{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. 

{21} Germans iCloud Users Almost Hassle Free

Back in Feburary 2012, Apple was forced to deactivate automatic push notifications for email, contact, and calendar updates for users accessing the iCloud in Germany due to an injunction Google's Motorola Mobility won against Apple. Specifically, it did not inhibit users from accessing this data, but whether the data was automatically sent to them instead of the users having to manually configure their devices to check how periodically they wanted the updates. According to Florian Mueller's take on the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court hearing, the enforcement on the injuction will most likely end.

The only way Motorola may be able to render this patent, which was already found invalid on multiple reasons in the UK court last year--is by narrowing the claim to what the invention was originally related to: "ensuring the delivery of messages to pagers attached to different garments".

If Google does lose the case, if will eventually have to pay Apple in damages for enforcement of improperly granted injunction. Interestingly, this case is the only injunction any Android based company is enforcing against Apple, anywhere in the world. Though we might say there are an even wins-and-loses on both sides on the Android-Apple war, the only wins Android has scored are "non-defeats, not true wins in terms of offensive achievements  That's why licensing-- not litigation -- is the only pragmatic solution for Andriod device makers to address their platform's infringement problems.

{20} Patent Privateering on Rise

Google alongside Red Hat, BlackBerry, and EarthLink is pushing the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice to pay greater attention to patent assertion entities (patent trolls), or more commonly termed Patent Privateers. These privateers have become a detrimental part of the tech industry as they embroil companies in expensive litigation over bogus claims on technologies. 

Google claims that the "asymmetric warfare" has cost the United States $30 billion in 2011, and $80 counting all direct and indirect costs. Asymmetric warfare is a tactic used by patent trolls who buy and split legitimate patents from companies and then go on to sue other companies for using them on multiple fronts--even though the patent trolls have no intention of actually manufacturing any of the patents they are suing for. These patent trolls have come to make a living solely by asking for money to stop them for suing. On Google's Public Policy Blog, it states that "Trolls are hurting consumers and are increasingly going after small businesses, hampering innovation, and reducing competition." 

According to TechCrunch's article on patent assertion entities (PAE), PAE's comprise 62% of all patent law suits now (as displayed on the graphic below). 

As we discussed in class last week, the idea behind Patent Trolling as become especially successful because these companies are comprised just on essentially two pieces of paper, and thus cannot by countersued. They don't manufacture any products, and thus can sue with impunity. Many times, the transferring companies that sell their patents to patent trolls hide behind the trolls to avoid themselves from litigation, while many times still getting the benefits (a cut of the win).

As rumor has it, Congress is considering requiring trolls who lose cases to pay court costs, which is a hefty part of what makes these litigations so expensive, for both sides. Since patent trolls have been enjoying their sweet ride of winning money or losing nothing, if Congress passes this law, patent trolls may finally be forced to consider their actions as they will  have something to lose in the process. 

{19} Samsung and Motorola Unlock Apple's Slide-to-Unlock

In Germany, Samsung and Google's Motorola Mobility have finally scored a big win over Apple regarding the user interface patent regarding "unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image".

Germany's Federal Patent Court, Bundespatentgericht, has found the patent invalid as it does not cover all slide-to-unlock gestures--allowing Apple competitors to find loopholes to workaround to avoid infringement.   This is quite a famous patent, as all smart phone users use some variation of this motion. However, due to Apple's lack of extensiveness in describing its patent, Samsung and Motorola have been able to find a way around the patent.

For a large part, Apple was defeated in German court due to European law having restrictions on what is patentable and what is not, unlike in the United States, where nearly everything is patentable. German court's decision was based on the fact that the "claimed invention is new over the prior art" only due to the swiping gesture to unlock a device. However, under European patent law, this fails to meet the technicity requirement  as the mere action of sliding is visual representation and not deemed a technical innovation. In Europe, according to Foss, Software "as such" is not patentable unless it solves a technical problem with technical means.

According to Mueller's review on his blog, Foss Patent, the German decision can be appealed, so it will be interesting to see what Apple does in retaliation. This is a big patent for them to lose out on, especially because they could have gathered so many royalties on it as nearly all smart phones have need this technology. The fight between Samsung and Apple is being reflected in the market as well, as figures from this week alone indicate that while Apple has extended its lead over Samsung in the United States, Samsung leads worldwide. iOS has regained some lead from Android as of Feb 2013 in the United States, but Samsung's profits are expected to rise 53 percent to around $7.7 billion in the next quarter.

Now that the decisions between the Samsung and Apple battle are finally trickling through, it's interesting to see how the market is reflecting to these changes.

{18} Apple Bringing Futuristic iPhones Closer to Reality

Apple has filed a patent application for an "Electronic device with wrap around display" which could make it possible to create an iPhone that's essentially flattened piece of glass. 

The patent is quite extensive and states a device with touch gestures and virtual buttons replacing all physical buttons completely. While the shape would be similar to the current iPhone, but with a touch-sensitive glass display. According the patent filing, this allows "functionality to extend to more than one surface of the device", meaning that it can take up more of the device's surface area.

The patent states glass or other suitable transparent material to house the device in a stable support while also allowing for maximum access to the screen and high aesthetic value. Some variations of the device embodiment can be bead-blasted or covered in ink to hide some of the unsightly internal elements. The radio transparency of glass would prove a key asset to internal wireless communication equipment if they use a glass tube, as noted by Apple Insider.

Google and Samsung are also all playing with a similar idea, so it will be see who comes out with a working device first. This technology definitely seems very exciting and something quite unbelievable that it could be a part of our daily lives very soon.

{17} Google Fails to Follow Microsoft's Footsteps in Transparency

In the midst of the patent battle warfare, Microsoft is stepping out with a new functionality to increase transparency among patents: Patent Tracker Tool which enables anyone interested in checking out Microsoft  or its subsidiaries' patents to download them in a CSV format.

The tool will allow patents to be searched for by patent number, country, title, and whether the patent is is held by a subsidiary or of Microsoft's itself.

Microsoft's Executive VP of Legal & Corporate Affairs Brad Smith said. "Transparency around patent ownership will help prevent gamesmanship by companies that seek to lie in wait and "hold up" companies...transparency is a prerequisite to enforceability of patent licensing pledges, whether to standards, bodies or to the world at large. Quite simply, without transparency it is impossible to determine if a company is in fact abiding by those commitments."

Google, troubled with Microsoft's PR, followed headlines with news of their own: by promising not to assert 10 of their patents against open source software, joining the ranks of IBM, Sun Microsystems, Computer Associates who also promised to not assert select patents in 2005. The caveat, however, is not only the dismal amount of patents from their entire patent portfolio Google chose to pledge, but the value of the patents. The pledged patents are not beneficiary and those not helpful in any way to the open source community. According to Foss Patents, while IMB only pledged 1% of its portfolio, Google, with 10 patents, has pledged a small fraction of its portfolio (of the 17k it owns).

To put the number 10 in perspective, Google handed out 9 of its patents to HTC, one company, which were used to sue Apple by HTC immediately. If Google can give 9 patents out to HTC for a particular rival, I would think it could dish out a lot more than 10 to open source.

It's not like a win-win solution is not possible. Microsoft promised to not sue individual open source developers over any of its patents, not just 10...through the Microsoft Community Promise. Furthermore, Google not only likes to hold the right to sue any open source developers they also are very stingy on making a complete public list of there acquired and total patents apparent. They are clearly losing the Transparency battle (along with the Motorola patent battles against Microsoft). Google's indexed patent search tool, while is a step towards the right direction in transparency, it still falls short of Microsoft's downloadable CSV file of all their patents.

If Google wanted to, I'm sure it wouldn't be at all difficult completing a simple task of making a list of their patents available to the public in between inventing 3D glasses or an automated car--but they are choosing not to, which only makes one think, why not? What do they have in store, what are they cooking up in their super secret lab? Regardless, it needs to make quick strides to catch up to Microsoft in transparency, or deal with the wrath of the public and patent community. Ten pledges doesn't even come to make a dent in the open source community, so Google and other companies should be focusing on the bigger picture of their overall patent portfolios rather than getting revved up over a tiny number of patents.

In an era of such great and massive innovation, where nearly 30,000 non-provisional patent filings happen per month according to Patentlyo.com, transparency is key towards enhancing and inducing that competitiveness and fueling growth and job creation.

{16} Microsoft comes out on top in fight with Google

The ITC has decided in a preliminary ruling that Microsoft's Xbox gaming console does not infringe Google or rather Motorola's Patent on "sensor controlled user interface for portable communication devices." As this is just the preliminary running, the Commission's six-member decision-making body can review the judge's decision on four infringement findings. Google is obviously hoping for a different decision from the Commission. As Google continues to fight more and more cases on behalf of Motorola (a company under Google), the logic behind the $12.5 billion purchase. Microsoft has already win a U.S. Import ban over one Motorola patent and 3 patent German injunctions against Motorola forcing Android devices out of German market for months, which as we learned in class can be a big hit for a company. Google's Motorola hasn't won anything apart from a couple German rulings that it didn't even get to enforce.
Google is probably realizing that it will end up paying Android patent royalties to Microsoft. And sandy, Motorola's patent portfolio doesn't give it enough leverage for a "freebie" cross-license, as said by Florian Mueller if Foss Patents. 

{15} Nokia working its way back in the game

It's war time again, and this time between Nokia and Android, Google, and HTC. Android's tethering feature which enables mobile phones to work as network routers to share Internet connection with portable computers is likely to infringe Nokia's patent. Google and HTC were just defeated by Nokia on claim construction in respect to the proper legal interpretation of the patent on "method for making a data transmission connection from a computer to a mobile communication network for transmission of analog and/or digital systems." 

U.S. can issue an import ban against HTC's Android devices if Google and HTC are unable to deny infringement at the trial by proving the patent invalid based on prior art. 

There is a long an tortuous trial ahead as this is only one of 40 patents Nokia has carded against HTC. If Nokia is able to hold leverage and prove infringement, this can be a big win for Nokia as its a feature that is used in dozens of devices, including Samsung. 

Androids and iOS technology has pretty much dominated the mobile market that Nokia was a big part of only a few years back. Surprisingly tethering technology seemed to be an Android innovation, but it turns out that Nokia filed a patent on the core concept over a decade ago.

This is definitely really interesting as it interweaves with our concepts in class on how important it is to choose careful wording when filing a patent. 

This one patent among the 40 others can definitely bring Nokia back into the Mobile scene. 

{14} Apple Misuses Patented Speaker Tech

Sound innovation company founded by George Lucas, THX, filed a complaint against Apple claiming that various models of Apple iPhone, iPad, and iMac technology infringe on a single speaker patent for a "narrow profile speaker configuration and systems."

Patent Background: Broadly the patent granted in 2008 describes the method of effectively enhancing the sound of quality in compact speaker arrangements found in consumer electronics.

THX is demanding royalties and damages to make up for lost profit due to the monetary damages and irreparable harm caused by Apple's Violation. In Apple's defense, it owns a variety of speaker-central patents, the most recent of which includes a "low-profile speaker arrangements for compact electronic devices", which could substantially share some claims with the THX patent in suit.

Considering how closely related both patents seem, the battle may just come down to patent validity. As cited by Mikey Campbell in Apple Insider, "As devices become increasingly thin, the number of methods in which speakers can be effectively implemented within a given chassis is greatly reduced." So what remains is the turtle-hare race: who can get to it first?

{13} Third Time's the Charm: Google Attempts to Salvage Patent yet again

As cited in Foss Patents, Google is trying to assert the viability of a Motorola (owned by Google Corp.) utility patent regarding a "sensor controlled user interface for portable communication device" despite having the argument being denied twice by an administrative law judge.

Patent Background: Broadly the patent covers the concept of the phone ignoring any physical or touchscreen senses if the phone is held "in close proximity" to the head. This helps prevent those accidental phone calls or hang ups that cause you grave trouble. In the above picture, 134 & 136 located near the top of the phone indicate Motorola's '862 patent showing the hidden IR proximity senor located near the speaker.

Google is now asserting the Commission consider the patent is of non-obvious nature and useful. The patent was originally found violated by Apple but deemed invalid due to indefiniteness. [Def: definite claim: person of ordinary skill in the art must be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim, i.e. determine whether a particular device or method is covered by the claim or not.] On it's second review, the Commission reversed the indefiniteness finding but rather found the Motorola patent to lack novelty (as per its priority date).

Google now faces the challenge of proving the patent is valid and infringed even under narrower claim constructions. Or as said by the author of Foss Patents: "it has to thread the needle". Apple (the infringer) may still be fine if the patent continues to be deemed invalid or the claim is now so narrow that Apple no longer infringes.


Anticipation means the invention as a whole (all of its limitations, i.e., elements in that particular combination) was already known on the priority date. 
Obviousness means that it wasn't known in its entirety but there was no inventive step involved that would justify the grant of a new patent.

{12} Power Play: Samsung vs. Apple

In the latest happenings of the Apple-Samsung case in California, Judge Lucy Koh--the federal judge presiding over the two lawsuits has ordered that the parties must substantially narrow their claims. Some of the parameters set include: limiting asserted patent claims and accused products to 25 per side, only 50 experts on the litigation, etc. In class we have discussed how large tech companies have dedicated financial budgets and patent lawyers always on the lookout for patent infringement--even ready to spend upwards of $2M to keep other smaller companies stressed, occupied, and blocked. As the author of Foss Patents put it,  

Formally this was a warning to both parties, but this is of concern only to Apple, which wants to enforce its intellectual property rights as quickly as possible, while Samsung's counterclaims are little more than an effort to slow down the process and create the appearance of mutual infringement.

 Samsung is trying to capitalize and reinforce this pressure on Apple, and with now the Judge's warning--Samsung is only adding more pressure. Furthermore, Samsung, even as the infringer, has the upperhand on this case because of the broken patent enforcement U.S. patent system which makes it extremely difficult for right holders to deal with parties that infringe large numbers of patents with a large number of products. In this specific case, the parameters the judge has set are favorable to Samsung as it has far more products than Apple, and thus won't be impacted by the 25 limit, unlike Apple will be. Apple may be left defnseless on many of the alleged infringements, while Samsung will be able to attack a whole range of Apple's products in its counterclaim.

Samsung is taking advantage of this situation, as any tech company would, and even going as far out as to ask for a stay on this case--trying to keep the pressure built and intact on Apple for as many quarters as possible.   

{11} Google Claiming its Territory

All the way in Germany, Nokia and HTC (+ Google) are fighting it out on over three dozen different patents (Nokia filed against HTC)--one of which regards an "apparatus and method for compressing a motion vector field", according to fosspatents. Nokia is asserting the patent against HTC smartphones and tablet computers that are running an Android version 2.3 or higher that have the ability to decode VP8 videos. The story twist: VP8 was created by a company Google acquired. So as usual, Google finds its way in the middle of most headliner patent suit cases. Nokia is claiming infringement by HTC on all of their implementations of VP8 (Google-controlled). Google is participating as a third-party intervenor.

This is the first trial on VP8 technology, and coincidentally enough it took place within 24 hours after the Google-MPEG LA agreement that signed over its VP8 technology to Google. Nokia is able to claim patent infringement on this case because is hold video codec patents that it considers VP8 to have infringed. Nokia isn't the only patent-holder on video codec inventions, so it will be interesting to see how many other companies come out, now that Google is in the ball-game.

I visualize this as a playing field, where you kind of have one bone--and you let the hungry dogs out, and see them fight. Google will most likely have to suffer through a dozen more trials before it can reliably claim that the VP8 patent situation is stable. I wonder if it was worth it.

{10} Google Demands Substance from Patents

Google is recommending the US Patent Office to curb their common practive of broad language in software patent filings which do not disclose actual algorithms, according to The Verge. After going through the awfully lengthy worded language of a patent claim this past week in class, I completely support Google's suggestion to the USPTO. According to a spokesperson from Google, "The corpus of existing software patents is replete with claims that describe a high-level function and no supporting algorithm."

When it comes to technology and innovation, it is not so much the words to explain the invention that matter so much as the algorithm itself. While words can be strung together to make a confusing, lengthy patent--someone else can use the same basic algorithm to create a product that may be described completely differently. So it would be smarter to judge technology in the language it is written in versus another language.The broad language of the language used in patents only invited scrutiny and fuels litigations and patent trolling--"drags on innovation".  I think it is important to consider a change in how software patents are handled--adding a specific subset of rules for specific type of patents may just be the answer. 

{9} A Closer Look at Patents

This week we had a guest lecturer, Uzi Aloush, who really took us to the depth of what patent's look and read like. It was interesting that awkward language was used as a strategic maneuver to confuse those looking for infringements and leave loopholes for patent holders to disallow other patents from forming. A single word, as in the patent we looked in the class the word "LAN" allowed technologies and services like Skype which runs on WAN escape having to pay up for the video conferencing patent we were discussing in class. I didn't realize how the language and terminology written in patents is essentially another language one must learn how to read and interpret. Mr.Aloush gave an interesting example of peeling an onion to its core--as many patent lawyers do to find the heart of the invention. And then layers and elements are added to pad the core and encompass all variations of the invention so they are protected. This information was definitely a great asset to build upon!

{8} The Patent Rat-Race

Unwired Planet purchased over 2,400 patents from Ericsson in January to help it compete against its various legal battles against Apple, Google, and RIM. The purchase increased Unwired Planet's stock by 20% and grew its 260 patent portfolio to 2400. Ericsson gets to share the portfolio to battle its own patent cases. Unwired Planet have gone so far as to sell off parts of there businesses to focus on their patent assets.
As quoted by TechCrunch:

"Ericsson, like Unwired Planet, is also involved in patent lawsuits, such as this one against Samsung, so access to an “enlarged patent portfolio” could prove to be a valuable exchange for the company. The pressure for successful returns on Ericsson’s patent assets is perhaps even greater considering the other problems the vendor is facing. Chief among them, Ericsson said in December it would be taking a $1.2 billion charge on its troubled ST Ericsson chipmaking joint venture."

Who wouldn't make the same move as Unwired Planet. When you can make billions in exchanging, trading, sharing, selling, and threatening by way of patents--there is very little motivation to innovate unless its innovation to create more patents.

{7} Apple Rules (Over) All

Among one of the recent patents awarded to Apple this week, was a patent that involved disabling certain features on your phone based on location. While we see that in our smart phones already in regards to volume and WiFi settings, Apple is taking it a step further and will rely on GPS, cell tower, or WiFi technology to determine the users location and then proceed to "change one or more functional or operation aspects" of the device.

These changes can include but are not limited to silencing all phones in movie theaters automatically, turning off WiFi in hospitals, blocking all phone calls in classrooms, etc. It's your very own personalized handheld Big Brother. While this is amazing technology, in the wrong hands one can understand that this device can put a lot of power into the wrong hands. If we were worried about Russia or China infringing on internet rights before, imagine these countries being able to overrule decisions on your personal wireless device. We will no longer be the owners of the phone, but rather the policies will run our phones.

{6} Patent Quibbling

Google is countersuing UK Telco BT over patent infringement in response to the companies claims against Google filed in December 2011 though not for the same services. According to TechCrunch.com, BT is suing Google over patent infringement related to its Android mobile operating system. BT owns 5,000+ patents in area including Internet and wireless technology, as well as telephony. 

As an act of defending themselves, Google fires a patent lawsuit + a many million dollars worth of expense and time in return. This back and forth game of You hit me, so I'm going to hit you, from a nontechnical point of view would be seen as child's play, often something we are reprimanded for doing as youngsters. These big companies are using a public space to quibble. 

The tech industry is constantly innovating and evolving. However, we did not jump from using pigeon post to texting in a day--these innovation evolved upon one another--and not all of them were made by the same person. I find it extremely unprofessional for such a technological giant having to concentrate some of its efforts towards efforts of claiming or suing other companies for patent rights. 

{5} Patent Trolls

A patent troll is a person or company that aggressively files for and enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in an opportunistic or unduly excessive manner. The worst trolls often times have no intention of following through building or manufacturing or marketing the final product once they obtain the patent, much commonly known as a non-practicing entity (NPE). An example of a common type of troll in modern technology is a domain name troll who strategically registers desirable domain names.

President Obama spoke out on this issue on Feb 14, 2013 during a Fireside Hangout.
“They don’t actually produce anything themselves,” said Obama of patent trolls. “They’re just trying to essentially leverage and hijack somebody else’s idea and see if they can extort some money out of them.”

While patent trolls defend themselves by labeling themselves as the evening field between large tech companies and small time inventors who can not promote or market their product or idea as well, the trolls are finding themselves more and more reaping in large sums of money from the lawsuits themselves and barring innovative creation--than helping it grow. In my opinion patent trolls have become a major impediment to technology startups who constantly have to be on the defense from other companies suing them for infringement. 

If you aren't using your idea, why not let someone else build upon it and put in the work that you aren't will to put! Huh trolls? 

{4} Disclosed: Trade Marks, Patents, Copyrights

In class this past week, we talked a lot about the logistics of Trade Marks, Patents, and Copyrights and the dates, paperwork, fees, and most importantly the expiration dates surrounding each.

	Expiration	Fees
Trademark™	·   Indefinitely if the owner continues to use the mark to identify goods or services. ·   The term of a federal trademark registration is ten years, with ten-year renewal terms.	·  $275 per class* for a TEAS Plus application that meets the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §§2.22 and 2.23 ·  $325 per class for an application filed electronically using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) ·  $375 per class for an application filed on paper * class of goods and services you are claiming ~$1000 - $3000 total with lawyer fees
Copyright ©	·   Created after January 1, 1978: the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. ·   For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire: 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, which ever expires first.	~ $35 - $500 Copyright Fees
Patent	·   20 years from the date the applications were filed (so long as the appropriate maintenance fees are paid – 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 year marks) ·   Design patents last 14 years from the date they are granted. No maintenance fees required.	~ $1000 - $4000

{3} What's your Trade Secret, and how long will it last?

A trade secret by definition is info that is confidential and valuable, and most importantly it must have competitive advantage.This could be a formula, practice, design, process, instrument, or any other compilation of information which is not generally known or reasonably ascertainable (wiki). There are three things that make a trade secret a trade secret. 
1. Information is not generally known to the public
2. Economically beneficial to holder
3. There are reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.

Discovering trade secrets by illegal means like company espionage is punishable by law, but interestingly if you're smart enough to reverse engineer a recipe or formula, is a lawful act!

According to a United States International Trade Commission report on China: Effects of Intellectual Property Infringement and Indigenous Innovation Policies on the U.S. Economy, the commission estimated theft of trade secrets in China that led up to $1.1 billion in U.S. economic losses. The ITC reports that Asian nations are the focus of the cases filed thus far.

According to a recent story in Bloomberg, a Texas-based company is suing a former employee who stole the company trade secrets and went to work with a Chinese manufacturer. Since most of the evidence and witnesses were located in China for the case, a federal judge told the company to take its claim overseas. However, ITC is able to block imports of products that violate U.S. intellectual property rights--thereby cutting off a huge market for supposed foreign trade secret thieves. As most of these companies are concerned with the U.S. market, ITC enables them to keep the battle in the home country.

Trade Secrets are complicated properties to manage within a company themselves, fighting for them overseas seems like a harder battle. It is interesting to see how the U.S. ITC has come together to rescue U.S. companies for overseas theft, however the many companies suffer from losing markets abroad as documented by the $1.1 billion loss in the ITC report. While the 21st century thrives on innovation, it is interesting to see how with every step forward in the technology sector we have to be place an enormous effort in protecting new ideas and information.

As an intern with Symantec's Data Loss Prevention team, I've come to realize how big large companies are willing to pay to protect their and their customers information from slipping out into the real-world.

{1+2} A snippet about me!

Hello! My name is Sargunjot Kaur. I'm a Junior on my way to completing my Computer Science degree at UC Berkeley. I hope to pursue a career within AI or robotics as I love working on innovative, mind-twister, and challenging problems. In my free time, when not stuck in Soda dungeons, I enjoy cooking and baking from recipes found on Pinterest.

I stumbled upon this class through the CET program, and honestly wished I knew about the interdisciplinary range of classes offered within CET/IEOR sooner! I always found the law side of patents very interesting as it integrated engineering, philosophy, and debating (some of my favorite things) all into one field. However, I never gave thought that there is a whole separate engineering stream behind patents! I look forward to learning a lot in this class and going on the field trip to watch a patent litigation case in person!

More weekly updates on all that I'm learning in class to follow!