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
Friday, February 21, 2014
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)