*Silly Patents* 2 - Thong Diaper (or is it a Diaper Thong?)

Diapers are a very useful tool used for centuries to help parents with babies who are not yet potty-trained (and recently have also seen use for aging seniors). I could definitely see the potential for innovation in this high-profit market for which there will always be demand.

Thongs are not quite as useful, but have definitely become a staple of western society. In fact, some may argue they are less useful than regular underwear or panties, but their "purpose" is to look attractive and make the wearer feel sexy. They are most often worn by teenage to middle-aged women.

Here's a great idea: Let's combine the two!

Presenting, the Thong Diaper:


Perhaps it's actually a Diaper Thong. Honestly, I think I'd rather not know.

Let's break down the patentability of this.

Non-Obvious - A diaper that's also a thong? I've never thought of that before. Have you? I think I'm gonna give this a pass.
Novelty - I don't think anyone has ever thought of this in their life (well, clearly SOMEONE has). Another pass.
Enablement - What industry does this belong to, the diaper industry or the thong industry? Honestly, I doubt it could compete in either. That said, it seems reasonable that any professional in the diaper industry could figure out how to reduce the size and make this thing. Not sure about the thong industry though. I'll give this a Maybe.
Usefulness - This one is the real stumper. What the hell is the point of this thing? Is it for babies who want to feel sexy? Is it for pedophiles who want to dress up the babies *shudder*? Is it for women whose partner has a diaper fetish? Honestly, the only possible legitimate use I can think of for this is for seniors who may want to feel sexy wearing a thong, yet can't control their bowels. Mmm. But even that's a stretch. I'm gonna go ahead and give this a NO.

So seriously, what the hell is the USPTO up to these days? Does someone there have a diaper fetish? I'm glad our tax money is being well spent.

*Silly Patents* 1 - Optical Illusion Clothes

Optical Illusions are cool. Clothes are cool. Why not combine them?

Here is the full patent.

Honestly, this is very similar to the glow-in-the-dark toothbrush example from class. Toothbrushes exist, and so does glow-in-the-dark material, but the combination of the two may be considered innovative. Similarly, although optical illusions and clothing are two previously existing mechanisms, combining them may be considered innovative.

That said, who would want optical illusions on their clothes? Well, perhaps men or women who want to appear thinner than they are. Everyone knows black is slimming, but perhaps an optical illusion could do more.

Let's look at the patentability breakdown:

Non-Obvious - I would say this passes. Just like the glow-in-the-dark toothbrush, the separate preexistence of each individual aspect does not warrant their combination obvious.
Novelty - This is pretty novel. I highly doubt anybody has thought of it before.
Usefulness - This is probably the most questionable one. What purpose does this serve? Sure it's cool, but not every T-shirt design warrants a patent. Of course, there is the "slimming" argument, but I highly doubt that enough evidence exists to support that.
Enablement - Pass. An average person in the clothing industry can easily print any pattern they want, including this.

Overall, I'd say that the Usefulness clause is the deal breaker. I'm a little surprised it got approved.

Post 26 - Microsoft signs fat Android patent deal

People are quick to dismiss Microsoft in the game of mobile devices. The Surface tablet got good reviews but isn't catching on as fast as expected, and Windows Phone still has a dismal 3% market share (although they're catching up and will probably soon overtake BlackBerry, which dropped from 6.4% to 5.2% between December and March).

However, it is easy to forget a huge part of Microsoft's strategy, which is patent licensing. Microsoft has an enormous patent portfolio, which it recently expanded even further by striking a patent deal with Chinese company ZTE, China's second-largest mobile phone manufacturer.

The recent article describing the deal:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/android/22103/microsoft-cleans-mobile-big-new-android-patent-deal

This deal is huge: it means that Microsoft now gets a profit share from patent licensing from the sale of 80% of all Android smartphones sold in the US. Additionally, Microsoft's patent licensing also affects the "majority" of Android smartphones sold worldwide. What does this amount to? In a single quarter, Microsoft received $792 million in patent royalties from Samsung and HTC in a single quarter.

These numbers are huge, and they have huge implications. They mean that Microsoft is getting huge revenues from the mobile phone market, even as Windows Phone stumbles. And in a theoretical scenario where iPhone popularity drops and Android and Windows Phone become the two leading smartphones, Microsoft's profit would be mind-boggling.

But a scenario like that is unlikely to happen any time soon.

Post 25 - Apple publishes mobile "parking location" patent

Have you ever wandered through a large parking lot or parking structure, trying to remember where you parked your car? Your smartphone in your pocket can take pictures, surf the web, record HD video, and make video conference calls, but somehow it can't locate your car for you. But maybe soon, it can.

An Apple patent for exactly such a function was recently published. Details are in this article:

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/04/apple-reveals-an-advanced-indoor-mobile-location-application-for-finding-a-vehicle-in-a-parking-structure.html

It works based on a device placed in the car, or even any other vehicle like a motorcycle or bicycle. It uses BlueTooth LE wireless technology, a Low Energy variant of Bluetooth that allows its devices to not have to charge for up to a year, which would be perfect for a permanent device to put in a car.

The location mechanism relies on many of the various systems already present in most iPhones, including GPS, gyroscopes, and accelerometers.

Given that many vehicles today already have BlueTooth by default, I wouldn't be surprised to see this feature coming out in new iPhones very soon. Owners of BlueTooth-equipped vehicles could set it up and begin using it right away. This would definitely reduce hassle and solve a real-world problem facing many users.

Post 24 - Nokia Patents Surface-like Tablet

There have been rumors of Nokia entering the tablet market, and after their partnership with Microsoft for Windows Phone 8 it wouldn't be a surprise if it was a Windows 8 Tablet. Now, a recent article reports that they have filed a patent for an "Apparatus Cover with Keyboard", which in my opinion looks remarkably similar to the Microsoft Surface.

Article and pictures:
http://www.themobileindian.com/news/11667_Nokia-Patent-reveals-a-tablet-with-attached-keyboard-cover

It does seem pretty cool though. With patents like these, I ask myself, what new innovations does this bring to the market? In this case, it seems that Nokia's killer selling point is the fact that the screen and keyboard can slide, fold, and twist into multiple different formations. Additionally, it seems that they can separate from each other, and be used individually as just an ordinary screen / keyboard.

This is all very cool, but I must say, it just seems way too similar to Microsoft's Surface tablet, but less refined. The folded screen stand isn't as sleek as the Surface's kickstand, and the keyboard doesn't seem as thin or agile as the Surface's touch-cover. Nokia has been declining, and this looks like it'll be just another one of their too-little-too-late products.

Post 23 - Anonymous Mobile Payment by Amazon

On April 16, Amazon filed a patent for an anonymous payment system for mobile devices. The goal of the design is to minimize the amount of data that must be sent over the air for each payment transaction. The patent can be viewed here:

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8,423,457.PN.&OS=PN/8,423,457&RS=PN/8,423,457

This is interesting because if it takes off, a fast and efficient payment system like this could compete with PayPal (owned by eBay) and other anonymous payment systems. It works through text messaging - a user sends a text to Amazon's payment service, which holds your money and replies with a secret code. Then you pay the vendor by giving them the code; the vendor can then use that code to withdraw the money you had previously paid. Thus, Amazon's service sort of acts like a temporary bank or safety vault.

Here is the article:
http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/17/amazon-patent-describes-a-mobile-payment-system-that-keeps-transactions-anonymous/

The mobile payments market is already becoming saturated, with competitors like Square, Intuit, and PayPal. It is hard to say just from one patent, but it definitely seems that Amazon may be interested in entering that market space. And with a trusted name like theirs, they may be able to make a dent.

Post 22 - Apple Defends Mobile Developers from Patent Trolls

Back in 2011, notorious patent troll Lodsys demanded .575% of revenue from small app iOS app developers, if they used in-app purchases. In-app purchases are a great source of revenue for many mobile app developers, and Lodsys claims that they own the patent for it and must be paid.

This is a textbook definition of a patent troll: Lodsys does not practice in the mobile development market; their entire business is to attempt to get a cut of revenue from other developers. And rather for ask for big numbers, they only ask for a small percent, which encourages developers to simply agree rather than go to court. This strategy has been successful; Lodsys has reported to having more than 150 companies that have agreed to their terms.

Interestingly though, the big dog Apple has stepped in to protect its developers. Usually I am highly critical of Apple but I think this is a bold move; obviously Apple is mostly concerned with their own profit and wants to retain its developer base, but regardless their actions are noble. Apple's claim is that since they have previously licensed Lodsys' patents, iOS developers are protected against those licenses. Google has intervened as well, with similar claims in an attempt to protect their Android developer base.

This is an interesting scenario that we have not covered in class, and raises the question if these defense claims by Apple and Google are valid. Although it slowed down Lodsys, they certainly don't seem to think so, because now they are back with more lawsuits then ever before:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/patent-troll-lodsys-sues-10-mobile-game-makers-despite-apples-intervention/

Only time will tell if the great legal forces of Apple and Google will hold up against Lodsys in court when it comes to protecting their small and independent app developers. But at the very least, it's nice to know that at least someone is offering some protection from these patent trolls.

Post 21 - Samsung 3G Patent Invalidated in Germany

The German Federal Patent court has ruled against Samsung and in favor of Apple in another chapter of their legendary patent wars.

Article:
http://allthingsd.com/20130412/apple-wins-invalidation-of-samsung-3g-patent-in-germany/?mod=googlenews

This particular battle concerned a technology known as "turbo encoding/decoding device and method for processing frame data according to QoS." Samsung was seeking injunction against Apple for violating this patent, which they claim is a vital part of implementing the 3G wireless standard that we learned about in class.

However, the court ruled in favor of Apple and in fact invalidated the entire patent (!). This result echoes a similar consensus reached last month by the UK's High Court of Justice, which determined that an intervening prior art invalidated the patent as well.

With yet another win, it seems that so far Apple is slowly gaining the upper hand in this patent war. Perhaps their expansive squadrons of lawyers are finally paying off.

Post 20 - Slide to Unlock

While Apple's iconic Slide to Unlock mechanism for unlocking their touch-screen mobile devices was protected by United States courts, but it seems they are not so lucky in Germany.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/apples-slide-to-unlock-patent.html

Apple hasn't had much luck in Europe in general lately. Many of their design patents that are upheld in the US do not count as much in Europe where the law deems that the patent needs to solve a technical problem, and this is one of those examples.

The decision is appeal-able  and Apple will undoubtedly take advantage of that, but this is still a huge win for Samsung, Google, and other recent opponents of Apple in patent litigation cases. It's interesting how the same cases in different countries can have such different results.

Post 19 - Samsung ban only affects older Apple devices

Samsung has been trying very hard to get mobile Apple devices such as iPhones and iPads banned in the United States. However, even if they do succeed, it now seems that the extent of the ban wouldn't go far.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/samsung-affirmatively-says-us-import.html

It seems that the only Apple products affected by this, if Samsung does succeed, are those not using the new Qualcomm chips: The AT&T versions of the iPhone 3, 3GS, and 4, (but no later), and iPad 3g and iPad 2 3G.

Since Apple fans tend to adopt their new products very quickly, even if this comes to pass it would have a very limited effect. Many Apple customers already own iPhones with model 4S or 5 and later-generation iPads, and as time passes the number of adopters will increase. Additionally, many customers are not on AT&T and won't be affected either. It seems that Samsung has dug themselves into a hole with this one.

Post 18 - Apple wants $85 million more from court

We've discussed the ongoing Apple vs. Samsung cases a lot in this class, and also talked about the March 1 ruling by Judge Lucy Koh to award Apple a ~$600 million damages award for the design infringement on Samsung's Infuse 4G and Galaxy S II At&T, a nice sum to be sure but still $450 million short of the $1.05 billion they originally asked for. Now, Apple is asking for $85 million more than what they were originally awarded.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/apple-alleges-85-million-error-in.html

Apple is referring to this $85 million as an "error" in the damages calculations. They are justifying these claims with a lot of legalese details that can be found in the article above.

But of course, all they're really trying to do is get the most bang for their buck. I don't blame them; if you're putting so much effort into a high-profile case like this, it makes sense to want to take as much as you can get from it, and clearly they think they might be able to get $85 million more.

Post 17 - Open Source Patents

I was glad to read in a recent article that many companies have made promises not to assert select patents against Open Source Software that uses them. These companies have included IBM, Sun Microsystems, Computer Associates, and now more recently Google as well. I applaud this move and I think it's great that these companies recognize the importance of Open Source projects, and are slightly reducing the amount of worrying they have to do over patents.

However, it turns out that in many cases, this may have just been a publicity stunt. For example, although IBM pledged 500 patents for open use by Open Source software, this represents only about 1% of their patent portfolio. And Google only pledged 10 out of their 17,000+ patents!

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

I think these patent "pledges" are a great step in the right direction, but these companies need to do far more than this to actually make an impact. Nonprofit and Open Source projects should not be victim to the same sort of patent litigation that we have been talking so much about in this class.

Post 16 - Google's Motorola acquisition is increasingly starting to seem like a mistake

As I mentioned in my previous post, it seems that Google has been out of luck recently in the patent courtrooms.

They have lost yet another case to Microsoft, concerning a "sensor controlled user interface for portable communication device". Of course, this refers to Microsoft's Xbox Kinect system, which Google believes infringes the patent. More information here:

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/google-loses-another-one-to-microsoft.html

Even without going into detail about the patent, the ruling doesn't surprise me because Kinect is not a mobile or "portable" device. Additionally, although the ideas are similar, I'm willing to bet that the technologies are quite different.

This case is significant because like others before it, it displays that Google's acquisition of Motorola may have not been as great of a choice as they thought. The $12.5 billion acquisition gave them a large patent portfolio, but unfortunately Google simply hasn't been able to win many cases using those patents.

Additionally, other companies may realize that Google isn't as big of a threat as they thought. Microsoft, for example, hasn't been getting much press coverage in terms of patent litigation because its overwhelming strategy has been to license its patents out for a fee. However, Microsoft is definitely a very powerful player. Google's Android infringes on several of Microsoft's patents, and they were probably hoping that they could get away with this for free as part of a deal if they could prove that Microsoft is also infringing on their / Motorola's patents. However, as they continue to lose these cases, Microsoft will soon come after them for licensing royalties, and perhaps a lawsuit.

Post 15 - Tethering is a 12-year old idea

Google has just not had much luck lately in the patent courtrooms.

It turns out that the tethering feature on an android violated a Nokia patent that is more than 10 years old. "Tethering" is when you use a smartphone's cellular internet connection to create a wifi hotspot for a laptop or other internet-capable device, enabling it to browse the web through your phone's data connection. It's kind of mind-boggling for me that Nokia came up with an idea like this in 1995, when the internet itself had still not entered common knowledge.

Here is the article in question:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/android-likely-infringes-nokia-patent.html

Of course, in 1995 they probably didn't imagine that their patent would be used for tethering (they probably thought talking voices would go through the computer or something). Also, in their picture the phone is connected to the computer through a wire; maybe they thought that cell phones would be our main source of wireless internet? But regardless, here we are today with a patent violation.

It is interesting to think that although Nokia has declined a little in terms of market share, its patents from back when it was the top dog are still proving useful and generating revenue today. I wonder what cool patents are being invented today that won't come to fruition for another decade.

Post 14 - Google tries to ban iPhone

Google did something interesting today in an attempt to win an import ban on the iPhone in the US. In the patent lawsuit regarding patent no. 6,246,862, Google quoted the late Steve Jobs in his biography as saying that the incorporation of the patented component in the iPhone was a "breakthrough", although it seems that the component referred to in the patent was slightly different from the one that Jobs described in his biography.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/google-quotes-steve-jobs-biography-in.html

It seems that Google is trying really hard to get the iPhone banned in the US, even quoting a dead guy that can't testify in court. If this does successfully win Google the patent, I wonder what precedents that will set for future lawsuits in the same vein.

Post 13 - Judge denies additional Ericsson claims

In yet another example of a Judge simplifying a patent litigation trial, Administrative Law Judge David Shaw denied Ericsson's attempt to add 15 claims to their existing 130 against Samsung.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/samsung-succeeds-in-blocking-ericssons.html

Last week I also discussed that I thought judges were beginning to get frustrated with the overwhelming amount of patent litigation in the ITC, and "fighting" against it by denying frivolous claims and attempting to make the cases as simple as possible.

I believe that this is another one of those examples. In a situation where the extra 15 claims may have been legitimate, but the judge had a perfectly legitimate reason not to include them, he decided to lean towards the option that simplifies the case.

I think that this is deliberate behavior to attempt to discourage patent litigation and reduce the workload of these judges. These types of things have been coming up increasingly often, and I discussed it last week as well. It may be kind of a stretch, and of course it would be hard to prove that this was really true, but I do believe that it at least plays a part in their decisions.

Post 12 - Nokia vs HTC

With all the recent press about the ongoing Samsung v apple patent war, it seems like another large battle has slipped through the cracks: Nokia vs. HTC.

In general, it seems that Nokia has asserted 31 of its patents against HTC. Today, the Mannheim Regional Court dismissed two of those cases, while the other 29 are still being carried out.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/german-court-dismisses-two-nokia-patent.html

The interesting part is to look at the 2 patents that were dismissed, and to think about why it happened. One of them was about Google Play, formerly known as the "Android Market". Nokia owns patent EP0812120 on a "method for using services offered by a telecommunications network, a telecommunications system and a terminal for it." It is asserting this patent against ViewSonic as well, not just HTC. The second patent concerned a light guide system that uses light sensors to measure the brightness of the phone's environment, and adjust the screen's brightness appropriately.

What these two patents have in common is that I could see both of them going either way. HTC does have a light guide, but it is just a hole that doesn't actually "guide" the light. Thus the case seems kind of neutral - HTC did steal the idea, but they didn't infringe on the patent per say.

Same goes for Google Play: HTC did indeed copy the Google Play idea, but the court decided that Nokia's patents refer to 1990s technology and therefore aren't relevant to modern mobile Internet devices.

Since both of these cases seem pretty even and I could see either of them going either way, it is interesting to see that the court took the defensive on both and ruled against Nokia. To me, it seems that judges are doing their best to discourage litigation like this, which I don't blame them for given the ridiculous amount of patent wars going on right now. When the case is close, the judges simply dismiss it, hoping that future companies will predict this behavior and not file litigation in the first place.

I don't mean to trivialize the jobs of the judges of course, nor do I intend to imply that they are making unfair calls. But in their situation, I would do the same thing. All this patent litigation is hurting innovation, and costing the judiciary system much time and money. I think they should do their best to discourage it as much as possible.

Post 11 - Google Maps in danger in Germany

One of the most important patent infringement trials in today's smartphone wars is happening today in Germany, with Microsoft prosecuting Google for its infringement of a "computer system for identifying local resources and method therefor", which the Google Maps app violates.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/google-about-to-lose-patent-spat-with.html

The trial has been labeled the "climax to date in the so-called smartphone wars", and its implications are huge: Google and Motorola may have to discontinue their Google Maps mobile service in Germany if Microsoft wins, and Microsoft is indeed favored to win the case against Google.

Interestingly, companies such as HTC, Samsung, and LG who use the Android operating system, had previously recognized Microsoft's patents over the technology and sought license agreements, which Microsoft has accepted (this has been Microsoft's strategy throughout most of the ongoing patent wars, in stark contrast to Apple). This in and of itself indicates that Google is probably on the losing end of this battle.

Another interesting facet of this is that Microsoft initially asserted litigation over Motorola for this patent. In response, Motorola claimed they had no knowledge of how Google's servers operate, and therefore could not be held liable to the infringement. However, once Google acquired Motorola, Microsoft adjusted its claim to target Google instead, and Motorola's previous defense obviously no longer stands.

The irony of this is that Google acquired Motorola largely for its patents, and became a big player in the patent wars (especially against Apple) right after it acquired Motorola. Therefore it's ironic that in this particular case, acquiring Motorola probably made them lose.

Post 10 - Smartphone Guitar

As I mentioned in my previous blog post, this week I'll be examining the innovation and technological aspect of patent engineering rather than the litigation and monetary aspects of them. I think this is fitting due to the new direction that our class is now headed in.

Here's another cool patent that was filed this week, by Samsung: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02/20/samsung-patent-describes-guitar_n_2724250.html

The patent pretty much describes a mobile device similar to a smartphone that could also double as a guitar. Sensors, buttons, and touch-screens on the device perceive how and where you are moving it to produce guitar-like notes.

I don't actually think that this could go on to great success, because it sounds like something that lies between a gimick and the real thing. For people who want a gimick, a simple iOS or Android app might suffice, whereas those who want the real deal would probably prefer to just buy a real guitar. Nevertheless, as a guitar player myself this does indeed look awesome, and it would be cool if it became a reality.

But all of this drives me to think, why would Samsung bother to patent this? Clearly they think that this patent could have some real value looking into the future. Or perhaps they are simply being overly cautious due to their current litigation with Apple. Either way, it will be interesting to see where this goes.

Post 9 - Germ-Proof Screen

Now that we've begun discussing the actual construction of patents in class, rather than the litigation and monetary aspects of them, I think my blog posts should reflect that as well. After all, I took this class because I am excited by the technological innovation that patents provide, not how much money I can make from suing other people over them.

That said, here's a cool patent that Microsoft just filed: http://www.mobilemag.com/2013/02/22/microsoft-germ-patent/

It's essentially an aspect of a touch-screen (such as on a smartphone or table) that would automatically kill germs on the surface by radiating them with UV light over certain intervals. It is designed to be minimally invasive to the user of the tablet, blocking the UV radiation outside the screen.

I think that this is a great example of innovation and forward thinking, and using patents to protect those ideas. Especially coming from Microsoft, a company that has come under recent criticism for lack of innovation. But with ideas like this, they may be ready to jump back into the game.

If Microsoft implements this I think it could be a good selling point for all those germ freaks out there, and may act as a tie-breaker feature among people choosing among mobile or tablet devices. Perhaps Purell should start worrying...

Post 8 - Judge's Frustration with Apple v Samsung

It seems that court judges have finally had enough of Apple v Samsung.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/judge-tells-apple-and-samsung-to-narrow-their-new-patent-case/

The article begins with a rather interesting morsel of food for thought: patent litigation takes so long in court, that by the time a verdict is reached (and way before any money is paid) the generation of technology it refers to is already obsolete. This is undoubtedly a result of the ridiculously fast pace of the mobile market.

And as a result of this, new lawsuits are filed every year. For every generation of smartphones and tablets. Because obviously someone is infringing on someone else's patents all the time. So it looks like Judge Lucy Koh has finally had enough of it, telling Apple and Samsung to cut out the filler and narrow the case down to only the most important sections. She refuses to move ahead unless the case gets smaller.

Hopefully behavior like that of Judge Koh will discourage so much patent litigation in the future. I personally think that she is making a very smart and bold move, which could reduce the number of lawsuits in the field if other judges follow her footsteps. Hopefully mobile tech companies could begin worrying more about their products and less about their lawsuits.

Post 7: Google's Hypocrisy

It seems that Google and its acquired Motorola unit are undergoing a patent battle with a British telecoms group:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/13/us-google-bt-lawsuit-idUSBRE91C1J920130213

The article reads as a pretty straightforward patent battle, similar to what we've been discussing in class about Apple v Samsung and other such litigation. However, what interested me is that in a statement, a Google spokeswoman called BT out for "arming patent trolls" and also claimed that they have no choice to retaliate, because Google "works hard to avoid lawsuits".

It's somewhat refreshing to hear that at least one mobile tech company out there is trying to avoid lawsuits, but on the other hand Google is certainly involved with several cases at almost all times. It seems that actions speak louder than words in this case. But perhaps they really are just being forced into a bad situation by prosecutors and patent trolls that think they can make money off of Google's multi-billion dollar business.

However, the most ironic part of the case seems to be the following: Google is suing BT for infringing one of those patents. And how did Google obtain those patents? "In its lawsuit from International Business Machines Corp in 2010".

So it seems that actions certainly do speak louder than words, and maybe Google doesn't hate lawsuits as much as they want us to believe.

Post 6 - GMOs: patentable?

Although this post won't be about the mobile electronic device market, it still concerns an area of patent law that interests me. Several years ago, I saw the documentary film Food, Inc. and found its claims to be very interesting, if not excessively paranoid.

Now, this issue has come up again with this recent supreme court case: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/business/supreme-court-to-hear-monsanto-seed-patent-case.html?_r=0

This brings to mind a controversial question that has concerned the patent community for quite some time: Can we patent GMOs? Currently, the answer is yes, as companies like Monsanto have already done so to great success. But with this recent case and films like Food, Inc. the complications associated with such actions are becoming more visible to the public. It will be interesting to follow this and see where it leads, and if it will trigger a major change to the most intrinsic question of patent law:

What is and what isn't patentable?

Post 5- Are NPEs really the bad guys?

Last week I wrote a little bit about so-called "Patent Trolls", but this week we learned more about them in class so I wish to revisit the topic. These Non-Practicing Entities, or NPEs, seem to spark a lot of controversy.

It seems that NPEs are able to make use of loopholes in patent law, or simply abuse it to their advantage by carrying out lawsuits against companies for patent infringement, while not actually manufacturing any products whatsoever. All their money is made simply through lawsuits.

Although this seems morally questionable, is it indeed wrong? NPEs are operating within the full extend of the law. Additionally, if they truly own patents then that means that they came up with the ideas first, for which they should indeed hold credit. Of course, there are many scenarios where NPEs abuse patents that other people mistook for commonplace or common sense. In other cases, other parties claim to have thought of it first. Although these are indeed issues of patent law, the other parties' failure to seize an opportunity is their own problem, as unfortunate as it may be. I know it's socially accepted that Patent Trolls are evil, but sometimes it's hard to define what's right and what's wrong...

Post 4 - The Dark Side of Patent Law?

As I was browsing the web this week, as I often do, I was linked to the official website of X-Plane, one of the most advances flight simulators on the market. Here is the link:

http://www.x-plane.com/desktop/home/

If you click it, you may notice that you are greeted with a popup asking you to sign a petition to help them fight off "patent trolls" filing "frivolous lawsuits". Curious, I clicked to learn more.

It turns out that X-Plane's Android app is being sued along with a handful of other Android developers for using copy-protected patented technology owned by Uniloc corporation, who they claim didn't actually develop anything. As the website explains, "Holding a patent does not mean that you actually did anything, it onlyl means that you claim that you thought of something that you can sue other people for actually doing." They are right of course, but although it's easy to feel bad for them, one must ask oneself, "If X-Plane really thought of it first, why didn't THEY patent it?" or "why didn't they ask the patent owner for permission?"

Either way, it seems that situations like this surely "squash" innovation, as worded by a CBS news story about patent trolls. I don't want to blindly believe one side of this lawsuit without learning more about the other side as well, but it's interesting that there could be a dark underbelly to these situations.

You can learn more about the Uniloc lawsuit here: http://www.x-plane.com/x-world/lawsuit/

Post 3 - Are Patent Wars Hurting Innovation?

As we discussed in the first week of class, the main reason that we have patents is to foster innovation. The idea is that a manufacturer cannot simply enter the market with a copy of what already exists, but must instead innovate a new and better product to avoid patent infringement, resulting in a continuously evolving market.

But patent and trademark law have also resulted in the "patent wars" that are now becoming common in the electronic mobile device market. This led me to think about how beneficial patents really are for innovation, at least in the smartphone market. It's true that large companies such as Apple have separate legal departments to take care of this, so that their engineers aren't distracted. But this is still lots of money and executive time and effort that is being funneled into lawsuits rather than technology. And in the end, both sides end up paying lawyers money that could have gone to developing new technologies or hiring more engineers. But I suppose the real question is: do the customers really receive a better product? If we didn't have patent wars, would the end user be better off, using a far superior device? I think that probably yes. But what if we didn't have patent law at all? Then the question becomes a little more difficult to answer.

Post 2 - IEOR 190G

IEOR 190G is a Patent Engineering class I am taking this semester which inspired me to start this blog. I love UC Berkeley, and during my time here studying EECS I have grown very passionate about Computer Science, technology, and engineering. I want to change the world with the skills that I am learning, much in the same way that Google has revolutionized the way we access data, Facebook has defined our social interactions, MS Word replaced typewriters, and iPods re-invented music management. To this end, I intend to become a leader of innovation in my field, and for this I feel that I need to have a rudimentary knowledge of Engineering Patents for when I want to claim intellectual property for my ideas. Additionally, my father is an Engineer as well with several patents under his belt, and he has stressed to me the importance of understanding patent law when working in engineering. It is largely his advice and success which have inspired me to take this class, and I am looking forward to it very much.

Post 1 - About Me

My name is Yuval Gnessin and I am a 4th year graduating senior majoring in EECS and minoring in Music. My family is from Israel and I myself grew up in the San Fernando Valley of southern California. I am passionate about technology and its societal implications, and in my head I am constantly imaging what I think our world will be like several years in the future due to technological advancements. I am also a musician and a music lover (some would say music snob), playing in bands since Middle School and continuing in college through UC Jazz. Upon graduating, I plan on moving to San Francisco to start my career as a software engineer, and I couldn't be more excited to move on to this next stage of my life.