POST 28: Patent My Genes?

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/guest-post-nine-reasons-why-the-supreme-court-should-side-with-myriad-and-affirm-the-patenting-of-isolated-human-genes.html


Recently, the Supreme Court heard an case over patenting genes. The case, AMP V. Myriad Genetics was hotly contested over whether someone can patent a gene.

Do you own your own genes? That was the question of many of the judges. While, they seemed to all argue that you own your own genes, can you own a gene that no one has but could have in the future? The American Civil Liberties Union thinks no, and so they challenged the Salt-Lake City based Myriad Genetics who claims to own two such genes. The plantiffs content the gene patents are unconstitutional, because the product of nature cannot be patented. 

"The care available to patients should not be restricted because the naturally occurring building blocks of human biology have been inappropriately patented. Opportunities for scientific research and medical care based on human genes must remain available to all and exclusive to none," said Jeremy Lazarus, president of the American Medical Association, in a statement prior to oral argument. The patented genes under consideration in the Supreme Court case are associated with breast and ovarian cancer. Using a patient's blood sample, scientists can extract these two genes, known as BRCA1 (frequently pronounced "braca one") and BRCA2 ("braca two"), isolating them from their cellular structure.

What should be done? 

Patented genes could help end many diseases. In reality, genes will almost certainly be patented in the future. Genes hold many of the answers to many of our problems. Ultimately if there is demand for a cure, in this case genes that cure disease, then people will pay for it and therefore it becomes legal. 

The court is expected to rule in June, and the reverberations of its finding might be felt broadly. Twenty percent of all human genes, a startling 24,000 molecular sequences, are protected under U.S. patents, according to a 2005 study published in Science magazine. Many of these patents were issued during the biotech boom of the 1980s and 1990s.


What do you think? Should the courts rule in favor or against patents like this? What are the long-term positives and negatives of this? Are Humans ready for large-scale genetic manipulation? Can the Human body really be patented? Comment below!

Post 27: Motorola In Trouble With EU

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/06/ec_motorola_antitrust_finding/


It seems that Google's Motorola missed patents against Apple in Europe. Motorola was informed by the European Comission that the company's use of Standard-Essential Patents (SEP's) was a violation of the European Union's anti-trust laws.

The decision was annouced after investigators started a two year examination of the Apple's suits with Microsoft. These suits were used by Motorola to claim its SEP's under the fair rules of FRAND terms.

"Specifically, the EC says it believes that Motorola having sought and enforced an injunction against Apple based on its mobile phone–related SEPs "amounts to an abuse of a dominant position.The protection of intellectual property is a cornerstone of innovation and growth," EC competition policy veep Joaquín Almunia said in a canned statement on Monday. "But so is competition. I think that companies should spend their time innovating and competing on the merits of the products they offer – not misusing their intellectual property rights to hold up competitors to the detriment of innovation and consumer choice."

In Motorola's case it seems that part of the strategy may have violated the EU trade rules. But before the verdict, Motorola have the chance to defend its self against accusations and request a hearing to make its own argument.  If Motorola does not make an effective argument, Motorola will be fined a massive amount. That massive amount is 10 percent of its worldwide annual revenue. 

What should the courts do? Isn't 10 percent of world revenue a bit steep? Let me know below!

POST 26: Apple's New iPhone Patent

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Apple-files-patents-for-curved-and-non-rectangular-batteries-for-mobile-devices_id42623?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+phonearena%2FySoL+(Phone+Arena+-+Latest+News)


Recently, Apple, Inc. filled for a new patent that involves the iPhone 6. This new iPhone will looking very different to the current model according to this patent.

" One is for a "curved battery cell" and the other for a "non-rectangular battery". Both patent applications were filed on Oct. 28, 2011. According to the filing, "the curve is formed to facilitate efficient use of space inside a portable electronic device." Although, it should be noted that Apple's filing for curved battery cells use the same pouch mechanism as other curved batteries already on the market. "

What i take from this new patent is not that they filed a patent for a curved battery, but instead they filed two. Why file two. It's likely that they think that filing one patent for a curved battery and one for a "non-rectangular battery battery" they are protecting themselves from both a possible future suit and or infrindgement. Apple has quickly been losing the smartphone battle. This new patent will hopefully give Apple some Intellectual property advantage over its competitors. While a curved battery could be implemented in a device with a more dramatically new design, the non-rectangular battery is something that fits more into what we've already seen from Apple. Apple loves to use tapered edges on devices to make them lighter and  seem thinner, so being able to taper the battery could help fit a bigger battery into a tapered design. 

Will this patent help apple? Is this the right technique for Apple to use in order to compete? Should Apple be filing for more of these Curved battery patents?

POST 25: USPTO's Maintenance Fee Outcry

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/responding-to-usptos-new-maintenance-fee-regime.html

The USPTO recently introduced a new fee system, and people don't seem to like it. The new system changes the fees by increasing them about 50%. Understandably, people were shocked by the sudden
increase. The major increase has allowed smary patent holders to pay the renewal fees early. This early payment allows the patent holders to pay upto a half year early in some cases or six months late too.

"According to the Federal Register Notice:

[The new fee structure will] will provide the Office with a sufficient amount of aggregate revenue to recover its aggregate cost of patent operations, while helping the Office implement a sustainable funding model, reduce the current patent application backlog, decrease patent application pendency, improve patent quality, and upgrade the Office’s patent business information technology (IT) capability and infrastructure. The fees also will further key policy considerations [and implement the new reduces fees for micro entities.]

The Federal Register Notice outlines the following “policy” objectives, and they ways in which the fee structure is designd to serve them:

1. Fostering innovation
   • setting the basic filing, search and examination fees below cost-recovery levels to encourage innovators
   • offering fee reductions for micro and small entities
   • setting the issue and maintenance fees above cost-recovery levels to encourage release of less valuable patents to the public domain
2. Facilitating effective administration of the patent system
   • encourage actions that enable examiners to provide prompt, quality interim and final decisions
   • encourage the prompt conclusion of prosecution
   • help recover the additional costs imposed by some applicants’ more intensive use of certain services
3. Offering patent prosecution options to applicants
   • offering staged fees for RCEs, appeals, and contested cases"

However, why do this? Is the USPTO making it easier or harder to file a patent. And if harder, shouldn't the increase in difficulty go to security for the patent holders?

.

POST 24: NOKIA V. HTC

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/nokia-streamlines-itc-case-against-htc.html


It seems that a motion for partial termination by Nokia against HTC has been filed. Nokia has dropped three patents from the list of patent violations in hopes of making a stronger case. While dropping the three however, they added four patents at the evidentiary trial.

"The three patents Nokia has dropped are US. patent No. 7,106293 , which is a light guide patent (the Mannheim Regional Court had  held the German equivalent of this one not to be infringed by HTC), and two closely-related database synchronization patents. On March 22 I pointed out that one of the patents-in-suit indeed appears to read on tethering and could have enormous commercial value to Nokia going forward. I also expressed my belief that Nokia would "consider withdrawing three" of the five patents with respect to which Judge Pender had construed disputed terms. The three that Nokia has now withdrawn are precisely the ones with respect to which it lost the claim construction battle. So I'm not surprised in the slightest. Pursuing any claims over these patents seemed pretty pointless after the claim construction order, but claim construction is the kind of guidance that parties really need so they can choose which claims to drop and which ones to focus on."

Currently, Nokia has only won against HTC in a German court suit. HTC is therefore counter suing this suit in Germany. HTC is more or less asserting a power-saving patent in its S3 graphics company as well as Qualcomm's Snapdragon chip. 

What do you guys think about all this? Let me know!

POST 23: Double Patenting Issues

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/double-patenting-problems-when-inventors-move-to-a-new-employer.html

In that past, the United States Patent law recognized inventors as the original patent owners. Conception of the invention imbues the inventor with an inchoate patent right that can then fully realized realized by successfully completeing patenting process. However this may be changing.

 "Inventorship is perhaps the most fundamental question in patent law. The instant an inventor conceives her invention is the moment in which vests her right to a patent, thus perfecting her constitutional right to exclude." (Judge Reyna inDawson writing in dissent). Ownership of that inchoate right is usually transferred to the inventor's employer as required by the individual employment contract. Without such a contract, the inventor retains ownership rights. Although the America Invents Act shifts some weight away from the primacy-of-invention, it does nothing to change this fundamental precept that rights are created at conception and held by the inventor until transferred."

Of the two applications, the Caltech application was both the first invented and first filed. That means that the later ETH Zürich cannot serve as prior art. However, the PTO rejected the Caltech application under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. The doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting is not statutory but instead a judicially created equitable doctrine Normally, this type of rejection is not fatal because the patentee can file a paper known as a terminal disclaimer that both (1) disclaims any term of enforcement that extends beyond the other patent and (2) agrees to that both patents will be co-owned throughout their lifespan. The problem here is that the patents are not co-owned and Caltech cannot make that promise.

It seems to me what happened in this instance is that the USPTO screwed up and should not have issued the second-filed patent (the ETH-Zurich application with different inventive entities named). The proper "solution" to address the "multiple harassment" policy issue is an interference/derivation proceeding, or for the USPTO to recognize its error or initiate re-exam of the second patent sua sponte in view of the earlier filed application.

POST 22: TROLLS

http://gigaom.com/2013/04/12/rackspace-fights-patent-troll-in-the-name-of-every-mobile-developer/

Rackspace is mad. While they have always been quite adamant above not supporting patent trolls they have recently fought a troll in court. They even won. And, now furious, they have sued the troll from damages.


"It is sad, but true, that Rackspace is just one of many companies dealing with endless suits over dubious patents. It’s a never-ending game of whack-a-troll. What is different, though, is that we have decided to break the silence and shine a bright light on these patent-powered parasites."

I have one thing to say. LETS GO RACKSPACE! Good for them, I too despise Patent Trolls. Its one thing to have a legitimate idea patent. Its a whole other thing to have a stockpile of patents used against helpless company. Patent trolls do one thing, and one thing only - thats hinder progress. 

"IPRs can be risky and costly. We know this IPR will cost us more than the $75,000 that Rotatable wanted to extort from us. But we are not just fighting for us; we are fighting for all the app developers who are also in the line of fire. As the noted software engineer and blogger Joel Spolsky wrote, “Life is a bit hard sometimes, and sometimes you have to step up and fight fights that you never signed up for.”

Im so proud of Rackspace, these trolls are just that. TROLLS. Go back under the bridge to where you came from...

POST 21: Microsoft V. ZTE

http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobile-technology/zte-agrees-android-chrome-patent-licensing-microsoft-217176

It seems that Microsoft has inked an agreement with China's ZTE Newtork for its ANDROID and CHROME patent licensing program. A lot of this information is not totally confirmed currently, however, it does seem that this is credible.

"Financial details of deal were not disclosed. But the agreement gives ZTE access to Microsoft patents covering phones, tablets, computers, and other devices running Google's Android and Chrome operating systems."

But according to Microsoft, the two operating systems also use technologies patented by the company. Previously, Microsoft has filed lawsuits against Android device makers for patent infringement.

"But two major holdouts still remain. Chinese company Huawei, the world's third largest smartphone vendor, along with Google and its Motorola Mobility business, have yet to sign on."

What is your opinion of this? Is Microsoft in the right? What about China's ZTE Network? Very interesting indeed. What about Huawei? Huawei is making moves to dominate the US market as you read these. They already are the number one Telecommunication Hardware company in the United States. Let Me know!!

Post 20:Google Gaming Console?

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/google-faces-double-hurdle-in-whats.html


It seems that over 2 years after Motorola sued Microsoft Xbox, Google has still not gained an import ban.

" On march 22, a judge issued a ruling  recommending the dismissal of the remainder of the complaint, and based on the detailed version of Judge David Shaw's remand initial determination that was published today, it's going to be fairly difficult for Google (Motorola Mobility's owner) to persuade the Comission (the six-member decision-making body at the top of the U.S. trade agency) to overrule Judge Shaw. At this point, only one patent -- a WiFi-related but not standard-essential one -- is still in the game. Google withdrew two of its patents in January."

I have to wonder. Is Google planning a gaming console of its own? An Import ban would allow Google to perhaps dominate that market. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have not improved their console in 8 years. While they all surely have plans for a next generation console, one has to wonder if Google wants to get into this market. After Google has been developing various products that have little to do with the search engine. For example, the Google car, Google phone, Google glass. There are even rumors of a Google Space Elevator in the works.

Post 19: USPTO Trying To Reduce RCE Pileup

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/03/uspto-takes-action-to-reduce-rce-backlog.html

There is a growing concern that the backlog of RCE, requests for continued examination, are growing too rapidly.  This concern is from the USPTO, and they are worried that too many of the of RCE's have not received first action. 

"The increased backlog is explained by both a slight rise in the number of RCEs being filed each month and a slight drop in the number of RCEs being examined. The drop in examination rates for these RCEs is explained by changes in the docketing, quota, and count system for examiners. These changes implemented by former Director Kappos slightly decreased the "counts" given for examining RCEs and also allowed examiners to delay examining RCEs without direct penalty. You'll note the annual dip in the backlog around September – the time when some examiners rush to make their end-of-fiscal-year numbers."

It is interesting that there are less backlogs in September, partly because REC examiners need to reach yearly number goals prior to the end of the company's yearly goals. The USPTO has to fix this problem by going back to their old system. This old system allowed for more credits for RCE backlogging. The more credits, the more examiners will work to decrease the backlog. 





What do you guys think? It is certainly a problem that needs to be solved. Reducing RCE's is a vital part of a healthy patent system. Its unfair to the filers if their patent isnt examined fairly and most importantly - in a timely fashion. 

POST 18: Patent Application Filings Increasing

It seems that the amount of patent filings is growing at a rapid pace. 

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/03/pre-aia-filing-numbers.html
What is the cause of such an increase of patent filings? It is partly due to a March 15th deadline of way a patent could be filed. New rules, set in place March 16th, have made it harder to gain patents. 


"In January and February 2013, filing averaged about 7,100 non-provisional applications per week. In the three weeks before the change-over, the filing increased substantially. In all, about one-month worth of extra applications were filed during those three weeks (about 33,000 non-provisional applications). As the chart shows, applicants also ramped-up filing of provisional applications"

Is this a good idea? Should patents be harder to file or easier? Will this new law help lessen the amount of legal battles over patents? Will the law instead make these legal battles even bigger?

It's hard to say now. However, it is clear that those who were able to file their patent prior to the march 15ht deadline have an advantage over those who don't. The value of a patent therefore went up, meaning that the stake are higher than ever in the outcomes of these patent wars. It will however, create less of these battles despite the stakes being higher. By making patents harder to file, the holder will have to be even more specific. 

POST 17: Ericsson V. Micromax

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/standard-essential-patent-litigation.html

Recently, Sony Ericsson sued Indian Micromax. This conflict has arrived over an increasing enforcement of Standard-essential patents (SEP) in Asia. The Delhi High chourt order the company, Micromax, to "make a deposit" for Ericsson's financial interest.

"The royalties to be deposited are category-specific and set forth in the order as follows:

• "A. For phones/devices capable of GSM : 1.25% of sale price.
• B. For phones/devices capable of GPRS + GSM : 1.75% of sale price.
• C. For phones/devices capable of EDGE + GPRS + GSM : 2% of sale price.
• D. WCDMA/HSPA [UMTS] phones/devices, calling tablets : 2% of the sale price.
• E. Dongles, data cards : USD 2.50""

These Royalty rights are quite high, although we are dealing with intellectual property infringement in India. IP is critical to the growth of an emerging market, and Ericsson is no exception.  Afterall India does not have the best reputation so far when it comes to patent protection. Compared to China, India is far less advanced in protection of foreign and Domestic IP. This needs to change. A emerging market can have loose patent laws, in fact many should. However, if a country like India, has too loose of a legal enforcement, companies like Sony Ericsson will leave India. While Ericsson leaving India would not destroy the economy, it would create a chain reaction of other companies leaving. That would cause a economic disaster for India.

An interesting note, is that Ericsson has been on an patent suing rampage recently, with Ericsson accusing Samsung of FRAND violations, and many more SEP cases with various other companies.

Leave your opinions below!

POST 16: Apple Can Seek More Money From Samsung

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/samsung-filing-confirms-apple-can-seek.html

It seems that the $1,000,000,000 dollars in damages that Samsung has payed to Apple may be just he beginning.  The California trial of Apple v. Samsung could lead to a damages award that is much greater than the original 1 billion dollar ruling. Earlier there were rumors that the 1 billion dollar verdict was cut down to only 600 million. Yet while the ruling was reduced, it actually allows Apple to gain more money from Samsung. 

"A new jury could theoretically even arrive at a higher number given that the first jury granted Apple only about 40% of what the court allowed it to present as a damages claim". Judges are gatekeepers with respect to what damages theories are presented to a jury, so Apple apparently had a plausible, defensible claim to a total of $2.5 billion. The jury sided with Apple on the vast majority of liability issues, but it didn't award Apple even half of what it legitimately asked for in damages."

The March 1 damages have shortened the product-specific periods of time in which Apple can seek new damages against Samsung basically. Apple could stand to not make back the 450 million dollars, yet they likely will. In fact, according to the article, its likely they will gain much more than the 450 million that they lost. I would not be surprised if they increase the damages to 700 million. That would make a damage verdict of 1.35 billion.  While this is certainly a steep price to pay, Samsung clearly stole from Apple. Even more so, Samsung looks like its going to dominate the smartphone market in the near future. 

While I think that a 1+ Billion damages verdict is fair in the case of Apple v Samsung, there should be limits when a large company is seeking damages against smaller companies.  Do you agree? Let me know. 

POST 15: Google's Greedy Pledge

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/googles-promise-not-to-assert-10.html

Google is trying to improve its image it seems. Last week, Google decided that it would allow 10 of its patents to  be unasserted against open source software. The move is certainly more of a public relations effort than a genuine gift by Google. Google may be allowing these patents to go unasserted, but Google has hundreds of other patents - many of them very similar to the 10 unasserted - that they could assert against your company. 

"The problem with patent pledges and pools is not what's in them -- it's what's not in them. As a result, those pledges didn't prove to be helpful in any way (I'm sure that not even one lawsuit has been avoided because of those pledges) and quickly fell out of favor. For almost eight years no major industry player joined these companies in publishing a list of patents that would not be asserted against open source."

Its interesting to compare Google's pledge with other companies with a large stockpile of patents at their disposal. For example, currently IBM has pledged 500, and Sun approximately 1,600. Its amazing how few patents Google pledged in comparison

I have to question why Google even did this. Pledging ten patents just makes them seem greedy and seem like a tyrant compared to its patent pledging rivals. 

What do you think? Was this worth Google doing? Was this a mistake? Is Google trying to cover up its inner evil?

POST 14: Inventors Race to File Patents

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324077704578360681887241150.html

This weekend I came across an interesting Wall Street Journal Article about the race to file patents. the article talked about the current changes in the United States that will recently took effect. These changes made the process much harder and a lot more expensive. 

"On Saturday, the U.S. will switch to a "first-to-file" system. As a result, the PTO will give priority to those who file their applications first regardless of any independent evidence that another inventor may have actually come up with the idea earlier. The switch was made largely to harmonize U.S. law with the rest of the world, most of which follows versions of the "first-to-file" system."

Such changes could pose many challenges to entrepreneurs or small business owners. The new measures will raise the bar on what it takes to establish a viable patent.

"For instance, patent applications made in other countries have long been considered prior art only if they were published in English. Under the new law, foreign patent applications will be considered prior art regardless of what language they're in."

In my opinion, such patent law is harmful to the U.S. economy. The United States has always been the inventor rather than the copier. Small businesses and inventors should be helped not hurt! The U.S. does not need this strict rules, its the countries that copy us that do...

Post 13: The FRAND Ruling

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/itc-postpones-samsung-apple-ruling.html

The ITC, or the United States International Trade Commission, recently extended its ruling over Samsung vs Apple. This extension give the commission more time to assess the outcome of the case. The Extension was necessary due to a recently found infringement of the FRAND Patent.

"The Commission notice focuses on the scenario of an infringement finding of the asserted claims (75, 76, and 82-84) of U.S. Patent No. 7,706,348 on an "apparatus and method for encoding/decoding transport format combination indicator in CDMA mobile communication system", an allegedly UMTS-essential patent. Given the advanced stage of this investigation it's pretty clear that the Commission is presently inclined to hold Apple to have infringed at least one of the asserted claims of the '348 patent. That's why public interest considerations regarding an import ban against the accused products as well as FRAND licensing issues (relating to the history of negotiations between the parties) are now the kinds of topics on which the Commission is seeking further input."

If Samsung convinces the ITC that all the previous rulings were wrong, and Samsung does get a import ban on apple, the ban would not include current products. In fact, if Samsung were to get the ITC to rule in favor of the ban, the ban would not even apply to most of the old apple products. 

"In the proceedings before the ALJ Samsung accused only older Apple products of infringement of the '348 patent: the AT&T models of the iPhone 4 (but not the 4S or 5), 3GS and 3, and of the iPad 3G and iPad 2 3G. The specific issue here is that Apple switched baseband chip suppliers. Its newer products come with Qualcomm chips, and the licensing situation between Qualcomm and Samsung is a different one than the agreement Samsung had in place with Intel and Infineon (Intel acquired Infineon's wireless baseband chip division). The iPhone 4S and the "new iPad 4G" were the first Apple products to come with Qualcomm chips. Courts in France and Italy agreed with Apple that Samsung's license agreement with Qualcomm precluded it from seeking cellular SEP-based injunctions against Apple products incorporating Qualcomm baseband chips."

Hopefully the extension of the ruling will allow the ITC to better look over the infringement. A ban of previous Apple products would be, in my honest opinion, absolutely crazy. What do you think?

Post 12: A Future Germany Without Google Maps.

http://www.geekosystem.com/google-maps-facing-german-ban/


The Germans are lost. Not in ideology, but in literally. Or at least they may be in future with the fact that Google Maps may soon be banned in Germany's future. This ban is a result of a violation of European Union Privacy law. However the actual reason for the ban is due to a patent dispute with none other than the ugly kid on the block, Microsoft.

The patent in question is for “a computer system for identifying local resources,” and although Microsoft originally brought suit against the Google subsidiary Motorola. Mobility to block the Android app for Google Maps, but Motorola said they didn’t know how the Google Maps servers operated. That’s when Microsoft added Google itself to its lawsuit.

Now if Microsoft actually wins this legal matter, Google Maps will either have to completely leave Germany, or pay a steep royalty. Google Maps would not be allowed from any computer with a German IP address. It would also stop Android phones form downloading Google Maps in the future. Google in reality would have no choice. Many other companies already pay Microsoft for these exact patents. Examples are LG, Samsung, HTC, and many other lesser known companies.

Here's the thing, Google is likely to lose this case. Soon enough the world will know the outcome of this case. What should Google do if they lose? Give in to Microsoft or leave Germany completely?

Post 11: Apple Wins, Over The Pond.

Earlier today I saw this article pop up on my news feed.

http://www.cogonews.com/aapl-apple-inc-nasdaqaapl-wins-another-patent-war-against-apple-in-the-uk/125049/#

Apple has won once again. The loser is once again Samsung. However, this trial did not happen in America - instead it took place in the United Kingdom. The Judge gave a verdict that believed that Apple products do not infringe on any patents Owned by Samsung over the ability to receive and send data from devices. This patent ruling was only having to do with 3G networks. A separate trial having to do with Apple stealing 4G related patents is still on going.  While Apple is obviously quite happy with the outcome, Samsung is quite anger. This anger stems from a recently ruling in the U.S. ordering Samsung to pay Apple almost 500 Million dollars. 

"A spokeswoman for Samsung stated that the company is not satisfied with the court’s decision and that Samsung will review the verdict meticulously and decide whether to file for an appeal. She also said that the company has heavily invested in championing the growth of technological innovations in the mobile industry for years which has been constantly revealed in its products."


Perhaps the reason why Samsung lost was due to the fact that they wanted a whopping "2.5% royalty on all Apple devices enabled with 3G. Im sure that 2.5% royalty would blow the 500 million dollars owed by Samsung out of the water. The royalties would include all previously sold Apple devices as well as future ones. 

"Software patents expert Florian Mueller told ZDNet that Apple has now managed to repulse 24 assertions of Standard Essential Patents by Samsung on an international basis. Samsung has been able to fend off only three patents, two of them being in Korea. He also said that Samsung’s claim for 2.4% royalty on Apple’s sales of 3G-capable products appears to be more ridiculous with Apple winning each lawsuit."

While Samsung is surely upset over the ruling, this is good news for the patent world and creativity. The less companies can use patents as an tool for financial gain the better in my opinion. 

Confused

Last weeks class was very interesting. I must ask a question though. I am still very confused about the difference of a patent and a clause in the patent.

I understand that a clause is something in a patent. However,  I still don't understand whether one can sue over a patent protection void, or instead a clause problem. 

In last weeks lecture the interim professor did not give a clear answer. While I learned a lot and most of his lecture was fantastic, this question was not clearly and directly addressed. Do any of you understand? A few of you raised questions about this last week, so let me know. When you sue someone for patent infringement, do u sue about the entire patent or just the clause???

 Let me know below!! Thanks!

Samsung V Apple: Part Duex

http://www.guampdn.com/article/20130304/NEWS01/303040307/Samsung-s-1B-bill-Apple-case-reduced-by-450M

The outcome of the Samsung V. Apple has been reduced by quite a lot this last week. The outcome changed from a whopping 1 billion to 450 Million. Thats less than half of what was originally owed.

I bet Samsung is happy.

The world should be happy too. The less patent rules are enforced to insane heights, the higher the world will make progress. If patent rules are too intense, the world suffers creatively.

Are you happy? Are you angry with the change? Let me know below! :)

Perhaps the Patent System Isn't Broken?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/opinion/patent-system-isnt-broken.html?_r=0

This week a response to a New York Times article from the Executive Vice President of Qualcomm came to my attention. The article argues that the patent system is not broken.

The author agrees with the majority consensus that U.S. patent system has some serious problems that need addressing. However, the author reasons this litigation nonsense goes past just the patent world. He blames the entire legal system for these issues. In his mind, the sector of patent law is not flawed in itself, yet rather the whole system is flawed. Rosenberg goes so far as to say that the "smartphone wars are a myth propagated by those with an economic interest in tipping the scale toward those who build on inventions versus those invent". This goes against the article that both the professor as well as many links that some of you have wrote about. I understand why a reader might say this, as the smartphone war in Silicon makes for a good article. Theres nothing like a battle between two corporate titans, let a lone a all-out slugfest.

While Rosenberg may indeed be right to an extent, the patent system is largely flawed and would benefit from a restructuring. While its true that "our patent system has played a critical role in attracting investment", it now is used as a weapon to prevent innovation and natural progress.

Do you agree with Donald Rosenberg? Should we blame our entire legal system or is it more the patent legal sector that deserves blame? Why or why not? Let me know what you think below!

Examination of Samsung v. Apple

The article that was emailed last week was quite interesting.

To summarize for those of you who didn't read the article or because you aren't in 190G, The article examined the current legal battle between Samsung and Apple. The battle stems from many different patents, most of which have to do with Smartphone technology.

In my opinion, Samsung deserves to lose. Although Samsung has been very innovative, almost every smartphone's design is based off of Apple 1st generation iPhone. I am well-prepared for many of you to disagree with that statement below. But at the end of the day, Samsung copied Apple. While Apple may be the winner so far, the article implies that currently this battle is a stalemate. If that's really true, then Samsung becomes the true winner of the this war.

Even though I think Samsung should pay Apple for copying various technology, I give Samsung credit for executing something that even Steve Jobs would approve.

"Good artists copy, great artists steal." - Steve Jobs


What do you think? Let me know below!

3rd Class

Last class we focused on the legal wars that companies have had with each other. There are many famous cases that have recently taken place, perhaps most famously Samsung V.S. Apple. We also went over the many different legal entities. The International Trade Commission (ITC) is one such example, which is a quasi-legal venue where many patent cases are heard. The ITC has faster proceedings than District courts, so companies often prefer them. However, the ITC cannot award damages, only can grant injunctions. So the ITC has its pros and cons.

Other things covered were also important. A main idea that the Professor talked about was that a Patent protects an idea, not a implementation. Perhaps the most striking thing that we discussed was that Patents can be sold, bought, or traded. It never occurred to me that this was possible. Or that there are businesses with the sole purpose of having entities buy these patents.

We covered a lot more material this class than other classes before. I hope future classes are like this.

Incorporating My Skydeck Company, Meerkat

Hey people,

As some of you know, I just got accepted into the CET Skydeck incubator, with my company "Meerkat". As CEO it's my job of much of the business aspects of the daily runnings.This last week we recently incorporated in the state of Delaware as an S-Corp. We incorporated as an S-Corp for many reasons too long to explain in this blog. We are currently in the process of trademarking our logo, as well as filing patents. We hired a team of lawyers from WilmerHale to do much of this.

The funny thing is the lawyers actually forgot to mention trademarking/copyrights altogether until I brought it up! (what the heck are we paying them for?!) The lawyers were humored that they forgot to bring this up. So we are currently in the process of filing copyrights and trademarks. We still haven't covered the issue of trade secrets though, as we have been more lately been dealing with Intellectual Property documents related to my team of engineers.  If you have any questions about anything I said, comment below! I'd be glad to help!

2/3/13 Class

Hey world,

Last Monday's class was very enjoyable. The professor spoke mostly about Copyrights and Trademarks. Trademarks are a right to a logo or symbol, for example "Microsoft" or "apple". While a Copyright can be a more more wide range of things. An example of a copyright would be the "CAL" cursive logo that UC Berkeley places on Athletic apparel.

We also learned about what a trade secret is. This is slightly confusing when taking about what is IP and what is not IP. Trade secrets however can be summarized into something a company or entity does that is complex and unique. This could be a way of doing business, a piece of a product, or anything "secret" having to do with a company's daily "tradings".

I must admit, these titles can be confusing to differentiate, as some of these titles seem to overlap. Hopefully some of you can clear this up for me below!

1st Post...

Hey world,

I'm taking IEOR 190G to know more about Patents. Half of building a successful company is done on the legal side. Nowadays, companies wage war on each other not only in Best Buy, company showrooms, and living rooms, but also in the U.S. Circuit Courts.

Currently, I am CEO of a mobile application company developing a smartphone app called Meerkat. We recently just acquired funding, and look to make deals with major industry leaders, such as Visa, Wounded Warrior Project, and Applebee's. Most recently, we have secured CET Skydeck office space.

I look forward to a productive semester.

- Michael McDonnell