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.