{28} Patented: Anti-Eating Face Mask

Patent No. 4,344,424: Anti-Eating Face Mask was awarded to Lucy L. Barmby of Sacramento, CA in 1980. What surprises me is not that this apparatus was granted a patent but rather than even 34 years ago self-restraint in terms of food was a problematic issue. "An anti-eating face mask which includes a cup-shapes member conforming to the shape of the mouth and chin area of the user, together with a hoop member and straps detachably engageable with a user's head for mounting the cup-shaped member in overlying relationship with the user's mouth and chin area under the nose thereby preventing the ingestion of food by the user."

If you squinted really hard and took a couple grains of salt, I'm sure you can see that this apparatus is actually much needed and useful to all those who need a physical restraint from "introducing substances into the mouth" which could include objects greater than food. In the matters of non-obviousness, I would consider myself a person of ordinary skill well cultured with putting objects into my mouth (for about 20+ years now) and would definitely not have thought of such a intricate device to disable one from introducing objects into the mouth. As for novelty, no prior art seems to exist with such an innovative apparatus in any country or publication. Thus this patent is valid enough to be granted as a patent. 

Weight Loss companies may want to look to gain a licensing agreement perhaps..

{27} High Fives in Order for Patenting High Five Appartus

To finish off a great semester of Mobile Patents, we discussed some absurdly ridiculous methods and apparatuses (i.e. centrifugal apparatus to induce labor) that were granted patents. For a patent to be considered valid it is judged on three main concepts of: useful, novel, and non-obvious. I have defined them at the end of this post. 

In 1993, Patent No: 5,356,330 "Apparatus for simulating a 'high-five' was granted Albert Cohen of New York. "An apparatus for simulating a 'high-five' including a lower arm portion having a simulated hand removably attached thereto, an upper arm portion, an elbow joint for pivotally securing the lower arm portion to the upper arm portion, and a spring biasing element for biasing the upper and lower arm portions towards a predetermined alignment. I would recommend everyone read the first claim as it gives a detailed technical method as to the functionality of this apparatus.  

On the basis of usefulness: As defined by Wikipedia, a high five is a celebratory hand gesture. Though Wikipedia must be corrected as it is no longer a hand gesture that occurs between two people since 1993, we can agree that a high-five is a way to signify a successful positive feeling. When we don't have someone near us to high-five, this apparatus proves to be a very useful substitute to release one's inner celebratory feelings. It is a solution to a rare problem, but a problem nonetheless. This is also a novel idea as this device is the first of its kind, while a few may have wished for a faux hand to high five with, none of these ideas were turned into a working appartus before Mr. Cohen patented the idea. On the basis of non-obviousness, I would argue that this is definitely a very technically adept solution to the high-five problem that is not a obvious solution. Therefore, overall this patent was rightfully granted as it is completely valid. Whether, Mr. Cohen was able to recover the hefty USPTO fees through sales, is another question all together.  

DEFINITIONS                                                                                                                                          

Usefulness:  The subject matter must have a useful purpose. If there is no need for it by the public, there is no reason for the device as it does not solve or provide a solution towards any problem. "It also requires that the item is operable, since a machine that can not perform its intended purpose cannot be considered useful in the ordinary sense of the word". 

Novelty:  As stated by USPTO, an invention cannot be patented it: 

1. The invention is in use or actively familiar within the United States prior to patent filling. 
2. Prior art exists as described in a patent, print publication, or other previous records proving the invention was in use prior to filling. 
3. The invention was patented or used in a printed publication in any country more than a year prior to the inventor's filling in the US. 
4. The invention was in public use or sold in the US more than a year prior to the filling. 

** This does not include improvements upon existing patents and inventions. For example, if an inventor found a way to make tire rubbers last twice as long with a slight altercation of the existing formula, this would be patentable as the difference was not previously obvious. 

Non-obviousness: A person of ordinary skill in the area of a related technology field should not find the solution or invention obvious. 

{26} Courts Rule Against High Pricing Patent Licenses

Judge James L. Robart has taken a ruling for pricing patents deemed vital for communications and data-handling in devices like smartphones, tablets and online game consoles. These standard-essential patents that corporate owners have pledged to license to others on RAND terms of "reasonable and nondiscriminatory" are actually extracting rich sums from companies and competitors.  While the owners may think the price is reasonable, it may seem like extortion to the licensee depending on the extremity of the price, especially if the two companies in the deal are industry rivals. According to NY Times, "With clear prose and some clever math, Judge Robart concluded that when a company has made a RAND commitment to an industry standards organization, the price should be low. That is especially important, he said, for the intellectual property in complex digital devices that are bundles of many hardware and software technologies."
This comes after many courts have been rejecting attempts by patentees to charge high royalty figures even when the patent in question is just a small piece of the product.  There is a currently breach-of-contract dispute between Microsoft and Motorola as Microsoft contends that Motorola's first offer would have resulted in payments of more than $4 billion a year if used on a wide range of products. "In essence, Microsoft argued that Motorola bargained in bad faith by initially offering outlandish terms to license its patents on a wireless communication standard, 802.11, and another standard for video compression, H264." Motorola contended that initial offers are always negotiated substantially down, and that "Motorola was mainly seeking a license deal on Microsoft’s Xbox video console rather than Microsoft’s wider product portfolio." Judge Robart determined a reasonable rate to be under $1.8 million a year, not far from what Microsoft was offering at $1.2 million a year. "In his ruling, the judge set out some basic principles. An important one, he said, is that “a RAND royalty should be set at a level consistent with the S.S.O.s’ (standard setting organizations) goal of promoting widespread adoption of their standards.”

{25} Apple Lacks Due Diligence in Checking Prior Patents

A ruling made last November found Apple guilty of infringing several VirnetX FaceTime patents, and was forced to pay $368m in damages. The legal battles revealed Apple's lack of due diligence process when it came to checking prior patents, as VirnetX's lawyers stated, "Apple developers testifies that they didn't pay any attention to anyone's patents when developing their system."

According to Slash Gear, "in Apple's recent quarterly report, the company filed Form 10-Q with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) stating that it intends on challenging the verdict and has not 'recorded a loss accrual at this time."

Apple infringed 4 of the VirnetX patents that involved establishing virtual private networks (VPN) to secure communications. Apple used this technology for its FaceTime feature.

Many other companies, including Microsoft, Cisco, Siemens, and many other are being sued for infringement by VirnetX. Apple is also facing another lawsuit that includes infringing on the same patent in its other devices. 

{24} Google's Disappointment, Microsoft's Gain

Microsoft signed it's 20th royalty-bearing Android patent licence deal with Hon Hai, the parent company of Foxconn, which is the manufacturer of more than 40 percent of the world's consumer electronics. The agreement comes at a disappointment to Google's Android and Chrome operating systems. Specifically, this means that any Android or Chrome device made by the Hon Hai group will result in direct royalty payments to Microsoft.

Google has continued to deny the need for a patent license agreement with Microsoft even after the multiple losses by Google's Motorola Mobility. According to Foss Patents, the Hon Hai deal reflects as a huge disappointment for Google as it reflects a respectful approach to intellectual property, unheard of by Google. In a statement by Hon Hai:

"We recognize and respect the importance of international efforts that seek to protect intellectual property. The licensing agreement with Microsoft represents those efforts and our continuous support of international trade agreements that facilitate implementation of effective patent protection."

 While Google announced 1.5 million Android device activations per day, predicting one billion Andorid devices by the end of the year--this is in a large part possible due to the intellectual property belonging to third parties like Apple, Microsoft, Nokia, Oracle, and many more as evidenced by the large number of patent infringements brought towards Google in the last could of years. In answering these infringements, Google will be using a  chunk of the Android revenue which will affect Android's long-term competitiveness.

{23} Apple and Samsung: Co-writing But Not Compromising

In connection to the second Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit in California, the two companies prepared a "joint" statement, as to the reports of Foss Patents, where both parties listed out their positions onto a single document. Note that "joint" and a single document do not mean a consensus. This comes as a response from Judge Koh's March warning to both parties to narrow their claims, as I spoke about a couple weeks back. Currently there are 16 patents, 8 by both parties, that are in contention, but the number will be largely reduced soon. Apple has proposed to cap the patents to five per side, while reducing the number of claims to 12. Samsung, in defense, wants five claims per side, but eight "invalidity theories to be allowed per calim, while Apple would set a per-patent limit of five invalidity contentions".

Apple is pushing for a large part of the narrowing of the lawsuit to happen before summary judgement, while Samsung is pushing for the narrowing to occur towards the end of this lawsuit's days. This is in large part to Apple's confidence against Samsung, especially with this joint proposal. If Apple's side of the proposal is approved, Samsung would get to assert fewer patents not allowing for much buffer room for Samsung if one of the patents is dismissed by the judge.

Past the number of asserted patents and claims, the number of accused products is also up for narrowing. Until now, the parties were able to add an unlimited number of products to the case, thus creating a more complex case for the jury. In this case, Apple would only be able to accuse a subset of the large number of products Samsung owns--while Samsung will probably be able to to attack all relevant Apple products--as there are not that many in comparison. However, "Apple notes that even if there are many Samsung products at issue, it all comes down to only a few different Android versions that power those devices".

The fight will continue through every claim, every patent, every product. And the post-judgement will definitely payout for the winner, largely due to the high coverage of this lawsuit. 

{22} Apple Revolutionizes Call Waiting

Apple's recent patent on "communications system that provides user-selectable data when user in on-hold" reveals an advanced call hold feature that provides users with dynamic call holding and caller information on display, possibly making 'Please Hold' obsolete. The Patent No. 8,412,164 includes adaptive information, which according to Apple Insider, will cover a number of possibilities "automatically presented at times when the user may otherwise not expect to be presented with information".

Adaptive information includes contextual data taken from the user's phone like events in a user's calendar, according to Apple Insider. Adaptive information by definition is different from static information because it can be changed, rather than remain the same or fixed. Unlike Static information which only includes the duration of the call or the caller ID, adaptive information will include data that is generated every time a new connection is made between two callers. The data will be customized based on the line, date, time, user's schedule, location, and other metrics, according to Apple Insider. Furthermore, the adaptive system will also be able to display information not necessarily stored in teh user's device like news, weather, music or other information. 

According to information in the patent : 

"Adaptive information can also be presented using graphical representations. Graphical representations of adaptive information can be used separately from or in combination with audio signals. For example, a device can display a picture of the person a user is communicating with while also providing important facts about that person through an audio signal."

This technology is pretty encompassing, and will revolutionize how we take calls altogether. For example, ad space will be sold to offset some of the costs associated with the call--presenting users with advertisements when they are on hold. The time of the day is also considered, as the data presented will call upon a user's schedule for an early morning call or news or weather forecasts for late night calls.