The collaboration and conversation facilitated by the use of blogs and videos were really interesting to utilize in this class.
Too often in other courses the tangible essays or tests that we take are often thrown away or shoved under some shelves after the class is over. The use of blogs and videos on the internet allows the materials that we create to be easily accessible for us to look back to in the future. I think that this is much more useful to know that we could be passing on our knowledge and learning for other people in the future.
Furthermore, what was really great about the blogs and comments is the conversation with our classmates. It is not often that we get to listen to everyone's opinions and discoveries. The blogs and comments allow us to gather information from our peers and also express how we feel. In discussion it is often that people who are more aggressive gets to talk more but the blogs and comments allow an even level playing field.
The YouTube component was great in that I had to understand the material a lot more in order to speak concisely. I like that exercise taught me to be firm about my opinions so that I could express it out loud. One thing I didn't like as much was watching the YouTube videos of other people's. I thought that it was redundant from the blog materials and took a lot of time.
Overall though, I thought this was a very innovative way to share thoughts and learn!
Friday, May 2, 2014
The Value of 190G
This semester, I have thoroughly enjoyed this patent engineering class. As a business major, it was refreshing to be exposed to the different layers of the patent topic. My learning ranged from the different components that make something patentable to recent relevant patent wars to the practical application the ability to read patents.
Understanding the different components that allows a patent to be valid has enabled me to identify when my ideas can be a claimed intellectual property. The major components of obviousness, prior art, novel, and inventive step was carefully fleshed out in the class. This detailed understanding will really help me ensure that my invention and creation brings something new to the table.
Reading articles on the different patent wars that are taking place helped me understand the purpose of patents and the troubles within that governing group. I was able to recognize patent trolls and why they take place in the competitive market. The class really pushed me to have an opinion about certain cases I was wrote my narrative in the blog posts.
Through the guest speakers, I really valued the class because it made me understand how to apply patent knowledge in the real world. Learning the different occupations that involve understanding patents opened was important to me. The diversity of opportunities that understanding patents bring is truly unique.
Walking away from this class, I am more confident about how patent works and its affects on all industries. I'm excited to learn more as I now know the resources to do my research and have built a solid foundation of knowledge about it!
Understanding the different components that allows a patent to be valid has enabled me to identify when my ideas can be a claimed intellectual property. The major components of obviousness, prior art, novel, and inventive step was carefully fleshed out in the class. This detailed understanding will really help me ensure that my invention and creation brings something new to the table.
Reading articles on the different patent wars that are taking place helped me understand the purpose of patents and the troubles within that governing group. I was able to recognize patent trolls and why they take place in the competitive market. The class really pushed me to have an opinion about certain cases I was wrote my narrative in the blog posts.
Through the guest speakers, I really valued the class because it made me understand how to apply patent knowledge in the real world. Learning the different occupations that involve understanding patents opened was important to me. The diversity of opportunities that understanding patents bring is truly unique.
Walking away from this class, I am more confident about how patent works and its affects on all industries. I'm excited to learn more as I now know the resources to do my research and have built a solid foundation of knowledge about it!
Saturday, April 26, 2014
Silly Patents: Apparatus For Simulating a "High Five"
Patent US5356330 allows one of the best forms of greetings to be more effective and accurate for an individual. What the device does is assist a artificial arm and hand to perform the task of a high-five. Breaking it down to its technical components, the device is an apparatus that attaches to the upper part of the artificial arm and the artificial lower arm portion. The elbow joint allows pivoting through a secure spring. Adjustments can be made for the most effective alignment.
The purpose of the device, stated by patent owner Albert Cohen, is to allow lonely people to have something to high-five with when they are alone. This is particularly useful when watching a sports game alone, he noted.
To be honest I have never had the urge to high-five someone when I am alone. The high-five gesture is a social interaction, not something that needs to be simulated. I would not be depressed if I do not have a high-five buddy. I would be more depressed if I owned a device like this.
Silly Patents: Method And Device For Recognition of a Collision With a Pedestrian
Patent US6784792 is a technology implemented on the front of a vehicle to detect if the high impact that a car faces was caused by a pedestrian. The patent is able achieve this in two steps. The first is using sensors on the bumpers and front edge of engine hood to understand the pressure and deformations of the impact. They are compared to a database of trends that tend to happen when a human is the object that is hit. The second is to detect the velocity and acceleration of the vehicle during and after the impact. Then it is referred to database to see if it is aligned to a typical pedestrian collision. Sounds like a smart system but is it really going to make our lives any better?
At the end of the day, someone was bored. This complicated device is unnecessary. If you can't identify whether the object you have collided into is a human being, you definitely should not be driving in the first.
Saturday, April 5, 2014
Mintz v. Dietz & Watson
The case of the Mintzes creating a meat casing structure that permits meat to bulge from netting is one that specifically hones in on the "hindsight" component of obviousness-identification. The court's ruling on the subject matter was aggressive compared to its more usually timid language regarding hindsight. The case went through the district court and was granted infringement ruling due to obviousness but the Federal Circuit's opinion reversed the ruling.
The opinion strongly states that the courts must avoid hindsight bias in determining obviousness. "The court needs to walk a tightrope blindfolded (to avoid hindsight)," they state. The opinion argues that three three rigid preventative tools can be utilized to prevent hindsight:
1) "Common sense" must be articulated
2) Avoid mentioning the patent itself in describing the problem the invention solves
3) Emphasizing the objective indicia of nonobviousness
To the court, articulating common sense is explicitly defining that it is obvious to try. The court also found that when articulating the problem the patent solves becomes difficult without mentioning the patent then the problem itself might be nonobvious, making the patent valid. Lastly, objective indicia is mandatory in that we must examine the patent by turning the clock back and placing it in the context that lead to the claim.
Overall these three emphasis and the more aggressive/explicit statements are a step in the right direction that protects patents from hindsight analysis. This allows the judgment of nonobviousness to be more accurate and held at a standard across the board.
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2012/05/mintz-v-dietz-watson-hindsight-and-common-sense.html
The opinion strongly states that the courts must avoid hindsight bias in determining obviousness. "The court needs to walk a tightrope blindfolded (to avoid hindsight)," they state. The opinion argues that three three rigid preventative tools can be utilized to prevent hindsight:
1) "Common sense" must be articulated
2) Avoid mentioning the patent itself in describing the problem the invention solves
3) Emphasizing the objective indicia of nonobviousness
To the court, articulating common sense is explicitly defining that it is obvious to try. The court also found that when articulating the problem the patent solves becomes difficult without mentioning the patent then the problem itself might be nonobvious, making the patent valid. Lastly, objective indicia is mandatory in that we must examine the patent by turning the clock back and placing it in the context that lead to the claim.
Overall these three emphasis and the more aggressive/explicit statements are a step in the right direction that protects patents from hindsight analysis. This allows the judgment of nonobviousness to be more accurate and held at a standard across the board.
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2012/05/mintz-v-dietz-watson-hindsight-and-common-sense.html
Identifying Obviousness in Design Patent
Mark Cohen, the named inventor of two patents (baseball and football) for sport jersey designs for dogs. Hunter, a retailer that had a previous professional relationship with Cohen has created jerseys that are similar to designs by Cohen. See image below:
Cohen's company, MRC, has sued Hunter for infringement. The case went through the Federal Circuit's two-step test. 1) a primary reference of something that already exists that appears basically the same. 2) other references that are related to the primary reference, with same overall visual appearance.
The references that the court chose was the Sporty K9 jersey and the V2 jersey. The court and MRC disagreed on the difference between the primary reference and the secondary reference. In the end the court ruled the Cohen's patent themselves are not valid due to prior art. MRC said that court should have leaned on revealing why a skilled artisan would take the extra step to achieve the secondary reference from the primary. Furthermore, MRC argues that the court should have looked at the commercial success and acceptance of the new product showing that they made an extra step towards innovation that has been more well received that previous products.
To me this argument is blurring the line too much. I do agree that at times a success of a product could be attributed to the fact that it is novel and innovative, going beyond the solutions that are currently available. Yet, at the same time it may not be nonobvious therefore making it not patentable. What's even more important is that success of products could be due to the big brand name of the company, the timing of the release, and the marketing tactics that was utilized. Therefore the court made the right decision and the argument made by MRC is weak.
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/04/design-nonobviousness-jurisprudence.html
Cohen's company, MRC, has sued Hunter for infringement. The case went through the Federal Circuit's two-step test. 1) a primary reference of something that already exists that appears basically the same. 2) other references that are related to the primary reference, with same overall visual appearance.
The references that the court chose was the Sporty K9 jersey and the V2 jersey. The court and MRC disagreed on the difference between the primary reference and the secondary reference. In the end the court ruled the Cohen's patent themselves are not valid due to prior art. MRC said that court should have leaned on revealing why a skilled artisan would take the extra step to achieve the secondary reference from the primary. Furthermore, MRC argues that the court should have looked at the commercial success and acceptance of the new product showing that they made an extra step towards innovation that has been more well received that previous products.
To me this argument is blurring the line too much. I do agree that at times a success of a product could be attributed to the fact that it is novel and innovative, going beyond the solutions that are currently available. Yet, at the same time it may not be nonobvious therefore making it not patentable. What's even more important is that success of products could be due to the big brand name of the company, the timing of the release, and the marketing tactics that was utilized. Therefore the court made the right decision and the argument made by MRC is weak.
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/04/design-nonobviousness-jurisprudence.html
Saturday, March 22, 2014
Obvious or not obvious?
That is the question.
What "obvious" has been used in the context of not being patentable if it was "[something that] would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains."
There are three key components that this would require:
1) What prior art exists in this subject matter
2) What is the difference between this new invention and the prior art
3) The level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
Prior art that is assessed are usually those that answers the same problem as the new invention. With this in mind, if the new invention can be two prior art's elements combined to be all of the new material, then it is "obvious."
Things that have allowed the "obvious" factor to be waved off includes:
1) The commercial success of the product
2) What unresolved needs are met by the product
3) The failures of prior creation to solve problems that this one can
4) Unexpected results and superiority of the product
In the end unobviousness is a matter of the validity of the creation based on historical products. Although inventions are built upon developed knowledge, it is important that the invention is taking a leap, not just a side scoot. Having the above points to direct what is analyzed to identify that a creation was obvious and what are components that an unobvious product can achieve helps draw black and white lines in the gray area.
There are three key components that this would require:
1) What prior art exists in this subject matter
2) What is the difference between this new invention and the prior art
3) The level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
Prior art that is assessed are usually those that answers the same problem as the new invention. With this in mind, if the new invention can be two prior art's elements combined to be all of the new material, then it is "obvious."
Things that have allowed the "obvious" factor to be waved off includes:
1) The commercial success of the product
2) What unresolved needs are met by the product
3) The failures of prior creation to solve problems that this one can
4) Unexpected results and superiority of the product
In the end unobviousness is a matter of the validity of the creation based on historical products. Although inventions are built upon developed knowledge, it is important that the invention is taking a leap, not just a side scoot. Having the above points to direct what is analyzed to identify that a creation was obvious and what are components that an unobvious product can achieve helps draw black and white lines in the gray area.
The Constitution's Protection of "Discoveries"
In terms of patentability, three defining components that we discussed in class is that it must be something that is man-made, novel, and not obvious.
In the constitution, Madison awarded Congress the power to protect the growth of innovation by use of intellectual property. The actual clause in the constitution stated:
"[Congress has the power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
What's troubling about this clause is the term "Discovery," which in our every day use refers more of unearthing something rather than creating something new. This goes against almost the two very defining points of man-made and novel. If it is something that someone unsurfaces, that means that it already exists and it could have been something natural rather than a new develop.
In a recent article, Professor Sean O'Connor of University of Washington stated that the word discovery should not be used to define inventions but rather if something new has "a certain degree of importance." To me, this is the unobvious point that we discuss. The point in which an invention is yes a discovery, as in it is utilizing the current resources that we have but perfecting it to a new creation. The unobvious point is to develop something of "importance" that significantly is created on the reliance of the discovery that the person achieve rather than something that any industry expert can innately recognize.
This point is very important to clarify. Yet at the same putting the definition of obvious in a structured language is a difficult task in itself.
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/03/constitution-mean-discoveries.html
In the constitution, Madison awarded Congress the power to protect the growth of innovation by use of intellectual property. The actual clause in the constitution stated:
"[Congress has the power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
What's troubling about this clause is the term "Discovery," which in our every day use refers more of unearthing something rather than creating something new. This goes against almost the two very defining points of man-made and novel. If it is something that someone unsurfaces, that means that it already exists and it could have been something natural rather than a new develop.
In a recent article, Professor Sean O'Connor of University of Washington stated that the word discovery should not be used to define inventions but rather if something new has "a certain degree of importance." To me, this is the unobvious point that we discuss. The point in which an invention is yes a discovery, as in it is utilizing the current resources that we have but perfecting it to a new creation. The unobvious point is to develop something of "importance" that significantly is created on the reliance of the discovery that the person achieve rather than something that any industry expert can innately recognize.
This point is very important to clarify. Yet at the same putting the definition of obvious in a structured language is a difficult task in itself.
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/03/constitution-mean-discoveries.html
Friday, March 7, 2014
Revealed Information Between Apple and Nokia Due to Battle with Samsung (Foss Patents)
Apple has recently posted publicly the disclosed information of its initially confidential patent agreement with Nokia. This sudden turn of events comes on the heels of its constant battle against Samsung.
Earlier this year, Samsung presented the issue of the confidential agreement to the court to sway the court to recognize the misconduct of public knowledge of the information that Apple has created. The motivation for this act is that with the information of the agreement going public, it could cause the court to reduce the fees imposed on Quinn Emanuel. Quinn Emanuel was ordered to be responsible to pay for the cost of disclosing information regarding Apple and Nokia's agreements. Therefore this cost should be greatly reduced if the information has already been neglected in public's hand by Apple in the first place.
This is not the first time the inadvertent public filing of Apple's licensing terms has occurred. The terms with Nokia and NEC and at least two other instances of confidential business information it had with Samsung and Google was also publicly filed.
To me, this blatant neglect from both Apple and Samsung should be met with consequences. It is surprising that Nokia isn't the player that is more aggressive about the fault of the two parties but rather the two parties trying to find fault in each other's conduct
Original Article
Earlier this year, Samsung presented the issue of the confidential agreement to the court to sway the court to recognize the misconduct of public knowledge of the information that Apple has created. The motivation for this act is that with the information of the agreement going public, it could cause the court to reduce the fees imposed on Quinn Emanuel. Quinn Emanuel was ordered to be responsible to pay for the cost of disclosing information regarding Apple and Nokia's agreements. Therefore this cost should be greatly reduced if the information has already been neglected in public's hand by Apple in the first place.
This is not the first time the inadvertent public filing of Apple's licensing terms has occurred. The terms with Nokia and NEC and at least two other instances of confidential business information it had with Samsung and Google was also publicly filed.
To me, this blatant neglect from both Apple and Samsung should be met with consequences. It is surprising that Nokia isn't the player that is more aggressive about the fault of the two parties but rather the two parties trying to find fault in each other's conduct
Original Article
Thursday, March 6, 2014
Groundbreaking Inventions Changes Patent Format (Patently-O)
The article I read this week goes hand in hand with what we are learning in class. This week we have been looking at how patents are written. Most specifically their format, language, and conciseness.
The article addresses that the court added to a statute that allows missing elements in specifications as long as skilled artisan reading the patents can fill the gaps without experimentation. They termed it as the "wand factors" which includes:
Original Article
The article addresses that the court added to a statute that allows missing elements in specifications as long as skilled artisan reading the patents can fill the gaps without experimentation. They termed it as the "wand factors" which includes:
- The quantity of experimentation necessary,
- The amount of direction or guidance presented,
- The presence or absence of working examples,
- The nature of the invention,
- The state of the prior art,
- The relative skill of those in the art,
- The predictability or unpredictability of the art, and
- The breadth of the claims.
Original Article
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
TruePosition acquires Skyhook: Implications for Google (Foss Patents)
For three years, Skyhook has been battling with Google over multiple location-positioning patents. With the acquisition of Skyhook by TruePosition, the opposition to Google will now be a more "well-heeled" opponent with more resources to afford the long litigation timeline and possible issue escalation (international scale).
The point that the article emphasize is it is a matter of if, not a when, that the trial will take place. There has been speculations that TruePosition would be more willing to settle the matter. Yet, that would be illogical because the acquisition of Skyhook is mainly for its IP. For the company to flaunt the matter in a PR release then to settle a case without benefiting from royalties would not make sense. Therefore, to not devalue the portfolio that it just acquired a push for a trial with a push to win is most likely in the cards.
I think it is interesting that TruePosition decided to follow through with the acquisition even though Skyhook is in the middle of the dispute with Google. From my experience in working in mergers and acquisition transactions, when a large dispute is identified in due diligence, it is more likely that the transaction will not take place. The reason being that it would be very risky for the buyer to gamble on the dispute. For if it is a loss the negative PR will label the transaction as one that is not beneficial for the company.
Article on Foss Patents
The point that the article emphasize is it is a matter of if, not a when, that the trial will take place. There has been speculations that TruePosition would be more willing to settle the matter. Yet, that would be illogical because the acquisition of Skyhook is mainly for its IP. For the company to flaunt the matter in a PR release then to settle a case without benefiting from royalties would not make sense. Therefore, to not devalue the portfolio that it just acquired a push for a trial with a push to win is most likely in the cards.
I think it is interesting that TruePosition decided to follow through with the acquisition even though Skyhook is in the middle of the dispute with Google. From my experience in working in mergers and acquisition transactions, when a large dispute is identified in due diligence, it is more likely that the transaction will not take place. The reason being that it would be very risky for the buyer to gamble on the dispute. For if it is a loss the negative PR will label the transaction as one that is not beneficial for the company.
Article on Foss Patents
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Patent Reform (Patently-O)
Another article by Dennis Crouch - displaying a graphic on action steps to combat Patent Trolls.
The graphic is derived on the topic of the Obama Administration's goals to promote innovation, research, and developing from inventors rather than being tied up in litigation.
Actions that the administration has conducted thus far includes:
Future actions that the administration hopes to implement are:
Ultimately, the plan of action are targeted across the board in order to ensure success. Yet, there has been no reports on the actual impact of these plans so far. It is important for the government to try to quantify the actual results these plans are delivering in order to understand where the focus should continue to be.
Original Article on Patently-O
The graphic is derived on the topic of the Obama Administration's goals to promote innovation, research, and developing from inventors rather than being tied up in litigation.
Actions that the administration has conducted thus far includes:
- Launching a website that allows patent troll victims easier access to getting their questions answered and learning to respond to demand letters.
- Creating more transparency to enable faster identification of abusive litigation.
- Holding a higher standard for higher quality patent in order to prevent overly broad claims.
- Conducting research among different stakeholders to understand the root causes of patent trolls.
Future actions that the administration hopes to implement are:
- Utilizing crowdsourcing so that inventors know if their creation is a novel product earlier on in the process.
- Increasing training for patent examiners, especially with the exponentially advancing technological field.
- Investing in pro-bono legal help for small businesses and inventors who lack legal resources.
Ultimately, the plan of action are targeted across the board in order to ensure success. Yet, there has been no reports on the actual impact of these plans so far. It is important for the government to try to quantify the actual results these plans are delivering in order to understand where the focus should continue to be.
Original Article on Patently-O
Friday, February 21, 2014
Intellectual Property Laws: (noun)
A term often described in legal sense to protect intellectual ownership through patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc. After collecting a set of 350 journals on IP, Dennis Crouch parsed through the documents in order to identify the focal points of these IP journals. His point was to discover what IP laws commonly serve.
As a result, Crouch discovered that 33% of the IP articles focus only on one piece of IP. Meanwhile, just below 66% focus on two IP areas. The most common combinations are Patent&Copyright and Copyright&Trademark over Patent&Trademark.
For definition sake:
Copyright protects the expresion of an idea, but not the idea itself.
Trade secrets are similar to copyright but it is used to protect competitive edge.
Patents cover the idea itself.
Trademarks are words or symbols that designates a differentiated source or producer.
This means that more people are protecting the ideas and protection of them over just the ideas and the symbol that communicates them.
I think this is definitely intuitive in terms of trends in intellectual ownership. Yet, I am glad I read an article that clearly defined the different concepts for me.
Article source: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/02/what-intellectual-property.html
Definition source: http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/trade_defin.jsp
As a result, Crouch discovered that 33% of the IP articles focus only on one piece of IP. Meanwhile, just below 66% focus on two IP areas. The most common combinations are Patent&Copyright and Copyright&Trademark over Patent&Trademark.
For definition sake:
Copyright protects the expresion of an idea, but not the idea itself.
Trade secrets are similar to copyright but it is used to protect competitive edge.
Patents cover the idea itself.
Trademarks are words or symbols that designates a differentiated source or producer.
This means that more people are protecting the ideas and protection of them over just the ideas and the symbol that communicates them.
I think this is definitely intuitive in terms of trends in intellectual ownership. Yet, I am glad I read an article that clearly defined the different concepts for me.
Article source: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/02/what-intellectual-property.html
Definition source: http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/trade_defin.jsp
US and EU are Playing it Cool - Too Cool (FOSS PATENTS)
The post in Foss Patents compares between the US and UK's leniency among competition laws. Both regions have reportedly lacked clear guidance which has caused offenders of FRAND cases off the hook too quickly. As a result, cases like Samsung and Motorola trying to ban Apple products or Motorola attempting to ban XBOX consoles are still alive. Examples of leniency complicating the system includes the following:
1) The United States Department of Justice recently decided to close its investigation of Samsung's violation of Apple patents. This comes on the heels of the veto from Samsung seeking to ban imported products with its patents.
2) The European Commission just accepted the proposal reached for Samsung's settlement of antitrust matter. There will be market tests but arguments have been made from the previous drafts.
3) Google currently has four different cases in the EU. One, how Google search engine treats its competitors. Two, Google Android's licensing practices violation. Three and four, how Google Motorola SEP continues to fight a battle against Apple and Microsoft. All four of which the court is hoping to settle.
Ultimately, many cases are congruently increasing with the pursuit for damages. Billion dollar claims with outrageous demands are causing the US and UK to turn a blind eye much more frequently. Therefore, both regions must make an effort to standardize and create more consistency to determine abroad antitrust decisions.
1) The United States Department of Justice recently decided to close its investigation of Samsung's violation of Apple patents. This comes on the heels of the veto from Samsung seeking to ban imported products with its patents.
2) The European Commission just accepted the proposal reached for Samsung's settlement of antitrust matter. There will be market tests but arguments have been made from the previous drafts.
3) Google currently has four different cases in the EU. One, how Google search engine treats its competitors. Two, Google Android's licensing practices violation. Three and four, how Google Motorola SEP continues to fight a battle against Apple and Microsoft. All four of which the court is hoping to settle.
Ultimately, many cases are congruently increasing with the pursuit for damages. Billion dollar claims with outrageous demands are causing the US and UK to turn a blind eye much more frequently. Therefore, both regions must make an effort to standardize and create more consistency to determine abroad antitrust decisions.
Friday, February 14, 2014
Google's Motive
Understanding the purpose of Motorola's acquisition can also be derived from understanding why Google offloaded it to Lenovo. In its own website, Google listed two benefits from the deal for acquiring the company: (1) Google and Motorola would accelerate innovation in mobile computing and (2) Motorola's patent portfolio would protect the Android's ecosystem. Selling of Motorola but retaining all of its patents, Google's main true purpose appears to be the latter. Because this was the main reason for its acquisition, Google's quick turn around to sell Motorola is not surprising. A large portion of Google's current success with Android has been the system's ability to be on multiple devices. Google needs to signal that it is not closing off the relationships that it has formed with its hardware partners. Furthermore, Android also wants to remain an open platform to all developers and device manufacturers, making owning Motorola almost redundant for Google. Meanwhile, the Lenovo deal hopes to retain Motorola for other purposes. Lenovo has been a company that favors expanding through acquisition. Growing through the PC, largely in the Chinese market, Lenovo is hoping to expand into manufacturing mobile devices, something Google is not as interested in. Therefore, this new deal is actually a better match for Lenovo will take itself to whole new level with Motorola. Yet, with still retaining Motorola's patents, Google may have something brewing in store that we are not aware of.
Value of Intelligence
Apparently, Motorola brought to Google $3.5 Billion in value. Although Google bought Motorola for $12.5 Billion and sold it for $3 Billion, after evaluating its cash no hand, deferred assets, price Lenova purchased it for, and etc. Google's value of Motorola's patent is smaller Apple and Microsoft's purchase of $4.5 Billion of Nortel. Acquiring over 20,000 patents, Google stated that it would not compromise relationships with its current handset partners (Samsung included). In actuality, Google's prime motivation of the acquisition has been to keep its partner, Samsung, in line. Recently, with 81% of Samsung's device being run by Android, Samsung has started to switch out components of the Android system. After the patents acquisition, the new Galaxy S5 indicated that Android's design weren't kicked out and hidden with Samsung's own apps. Secondly, with Samsung expressing a desire to switch to Tizen as its handset operating system, the purchase of Motorola has now allowed Google more leverage. It can indicate to its partner that it also has the capability of moving the Android system to its own devices (an easier switch than switching operating systems). Therefore, although it was scrutinized at first, the purchase of Motorola actually was an insurance policy for Google's growth in the mobile phone industry.
Friday, February 7, 2014
Collaboration Among Battles
Nokia vs. HTC
Just in today, Nokia and HTC signed a patent agreement titled as "technology collaboration." This is one of the first time peace has been the final settlement between two major tech players. Taiwan's largest smartphone maker completely out of the United States. Although the terms of agreement is confidential, this decision has allowed the validation of Nokia's achievements yet is also allowing the industry to grow as a whole. The patent specifically addresses radio signal and date transmission technology infringement. What is important to point out is that this case differs to the one of my previous blog. Instead of trying to slow down growth, for two companies that are not battling as market share giants in product differentiation, the fight is essentially for earning the billions of dollars spent on research from retaining the patents on the fundamental phone technology parts.
In my opinion, this is the type of patent that our laws reside upon. Nokia is known to have one of the most preeminent patent portfolios in the industry. This is the reason behind Microsoft's acquisition of the company. Therefore, I personally believe that this case's conclusion to settle will allow the encouragement of innovation in technology. This is a point that I strongly believe in, it will encourage companies to push their research and allow the opportunity to push licensing standards.
Just in today, Nokia and HTC signed a patent agreement titled as "technology collaboration." This is one of the first time peace has been the final settlement between two major tech players. Taiwan's largest smartphone maker completely out of the United States. Although the terms of agreement is confidential, this decision has allowed the validation of Nokia's achievements yet is also allowing the industry to grow as a whole. The patent specifically addresses radio signal and date transmission technology infringement. What is important to point out is that this case differs to the one of my previous blog. Instead of trying to slow down growth, for two companies that are not battling as market share giants in product differentiation, the fight is essentially for earning the billions of dollars spent on research from retaining the patents on the fundamental phone technology parts.
In my opinion, this is the type of patent that our laws reside upon. Nokia is known to have one of the most preeminent patent portfolios in the industry. This is the reason behind Microsoft's acquisition of the company. Therefore, I personally believe that this case's conclusion to settle will allow the encouragement of innovation in technology. This is a point that I strongly believe in, it will encourage companies to push their research and allow the opportunity to push licensing standards.
War Between the Giants
Samsung vs. Apple - two biggest players in the smartphone power battle worldwide.
In November, Apple won a fight of over two hundred and ninety million dollars in damages for patent infringements on the graphical user interface and its physical design. With litigation cases in over 10 countries and 19 cases, this is only one small win in that large war. As pointed out in lecture this week, patent wars are not only to secure and increase the individual company's market share, but it is also to slow down the growth of the competitors.
For me, the major point regarding the issue of patent war is its push to slow down the growth of societal gains. At this point, through the numerous cases, Samsung owes Apple a sum of around $1 Billion (a small margin for the giant companies). Yet, the ability to create a small barrier in timeline for the opposing company is a huge motivator behind the cases. The question becomes, what is the purpose of patents? Thus far in my studies, the reason for patents and owning intelligence has mainly been to encourage people to innovate and conduct research. The patents are to allow people to benefit from the investment they have made for their product. Yet, the battle between Apple and Samsung has done the opposite. This leads to the reasoning behind Obama's decision to veto against the resulting the I.T.C. ban on Apple Products. His reasonings were that the patents that Samsung won against Apple would remove the building blocks of the industry, causing a backward step the technology innovation space. Comparatively, Obama did not veto against Samsung's recent win against Apple because the firm will still be able to function and (almost forced to innovate in order to) function without it.
In November, Apple won a fight of over two hundred and ninety million dollars in damages for patent infringements on the graphical user interface and its physical design. With litigation cases in over 10 countries and 19 cases, this is only one small win in that large war. As pointed out in lecture this week, patent wars are not only to secure and increase the individual company's market share, but it is also to slow down the growth of the competitors.
For me, the major point regarding the issue of patent war is its push to slow down the growth of societal gains. At this point, through the numerous cases, Samsung owes Apple a sum of around $1 Billion (a small margin for the giant companies). Yet, the ability to create a small barrier in timeline for the opposing company is a huge motivator behind the cases. The question becomes, what is the purpose of patents? Thus far in my studies, the reason for patents and owning intelligence has mainly been to encourage people to innovate and conduct research. The patents are to allow people to benefit from the investment they have made for their product. Yet, the battle between Apple and Samsung has done the opposite. This leads to the reasoning behind Obama's decision to veto against the resulting the I.T.C. ban on Apple Products. His reasonings were that the patents that Samsung won against Apple would remove the building blocks of the industry, causing a backward step the technology innovation space. Comparatively, Obama did not veto against Samsung's recent win against Apple because the firm will still be able to function and (almost forced to innovate in order to) function without it.
Saturday, February 1, 2014
Why not?
Last year, a friend of mine recommended this class due to its unique structure and course material. This class seems to blend my passion for technology, background in business, and curiosity in engineering together. This course brings together students from very different studies. I am very excited to meet and learn from everyone's perspective and take that knowledge beyond the class. So far in life, I have two career achievement goals: (1) To ring the opening bell on wall street and (2) to own at least one patent. Therefore, understanding more about the law behind patents (especially hands on in a court room!) and the future of technological intellectual properties would be very valuable. I'm excited!
Brief Introduction
VK Vu - I'm a third-year UC Berkeley student with interest in business strategy, technology, and public policy. I'm currently studying in the undergraduate program at the Haas School of Business. Outside of my coursework, I am involved with Berkeley Consulting, where she has worked on consulting projects for Hewlett Packard and Google, and Beta Alpha Psi, where I held numerous leadership positions.
Most recently, I helped UC Berkeley Engineering Professor, Homayoon Kazerooni, develop a business plan to bring an exoskeleton research product to market. I am also very passionate about education for underprivileged youth. I hope to establish a sustainable nonprofit with that goal in mind. Beyond things that look good on paper, I am also a lover of volleyball and wine. I have a tendency to put a lot of extra spice on everything I eat and I always binge watch TV shows on break. Brought up near the Seattle area (although born in Vietnam), I have a very broad range of music taste and love the smell of rain.
Most recently, I helped UC Berkeley Engineering Professor, Homayoon Kazerooni, develop a business plan to bring an exoskeleton research product to market. I am also very passionate about education for underprivileged youth. I hope to establish a sustainable nonprofit with that goal in mind. Beyond things that look good on paper, I am also a lover of volleyball and wine. I have a tendency to put a lot of extra spice on everything I eat and I always binge watch TV shows on break. Brought up near the Seattle area (although born in Vietnam), I have a very broad range of music taste and love the smell of rain.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)