stalling the progress of science and technology in general.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKVI4EO4SVM
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jun/05/obama-patent-trolls
As intellectual property becomes more and more valuable, companies end up fighting over small details. For example, Apple took legal action against Samsung for using a rounded rectangular shape for smartphones. Although many design and technology elements may look trivial on the surface, they can be grounds for intense litigation.
Obama's propositions seek to encourage patent litigation only when the cause is really worth fighting for. Among other points, he calls for full disclosure of those who stand to gain from litigation and awarding of legal costs to the winners.
As we move towards a more modern society, in which intellectual property is worth millions and billions of dollars, I think it's necessary to take measures to prevent patent trolling. Those who use patents as weapons of litigation are not only harming legitimate companies, but stalling the progress of science and technology in general.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKVI4EO4SVM
Friday, January 31, 2014
Why this class?
IEOR 190G is part of my effort to explore more about entrepreneurship and technology while bettering myself for the future. I appreciate the opportunity to gain practical experience and learn material that others seldom get exposed to. During this semester, I hope to engage with the class more and get to know the ins and outs of intellectual property as it relates to technology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pfx3A11i_eg
Who am I?
My name is Luke and I'm a sophomore at UC Berkeley. As a freshman, I was exposed to the wonderful world of entrepreneurship through the Center for Entrepreneurship and Technology. Following my exposure to various CET resources and my introduction to Ken Singer, I took a chance and studied abroad in Estonia with the European Innovation Academy. As a 19 year old who knew nothing, I was put in a position from which to lead 5 other guys who were much more qualified and accomplished than I was. From the first day, I plunged into startups with both feet, and it's led me on a very rewarding path thus far.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi4yrA63Gko
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi4yrA63Gko
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)