{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.