Last Week Post 2: "Silly" Patent 2

As another summer comes, this might come in handy – Sun mask towel.

Abstract

A sun mask towel is provided, made from a planar section of fabric for blocking or reflecting the ultraviolet rays of the sun. By including eye, nose, and mouth slits, the sun mask towel allows users see, speak, and breathe easily. The sun mask towel effectively shields a user's face, head, neck, and in one embodiment, a user's entire body from the harmful rays of the sun. Further, the sun mask towel is easy to use and easy to carry.








Novelty This idea has definitely existed before: construction workers that work under the sun and don't wanna get sunburnt; bank robbers while doing their job (although their fear of getting sunburnt is probably not the primary reason of wearing such a thing), etc.
Non-obviousness
A balance between creating a monopoly and encouraging innovation you say, that is why non-obviousness is one of the requirements for patentability. This thing pretty much can be made by anyone with a piece of cloth and a pair of scissors. Very obvious.
Usefulness
If you really wear it, ya.
Enablement
You don't need to imagine an arbitrary average person in the industry. Even your neighbor's 3-year-old can make it.

Last week Post 1: "Silly" Patent 1

Receptacle assembly for receiving canine fecal matter

US 6941897 B1

Before actually talking about / judging the invention, the abstract deserves to be read.

Abstract: A receptacle assembly for receiving and retaining discharge of body waste of a canine, comprising a strap assembly and a bag assembly. The strap assembly is designed to securely mount upon the body of a canine such as a dog and comprises multiple means for securing it to the canine. The bag assembly is shaped in a form resembling a pear and is made of plastic. The bag assembly comprises exterior and interior walls joined by side pleats for expansion of the bag assembly when filled with fecal matter of the canine.

This invention provides a solution to avoid that fecal matter fall to the ground, and to prevent owners from having to pick it up and dispose of it, thus preventing the contamination and the spreading of diseases transmitted by canines and other mammals. It was granted in 2005. It really does not coincide with the topic "Silly" Patent, because it actually sounds quite applicable in real life. If one has to point out a mindless part about it, it is really about how it amplifies laziness – what is so hard about walking your dog(s) and picking up the ? And perhaps its implication for animal cruelty. Although it is intended for allowing pet owners to not have to pick up the faeces, I am guessing it could potentially be used by lazy owners so that they won't have to walk their pets, while most would say that animals should be allowed a healthy amount of outdoor activities.

The instant invention comprises a bag and strap assembly, which can be entirely made of plastic. Plastic density or thickness of the instant invention varies according to the area of the invention; at the bag assembly, the area of deposit is thinner, and at the accordion, it is slightly thicker. It is noted that the variation of thickness at the different parts of this instant invention allows it to be used and handled better, particularly during the placement and removal of the same.

Novelty
hmm. Although it sounds odd, but it is very likely that someone (with the same degree of laziness) have tied a plastic bag to a dog's butt before this patent so that they won't have to pick up the faeces. It's probably not hard to find evidence – any pictures / cartoons / ideas expressed prior to 2005 could be used to prove this point.
Non-obviousness
It pretty much can be manufactured from "normal product design and development". Quite obvious really.
Usefulness
Potentially and theoretically.
Enablement
With the 10 diagrams filed together with the patent. Yes.

As a side note, I came across this website while searching for silly patents. Not gonna to lie, it seems like a good pastime: Patently Silly.

Week 13 Post 2: A Golden Age for Inventors?

After recently reading a NY Times article, "Is This Really the Golden Age for Inventors", and reflecting upon an earlier post regarding whether it is possible to file your own patent just by reading off instructions from a book, I was thinking about what the current state of patent system means.

As suggested by Adam Davidson, the co-founder of NPR's “Planet Money,” a podcast, blog and radio series heard on “Morning Edition,” “All Things Considered” and “This American Life", it might be true that it's way easier to actually transform ideas into real objects and mass product them in order to make some money out of it – "today’s basement inventors have it easy in ways their predecessors couldn’t have imagined". Inexpensive / free technology is readily available online: Google SketchUp makes it easy for anybody to mock up a 3D digital model. Globalization means that jobs could be outsourced at a cheaper rate, and efficiency encouraged as any inventor can contact a Chinese factory, many of which are so hungry for American business that they will "create a prototype for next to nothing". Sites like Etsy.com make it easier to reach a market, and others, like Quirky.com, allow users to simply suggest an idea and share the royalties if it makes it to the market.Sounds amazing? True. However, it doesn't mean that the cost at which an invention is protected has evolved at the same rate over years. “The patent system has become rather costly for a small inventor,” says James Bessen, a lecturer at the Boston University School of Law. “Go back 100 years, and patents were very inexpensive to get. You didn’t have to have a lawyer to get one. The system is working in a very different way than it did years ago, and that favors large corporations.” The article mentions that the average costs for a patent are about $10,000 nowadays probably quite a considerable amount for many home inventors. Even though there's been some improvements since David Kappos has been appointed at United States Patent and Trademark Office in 2009, but the costs for defending a patent infringement lawsuit have still remained, at around $1 million.

It is true that in our context of wireless mobile technology this might seem a small problem, because there aren't many "home inventors" in this field to begin with – no individual can really spend millions and millions on R&D and hire the brightest straight out of the ivies, but we have seen again and again system-wide inefficiency associated even with these large companies' lawsuits. It'd be awesome to see in what directions the system would be improved / changed, because it is ultimately the one thing that shapes the future of all cases and inventions.

Week 13 Post 1: Microsoft vs Motorola (Google)

Google's Motorola was dealt a setback this week in its bid to land major royalty payments from Microsoft for sales of Windows and the Xbox. Judge fell in favor of Microsoft in the first round of an ongoing spat against Motorola over how much Microsoft should pay for using technology patented by Motorola in its products - and it was a lot less than the 12.5 billions <-- what Google has paid for Motorola Mobility [2.25 percent per product / almost 4 billion per year] Motorola wanted. The U.S. District Judge James Robart rules that 0.555 cents should be paid for products that use advanced video coding patents (like Windows and Xbox), and 3.471 cents for those that use a wireless patent (like the Xbox) <-- an annual payment of slightly less than 1.8 million. Microsoft is definitely happy because it is paying significantly less than what Motorola asks for, saying "[t]his decision is good for consumers because it ensures patented technology committed to standards remains affordable for everyone," while this ruling has severely injured Google. As a blogpost at Foss Patent has pointed out, "[a]t this level, it would take approximately 6,950 years -- almost seven millennia -- before Google's SEP royalty income from Microsoft would have paid for the overpriced, wasteful purchase of Motorola Mobility. Seven millennia." However, even if both companies are able to stick around for this long, this would never happen – these patents will expire in a matter of years.

However, this is still not the end of the story. Stemming from the same case back in 2010,  an August trial will be set off to be faced by the two sides, which will eventually determine whether Motorola has offered patent licenses on fair terms.

This just makes me wonder if Google really should just"give up on litigation and focus on licensing based on a realistic assessment of what its own patents are worth" (Foss Patents). The decision would be hard, obviously, given the time and capital it has already invested, but sunk costs are sunk costs.

Week 12 Post 2: Apple and Google (& Motorola)

According to Google's press release, there are two main reasons for its acquisition of Motorola


Benefits of the deal

• 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 choices

And why Motorola? Through having "a long history of innovation", there are so many patents that can be utilized (see the following).

• Its many industry milestones include the introduction of the world’s first portable cell phone nearly 30 years ago, and the StarTAC–the smallest and lightest phone in the world when it was launched.

Motorola Mobility has a long history of innovation in communications technology and the development of intellectual property.
(http://www.google.com/press/motorola/)

Essentially, for a major part it is implied that, using a quote from Foss Patent, "Google thinks that anybody who owns tens of thousands of patents in this industry would be able to settle any infringement issues, no matter their scale, through cross-license agreements that involve little or no money." This theory is very much challenged (and later proved to be flawed) following subsequent lawsuits against various companies, some I have mentioned in previous blogposts, and the newest this: Apple Inc. (AAPL) won a patent- infringement case brought by Google Inc. (GOOG)’s Motorola Mobility unit over a phone sensor, averting an order that could have hindered imports of the iPhone 4 into the U.S. Summarizing everything in one sentence, Google might want to reconsider its patent strategy.

Week 12 Post 1: "Patent it Yourself"?

After Monday's class, I wanted to see if there are available resources out there to help you patent your own stuff. Here is a famous "patent-it-yourself" book, many copies sold on Amazon, almost rated 5-star by the 35 customers that have bought and reviewed. A $28.96 Patent It Yourself: Your Step-by-Step Guide to Filing at the U.S. Patent Office. Sounds like a great bargain – given how much you'd have to pay patent attorneys, this really would save you a lot of money (assuming it works). On the front cover it says, "Learn about new patent laws, perform a patent search, and file your patent application". I am interested in exploring whether it is really feasible to do it this way.

Patent attorneys are highly qualified individuals.  In addition to having to successfully complete law school and taking a State Bar Examination, patent attorneys must have a scientific background or else they cannot even sit for the Patent Bar Examination. It is true that one might have the technical background, but he or she might lack the relevant experience in drafting a patent application. This professional who has spent years of time training, and years of time reading, writing and prosecuting patent applications for 40 to 60 hours a week is likely to know more, and way more efficient. Inventors would have to spend hours and hours of examining and learning about the patent system in order to be fluent in this special language. In addition, inventing and describing an invention might be two fundamentally different concepts. Quoting from Chief Judge Howard Markey of the United States Court of Appeals in 1988, "[it] illustrates one of the many difficult dichotomies that lurk in the lacunae of patent law. On one side rests the very important, statutorily-created necessity of employing the clearest possible wording in preparing the specification and claims of a patent, one of “the most difficult legal instruments to draw with accuracy.”  On the other lies the equally important, judicially-created necessity of determining infringement without the risk of injustice that may result from a blindered focus on words alone.

Patent it Yourself could be a good book, and readers might actually successfully get their patents going if they follow through every single step described in the book, and acquire good insight regarding the industry they are getting into, however, I doubt if it is really efficient to do it this way. Several hundred dollars vs lots of time, I am guessing it is probably wiser to spend some time figuring out what is the best way to start the patent process (e.g. when and where to get an attorney) under a budget.

Week 11 Post 2: Nokia vs HTC

Having narrowed its ITC complaint against HTC in a letter sent to Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Pender back in March, Nokia has once again streamlined its complaint. The company drops three patents from its complaint and will now focus on four patents-in-suit at the evidentiary hearing (trial) scheduled to begin on May 31.

Apparently originally Nokia has asserted 9 patents, including "reduction of power consumption in a mobile station" (U.S. Patent No. 5,570,369), which it has dropped in Oct 2012, "method for making a data transmission connection from a computer to a mobile communication network for transmission of analog and/or digital signals" (U.S. Patent No. 5,884,190), and many more. Prior to this streamlining, 2 patents have been dropped. Some of these streamlining is directly requested by ITC, for otherwise it'd be hard to keep the schedule running given the vast number of complaints it has to deal with every day. According to a blogpost at Foss Patent, "four patents is a pretty common number of patents to be asserted at ITC trials if the original complaint involved nine or ten patents. Larger sets of patents are quite uncommon at that stage."

The 3 patents dropped this time include a light guide patent  (U.S. Patent No. 7,106,293), and two closely-related database synchronization patents (U.S. Patent No. 6,141,664 and U.S. Patent No. 7,209,911).

So why did Nokia pick these 3?

Judge Pender had construed disputed terms over these 3 patents and Nokia has lost the claim construction battle on them. As suggested by Florian Mueller, "pursuing any claims over these patents seemed pretty pointless after the claim construction order".

Week 11 Post 1: Hon Hai and Microsoft

Hon Hai might not sound to you as one of the big players in the tech industry, but it is in fact the parent company of Foxconn, which manufactures more than 40 percent of the world's consumer electronics, while Hon Hai is the world’s largest contract electronics manufacturer that holds more than 54,000 patents worldwide
According to Foss Patents, Hon Hai has signed a worldwide patent license agreement with Microsoft to address infringement issues created by Google's Android and Chrome operating systems. 

Microsoft has already entered into license agreements with numerous device makers (including Samsung, HTC and LG) as well as contract manufacturers, and is apparently pretty proud of its way of dealing with patent infringements --> see the following
The patent agreement (referring to that with Hon Hai) is another example of the important role intellectual property (IP) plays in ensuring a healthy and vibrant technology ecosystem. Since Microsoft launched its IP licensing program in December 2003, the company has entered into more than 1,100 licensing agreements and continues to develop programs that open Microsoft’s IP portfolio for customers, partners and competitors. The program was developed to provide access to Microsoft’s significant R&D investments and its growing, broad patent and IP portfolio. Microsoft’s specific patent licensing program for Android device makers has resulted in signed license agreements with numerous companies including Samsung, LG, HTC, Acer and Barnes & Noble. (Microsoft)

However, such type is not endorsed by every company in the industry. Google, say for example, which has flatly denied that Android devices need a patent license from Microsoft, has its own Motorola Mobility subsidiary already lost in patent dispute with Microsoft (kind of, by a great distance). The company is not known for using "respectful approach" (suggested by Florian Mueller) like the one hugely used by Microsoft to intellectual property. To me, it sounds like the Microsoft approach is more like a win-win situation – both parties save huge amount of money from lawsuits, and the potential infringing party (who knows which ones) would not risk having sales bans implemented.

It'd really be great if studies could be done to see which way of dealing with patent infringement is better. Or, is there really a better way? 

Week 10 Post 2: Privacy

From a recent (maybe already outdated in the context of technology) article published on FierceWireless, it is said that Verizon has patented a mobile surveillance system that could track children and elderly. It really reminds me of class materials mentioned on Monday (cons of wireless devices) – despite the convenience it brings, money it saves, etc., it seems like there are some areas that the current system fails to address, such as potential privacy issues. Esp when telecommunication companies have a name for making customers sign things they are not aware of, I wonder how companies are gonna make use of such great amount of information collected. I mean, it's pretty clear that in the near future everybody will have at least 1 smartphone, right? It also really makes me wonder if relevant legislation / laws could be written in time because it seems to me that the legal system fails to keep up with the current U.S. patent system. What if a company / individual patents something that is found to be illegal later on?

Anyhow, more about the patent itself, according to the article.

Verizon filed the patent application on Sept. 2, 2011 (another demonstration of potential time costs incurred, which we have probably seen so many times already), but it was published last month (March, 2013). In the filing, Verizon details a mobile surveillance system, which includes wearable wireless devices, designed to transmit data wirelessly about a dangerous event happening to the user of the system or to send that user an alert about some kind of emergency event. Essentially, "one or more discrete user-wearable devices" could capture still images and video about what is going on around the user, and then send that data out.

Sounds smart and useful, but will we see it as a product soon? Nobody knows. The filing does not indicate whether the technology has been commercialized or for what market it might be used. According to the reporter, Verizon does a great deal of work with law enforcement agencies and so it may be designed for them and not for consumers.

Week 10 Post 1: Still Apple vs Samsung

In an earlier post in this blog, it is mentioned that the US ITC has once again postponed its decision on Samsung's complaint against Apple until May 31, 2013 and raised additional questions relating to FRAND licensing obligations and the impact of an exclusion order. (FOSS Patents)
Meanwhile, Samsung is experiencing "a sense of crisis", as CNN Money has mentioned in a post. Among the issues the chairman Lee Kun-Hee is expected to address, according to the Korea Times' chief Samsung watcher, Kim Yoo-Chul, is the ongoing patent disputes with Apple (AAPL). The Samsung vs Apple dispute is extremely important because the company is so reliant on its mobile phone business.

Anyhow, Lee seems to have great foresight by switching to an "emergency mode" starting in 2010, cutting executive paychecks and overseas travel (he also announced that most of Samsung's existing products would be gone in 10 years), given the numerous disputes it has against Apple right now. According to a FOSS blogpost, Germany's Bundespatentgericht (Federal Patent Court) ruled in Apple's favor and invalidated in its entirety (including any proposed amendments) the German part of Samsung's EP1005726 on a "turbo encoding/decoding device and method for processing frame data according to QoS", a patent Samsung had declared essential to the third-generation wireless standard.

Looking at the sales chart Samsung's Galaxy and iPhones, it really makes me wonder why Samsung is still investing great amount of money in mobile phone / smart phone related patent disputes, especially when the chairman has already addressed the issue of "over reliance" in earlier years. Could anybody shed some light?

Week 9 Post 2: Another Samsung vs Apple case

Seems like it's gonna take Apple and Samsung a couple more months for the U.S. International Trade Commission to decide whether iPhone and iPad sales should be banned due to patent violations. And nobody really knows when exactly – it is not the first time for ITC to delay its ruling since stating that it would revisit the case “in its entirety” last November. Following the claim raised by Samsung in June 2011, in September of last year, Judge James Gildea of the ITC had ruled that Apple did not violate any of the four Samsung patents that were in question. However, since the ruling was preliminary, the ITC's full six-member commission still had to render its decision, which was supposed to occur Tuesday, according to a CNET article.

Skepticism as been suggested by many "tech-insiders". One suggests that it is likely for ITC to be in favor of Samsung because it is otherwise unlikely for the U.S. trade agency to defer the process so many times. No one knows if it is true until the investigation is over. However, as one article at Foss Patent has also suggested, a full review is more of an opportunity for Samsung to achieve a better outcome than the four infringement findings of the original initial determination.

The patents involved include transmission technology, phone numbers detection from an email or Web page and finally, a technology that moves the document display page with the user's finger.

While a lot of people complain about the time taken for the ITC to process prelim rulings / final full reviews, it is really only reasonable for them to take so long. Firstly, the decision to be made is big. They have the authority to ban imports of patent-infringing products into the U.S., which is one of biggest markets in the world where companies generate most revenues. In addition, a more detailed technical justification for the ruling must be provided by administrative law judges compared to a jury. Its final determination also undergoes a presidential review. If ITC is asked to present their reviews in a more timely manner, it is only likely that the decisions made will be less reasonable and detailed.

Week 9 Post 1: Follow-up: Samsung vs Apple

Now that Judge Lucy Koh has ordered that Apple’s case against Samsung over search patents used in the Siri voice assistant can move forward, it means, as Florian Mueller has pointed out at his blog Foss Patents, it's now official that the new Apple v. Samsung trial in California could lead to a total damages award exceeding the original $1 billion verdict.According to an article at Mobile and Apps, in December 2012, Apple won a $1.5 billion verdict against Samsung in a San Jose, Calif., trial, but Judge Koh denied Apple's request for a permanent injunction against sales of infringing Samsung devices. Apple also filed a separate lawsuit accusing Samsung of violating a set of patents, including one related to Siri voice search technology. Earlier this year, Judge Lucy Koh expressed her concern regarding the need of another case focusing on the same matter using different patterns. She said at that time that ""I just don't know if we really need two cases on this." In addition, she told them she was not “joking” and it was time for “peace” between the two firms.This green light is given only conditionally, as both companies are asked to "significantly" simplify the scope of the case by reducing the number of expert witnesses and expert witnesses. It is exciting to see new progress in this epic battle between Apple and Samsung, esp when the judge is giving so many limitations – it is highly likely that she will inform both parties in the future of the way she expects this to proceed. Needless to say, this war is far from over.

Week 8 Post 2: Android's tethering feature

While some of us might not be familiar with the term "tethering", we sure are aware of how Internet can be shared using people's Android / Apple / HTC, etc. phones via portable computers. Then phones are literally turned into network routers. This feature, however, apparently is an infringement. As a matter of fact, Nokia just defeated HTC and Google with respect to this legal interpretation of patent no. 5,884,190.
As suggested by Foss Patent, " As a result, it appears very difficult for Google and HTC to deny infringement at the trial (which will start in two months' time), and if they cannot prove this patent invalid based on prior art (which would have to be older than June 1995), a U.S. import ban against HTC's Android devices is reasonably likely (unless, which is even more likely, HTC agrees to send royalty checks to Finland)."

This probably demonstrates a counter argument for those who claim that the current patent system only creates monopolies – one sole company in the industry that takes up all the market share, and in turns set up prices that are proportional to demand, instead of costs – and worse, customers suffer from the high price they pay. Is it what we observe today? True, we might have several industry leaders taking up the majority of the market share, but we are not at the absolute opposite of perfect competition?


Of course, we could again argue that the royalties are basically transferred to the customers because they are largely reflected in the retail price of digital device. Yup, there exists inefficiency – even Robinson Crusoe economy has inefficient solutions to problems, let alone our multinational complex modern society. Just that things might not be as bad as some think.

Week 8 Post 1: Standard-essential Patents in other parts of the country

So far we have only (officially during class) learnt about the patent system in the U.S., although during our research for the weekly blogposts we occasionally come across patent news in other countries (e.g. Nokia winning the case against HTC in Germany).
See this link for more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/19/us-nokia-htc-court-idUSBRE92I0X520130319

According to this post at Foss Patents: Standard-essential patent litigation arrives in India as Ericsson sues local player Micromax, Ericsson has sued a local Indian company called Micromax – a handset manufacturing firm that has considerable market share in the world. According to their website
Our Strategy focuses on innovating, designing and using the latest technologies to develop products at affordable prices.
So if they are so innovative, what draws them into the a lawsuit?
The Times of India: [NEW DELHI] Ericsson, the world's largest mobile network infrastructure player, has sued homegrown handset major Micromax for patent infringement, marking the arrival of big-tickettechnology patent litigation to Indian shores. The claimed damages make it the largest patent suit in Indian IT and telecom space, reckon patent experts. Ericsson alleged that India's largest domestic handset maker has refused to enter into a licensing agreement covering its patented innovations across several wireless technology standards such as GSM, Edge and 3G.


How is this position unique in India? Given the low-cost nature in the business models of many Indian hardware / IT / handset / tablet companies, if the Delhi Hight Court actually upholds Ericsson's suits. (These companies include Lava, Spice, Karbonn, and Intex Technologies, needless to say Micromax among them with the largest market share.)
"Executives close to Micromax said they would abide by the interim order and pointed out that the court had asked both parties to negotiate a FRAND licence agreement which would be valid till the next hearing. These executives said Micromax would deposit the interim payment with the court. "


What do you guys think about it? Impacts globally on market structure / individual structure of firms in different parts of the world?

Week 7 Post 2: Microsoft

Although Microsoft might be struggling to get its Windows Phone 7/8/X platform/OS out there, its mobile revenue isn't low compared to many of the OS leaders including Apple and Android. Microsoft has received $792 million in patent royalties from just two companies in a single quarter [Q1/Q2 2012], Samsung and HTC, according to the analyst firm Trefis. The Boy Genius site reports that analysts at Trefis provided those numbers. They based them on estimates that HTC pays Microsoft $10 per Android device in patent royalties, and Samsung pays between $10 and $12 per Android device in patent royalties.

And that's hardly the end of the story. Now Microsoft and Nikon, the world leader in imaging products, have signed Android patent agreement, according to a Microsoft news release. According to the release, "[t]he patent agreement is another example of the important role intellectual property (IP) plays in ensuring a healthy and vibrant IT ecosystem." In addition, “Microsoft and Nikon have a long history of collaboration, and this agreement further demonstrates the value that both companies place on responsible IP licensing,” said David Kaefer, general manager of Intellectual Property (IP) Licensing at Microsoft. “Microsoft is proud to align with a leader in the digital camera industry to license Android technology for the benefit of Nikon’s customers.”

Who's on the list? Samsung, HTC and LG, now Nikon.

Microsoft is definitely proud of the way it deals with patent infringement. Microsoft pledged to make clear its own patent holdings and urged other companies to do the same. Microsoft said it would publish by April 1, on the Web, information that would allow anyone to determine which patents the company owns, Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith said in a blog post. Smith had participated earlier today on a panel discussion in Washington, D.C., on software patents and the patent system sponsored by BSA | The Software Alliance and the National Association of Manufacturers. Microsoft also called for a “loser pays” system in patent cases as a way of deterring frivolous lawsuits, particularly from “patent assertion entities” — firms that acquire patents but most often do not use those patents to manufacture products of their own.


Source: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/microsoftpri0/2013/02/21/microsoft-signs-nikon-to-android-patent-licensing-deal-pushes-for-patent-reforms/

Week 7 Post 1: Inefficiency in the current system?

Looking at a recent post at Foss Patents which covers software patent news and issues with a particular focus on wireless, mobile devices (smartphones, tablet computers), and several other posts from students in this class, we all seem to notice the existence of inefficiency in the current patent system. These patent wars are almost like TV series, industry leaders have been going back and forth suing each other to the point that it is hard to keep track of who is accusing whom of infringing another innovative design (just look at these pictures below) (some might be a little outdated and you know why).

"It may not be how the patent system was envisioned to operate, but this is the way that the business has evolved among these tech giants--because there's so much money at stake, and it's so competitive, and the marketplace is changing so rapidly," says David Mixon, patent attorney for Bradley Arant Boult Cummings.  "Everybody is desperate to secure any kind of competitive advantage that they can in the marketplace." Unfortunately, as Mixon has suggested, this is the sad truth of today's wireless mobile devices / technology industry. Mobile patents and lawsuits are incorporated into the business model as a strategic move to capture market share, whether through actual royalties, successfully implementing sales ban on rival companies or just branding itself out there, creating an image of a "true innovator".

Week 6: Post 2 Nokia?

"Nokia on Tuesday filed a brief with a U.S. federal appeals court supporting Apple's bid to block the sale of Samsung products a jury found to be in infringement of certain Cupertino-owned patents." Reported Mikey Campbell in an AppleInsider article. 
Quoting the accompanying motion of the otherwise completely sealed brief, Nokia asserts that if such a precedent of involving consumer demand as a factor before securing a permanent injunction against offending products, the ability of patent holders to file lawsuit to halt sales in the other party would be significantly crippled. 


The “causal nexus” requirement as applied by the district court here, making the evidentiary standard for obtaining a permanent injunction so burdensome and strict that it may rarely, if ever, be met, will essentially lead to a compulsory-licensing system wherein patent holders are forced to license patented technology to competing firms, which could in turn harm incentives to innovate.

The CAFC has delegated Apple's appeal to a three-judge panel before the full court hears the case. 
It is interesting to note that Nokia supports Apple in fighting to impose a sales ban on the Korean firm. Perhaps it is because, as they have mentioned, that "patent owners routinely issue threats of injunctions for patent infringement [to Nokia]". Any thoughts?

Week 6: Post 1 Apple vs Samsung

Regarding the Apple versus Samsung lawsuits in California (involving technology in newer smartphones made by both companies, Galaxy S III and iPhone 5), federal judge Koh entered a case management order relating to the second case, which started in February 2012. She said at a recent hearing that 'she wants the case to be narrowed substantially or would otherwise order a formal stay or simply delay resolution.' Needless to say, Apple suffers gravely from this decision because all it wants is to enforce the intellectual property right asap while Samsung's on going sales is skyrocketing every day and it also plans to launch several new devices. By giving such order, Judge Koh is expressing skepticism on whether both cases need to proceed, especially when the first is an appeal from Apple. (http://macdailynews.com/2012/12/20/apple-appeals-judge-lucy-kohs-refusal-to-bar-samsungs-patent-infringing-smartphones-from-u-s-market/)

As a result, Apple has recently objected to the possible situation where the lawsuit originally scheduled in 2014 will be put on hold while an appeals court reviews an August verdict in an earlier case. 

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/second-apple-samsung-case-in-california.html

OS for Wireless Mobile Devices (again!)

Now going back to the actual OS market itself, it's good to see iOS and Android are not the only dominant players anymore. LG webOS, BlackBerry Z10, Mozilla Firefox OS, Ubuntu OS, Samsung Tizen are among new mobile operating systems that are trying to attract world’s attention towards them.

So the following are info regarding mobile phones / smartphones OS for dummies.

How do I know what operating system my mobile phone has?

Because operating systems are so integrated with the look, feel and function of a mobile phone, many people base their choice of device around which operating system it uses.

If you have already bought your smartphone, the name and version of its software should be detailed in the settings menu. However, if you are buying a new phone, the operating system can be found the handset's specifications information.

What different kinds of smartphone operating systems are there?

Some are open source software, which means there are no restrictions on what you can download on it, or who can develop its software (there are often a 'community' of developers) - it is entirely customisable, whilst others are restricted in the types of software permitted to run on the device.

Source: http://www.uswitch.com/mobiles/guides/mobile_operating_systems/

OS for wireless mobile devices

OS for wireless mobile devices basically gave rise to the whole "always-online" concept. The extended battery life and communication process allow users to constantly engage in some sort of online activities  and receive real-time notifications / messages anywhere.

I am guessing the original goal of creating different / more efficient OS systems is just to capture potential market share / attract new customers, but the maybe unintended economic implication is actually huge. Think about the current online advertising industry. Ad spending is projected to grow dramatically.

Now think about the user penetration rate of mobile phones / smartphones and tablets.


What it implies is that advertising revenues follow audiences, and Internet users are increasingly migrating to mobile platforms – by 2014, half of U.S. web browsing will be done on mobile devices.

It is just amazing to see how technological innovation has given rise to tremendous business opportunities – I believe online advertising is just one of the many many.

"Does Apple’s HTC Agreement Indicate A Softening Of Its Approach To Patent Litigation?"

This is probably old news to you. 

Press release from Apple:

HTC and Apple have reached a global settlement that includes the dismissal of all current lawsuits and a ten-year license agreement. The license extends to current and future patents held by both parties. The terms of the settlement are confidential.

“HTC is pleased to have resolved its dispute with Apple, so HTC can focus on innovation instead of litigation,” said Peter Chou, CEO of HTC.

“We are glad to have reached a settlement with HTC,” said Tim Cook, CEO of Apple. “We will continue to stay laser focused on product innovation.”

http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/10/apple-and-htc-settle-remaining-lawsuits/

Do you think Samsung will be interested in such HTC-style settlements? Samsung has obviously rejected licensing deals offered by Apple multiple times, including those for iPhone and iPad-related patents at around $30 - $40 per phone and tablet a few years back. Although executives from both companies have made effort in trying to come up with  an arrangement that benefit both, little progress is seen.

New marketing strategy?

http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/21/this-new-apple-patent-could-be-the-design-for-a-radical-iwatch-with-a-wraparound-display/

"The patent in question describes a wrist-mounted flexible screen, built on a support structure that closely resembles the “slap bracelets” children of the nineties will likely recall. When worn, the screen could provide an unbroken display that wraps all the way around the wearer’s wrist."

Following Apple's filing of the recent patent, numerous sources have mentioned that this iWatch is likely to be in production. Reports from Bloomberg, the NY Times, and the Wall Street Journal have generated interest in the tech world, if not the general public. I just thought companies would potentially use patent filing as a new channel of marketing and advertisement of their new and to-be-in-the-market products. A smart way, too. The media voluntarily dig up this piece of information and create rumors about potential exciting products. Companies that make those products undoubtedly get the most out of it.

Patenting ideas that are really not yours?

I did some more research on patent myths and read this article from Entrepreneur.com: Top 10 Patent Myths

I feel compelled to post the intro of the article:

Given that most businesses aren't built on truly original ideas, patents can seem like more trouble than they're worth. However, integrating patents into your business plan, regardless of whether you're an inventor, is one of the most overlooked elements of a successful business.

[Read it it's worth your time! Esp if you want to start something of your own.]

Given the idea of patenting still remains relatively new to most smaller-scale businesses, this strategy could potentially lead to the success of many. However, I also question that if this complies with the original purpose of a "patent". Isn't it really to protect innovation and new technology? Apparently there are loopholes out there that businesses and people can take advantage of. 

What are PATENT TROLLS?

There definitely exists a bunch of people / companies not trying to be innovative and create new ideas but, quoting Obama, "...[are] essentially trying to leverage and hijack somebody else’s idea and see if they can extort some money out of them.” They are referred to as "Patent Trollers".

So how exactly is patent trolling defined?

Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company that enforces its patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered unduly aggressive or opportunistic, often with no intention to manufacture or market the product. A related, less pejorative expression is non-practicing entity (NPE) which describes a patent owner who does not manufacture or use the patented invention.

The President also commented that his administration wants to, “make sure the patents are long enough that people’s intellectual property rights are protected.” I think the bigger problem is that some patents are so vague, they’re not protecting intellectual property, they only serve to stop others from innovating, or provide trolls with fodder for a lawsuit.

http://www.geekosystem.com/obama-calls-out-patent-trolls/