Post #28: Apparatus for Stimulating a "high five"

In 1994, the patent "Apparatus for Stimulating a 'high five'" was granted (US Patent No. 5356330) to Albert Cohen. The patent's abstract states "an apparatus for stimulating 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." 

It is very interesting to see this invention back at the day. I would imagine it must be useful for people who are unable to move their arms. However, I wonder why the inventor develop this apparatus for just stimulating a "high five" and not other more relevant purpose that would be more useful for disable people. It seems obvious that every arm is able to give a high five, but inventing a device for it does not seem that obvious for me, it seems a bit surprising to me. The action of "high five" also would seem like a common sense for people, since everyone almost experiences a "high five" scenario. However, an apparatus that can stimulate a person's arm to just give a "high five" does not seem much of a common sense to me. A lot of patents, including the one I posted early, pants with extended zippers seem interesting, but people would never imagine others patent such inventions when the fundamental idea is intuitive. I never thought people would be able to patent these inventions, till last Monday when we read a couple of examples on "silly patents". Another thing we need to consider that these "silly patents" filed dates. It could be silly from nowadays's point of view, but what about back at the day when the inventor filed the patent? 

Post #27: Pants with extended zipper

A patent (US Patent No. 8332966) titled “Pants with Extended Zipper” illustrates the idea of a pair of pants, which can be easily separated at the crotch area that allows re-combination of the leg portions with different style. When I saw this patent, I was a bit surprise that this invention is patentable, since I would consider this invention is tight closely with fashion. I wouldn’t say this invention is obvious until I know about it. I wouldn’t consider this invention a common sense either. However, I don’t know why this invention is patentable although it does satisfy with the basic standard a patent must meet.

The concept of a pair of jeans are obvious, but the fact that the pair of jeans are able to be separated and re-combined from two different style of legging portions are not so obvious to me. It seems like another fashion concept to me though. It is strange that how a lot of fashionable clothes are not patentable due to the constant change in fashion. I suppose that this particular invention does not fall into the standard. It is interesting how people are able to patent something that everyone realizes how intuitive the invention is. Such as the method for cat exercising, and the animal toy we have discussed in class.  

Post #26: Apple's Patent: Converting Data from a Video Game to Comic Book

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted Apple a patent for their invention relating to systems and methods for recording data from a video game executed on an electronic device, and generating these data to convert it to a book, e-book, or comic book. The recorded data may include character information, dialogue from the video game, and results and metrics reflecting the performance of the user in the video game. These data may be inserted into a narrative data structure having pre-generated text. A book, e-book, or a comic book can be produced from the narrative data structure. The electronic device can send the recorded data to a server, and the server may send the e-book to the electronic device, to a user of the electronic device, and print a book from the narrative data structure.

It is interesting to see that Apple owning a big share of the tablet market and not so much in the realm of game consoles and storytelling-driven video game IP has been granted a patent such as this one. I do think it is a pretty cool idea from Apple to create a digital-comic-book version of the video game. I can see that if such system and method are implemented in the electronic device, a lot of gaming users would employ this application to create a their own digital-comic-book version of the game in record. It would also drive the imagination and innovation for the gaming industry to create and/or improve on the plot of a video game. 

For more information, visit: http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2010/08/apple-app-will-create-a-comic-book-from-your-video-game-play.html

Post #25: Ability to Locate and Interact with Vehicles via Smartphone Introduced by Apple

On April 25th, AppleInsider posted "Apple wants to use iPhone Bluetooth to locate, interact with cars". The U.S. Patent and Trademark office published two Apple's patents for inventing the ability to use an iOS device to track the user's car in a parking structure, to collect information on parking fee, and to activate the vehicle functions, such as starting the engine, unlocking doors, etc.

One patent titled: Method for Locating a Vehicle, which describes a method that the user is able to track his/her vehicle via Bluetooth with his/her mobile device to determine whether it is in a parked state for the handset to remember the parking location. When the user return to the parking structure, he or her can use the mobile device to determine a route back to the car. Basically the vehicle "communicates with the parking structure's location system, which logs the car's position and stores the data for later access by a mobile device."

The other patent, titled "'Accessing a vehicle using portable devices', a mobile handset pairs securely with a car over Bluetooth or other suitable method to control various on-board functions." Instead of using the key fobs that interact with the car via NFC or radio to control the car's function, Apple proposes a mobile device replacement to control the car through wireless protocols like Bluetooth. 

I think it is good that besides describing the variety of functions available for operation, the majority of the patent application focuses on authentication techniques and device-to-car security. As I was reading the post from AppleInsider, at first I was thinking that it would be very convenient to have an application like this on smartphone these days, but then as I scrolling down the article, I became more worried about the security issue for this application. It would allow theft to be much easier, since nowadays, the companies are trying to improve the smartphone devices by giving the device more control for the user's personal needs and wants. Especially the user is becoming more dependable on these mobile devices that it threatens me the idea of losing the device would lead to a devastated user. People can already pay with their smartphones, soon that people can locate and interact with their cars, and probably even their own home soon. I feel like the more control we give to these handset devices, the less control we have. I fear that the improvement of technology will lead to more crimes if no security system is developed simultaneously. The day where it will be easy to hack someone's personal information and even access their personal belongings, household, vehicles just by taking one's phone is coming sooner than we think. 

Post #24: Samsung's Brain-Computer Interface Patent

On April 19th, Patently Apple posted "Is Samsung's Brainwave Tablet Realist or just a PR Ruse?" In November, 2012, Samsung had filed a patent about brain-computer interface. The patent described how the users can command the future tablets to "open file", "close file", "copy file", "clicking", "paste", "delete", "space" or "inputting characteristics". Samsung is currently conducting a early-stage research with Roozbeh Jafari, an assistant professor of electrical engineering at the University of Texas, Dallas "testing how people can use their thoughts to launch an application, select a contact, select a song from a playlist, or power up or down." Samsung shows "how a brain-computer interface could help people with mobility issues complete tasks that would otherwise be impossible."

Jack Purcher argues in his post that Samsung's project that is designed to assist those with mobility issues is just another PR ruse. He stated that Samsung's research on brain-computer interface technology is nothing innovative as others have already proceeded with similar research. For example, Sony filed a patent in October 2012 on the very same idea for a gaming system.

   "Samsung is trying to "sound innovative" in the mobile space to help counter Apple's real innovations that kick start the true smartphone revolution in 2007. Samsung's marketing team is trying to get the public to at least perceive Samsung as being innovative so that they could build a new mystique around their brand. Yet until Samsung actually delivers such a product, a tablet controlled by your brain, it's just a PR ruse and typical Samsung poppycock." -Jack Purcher

I can understand Purcher's point of view towards Samsung's new patent application being a PR ruse. However, I do also think it is very ironically that how Apple is trying to call Samsung's newly filed patent on brain-computer interface technology to be a PR ruse when Apple filed the patent on iTunes U, which I talked about in my previous post. I understand that iTunes U can be implemented much sooner than Samsung's brain-computer interface. However, I do not see iTunes U, or Apple's tablet-computer hybrid to be innovative.

Most of the time, companies file patents on ideas that have not implemented into their actual manufacturing. At least, I am glad to see how Samsung is actually conducting research with the scientists to try to develop the brain-computer interface technology. Even though right now the media spotlight is on Samsung vs. Apple to fight to be on the innovative leader in the smartphone industry, we never know when another company beats both of them in the future.

For more information, visit: http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/04/is-samsungs-brainwave-tablet-realistic-or-just-a-pr-ruse.html

Post #23: Apple’s iTunes U: Virtual University

On Thursday, April 18, the US Patent & Trademark Office released the Apple’s patent application on iTunes U. iTunes U is basically like the virtual university including systems, methods, and computer program products for accessing e-learning coursed from an online resource. iTunes U allows the students to learn the materials on their own pace, and provides them with better visual feedback for interacting with the courses offered in iTunes.

There are several components incorporated into iTunes that already exist in other form. For example, the page that stores all the offered courses and other information, such as presentations, videos, etc are displayed on the collection page that looks like the online bookstore shelf collection. Second, the in-session and self-paced courses are basically webcam classes offered to students exist at UC Berkeley, and other schools. 

There are also other features you can find more information here: http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/04/apples-virtual-university-patent-finally-comes-to-light.html

All the features iTunes U are offering do not seem like an introduction of new technologies Apple has developed. They seem like a collection of existing ideas in a package, and market it to the customers. iTunes U brings back to the point I mentioned in my old posts that this iTunes U patent seems like another marketing package tool to gain more revenue rather than promoting innovation. I am a little bit disappointed at Apple. The idea of iTunes U could be more modified. However, I still support the traditional education method rather than transferring to the whole education method virtually. Even though, iTunes U could make learning a lot more convenient for a lot of people, it loses a lot of values you learn from a traditional classroom. It definitely loses the interaction and teamwork building that people value. It seems like the world is turning into a digital world, where people are interacting less and less face-to-face basis. 

For more information, please visit: 

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/04/apples-virtual-university-patent-finally-comes-to-light.html

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57580209-37/apple-tries-to-patent-tech-behind-itunes-u/

Post #22: Apple’s Offline iTunes Purchases Patent

On Tuesday, April 9^th, Apple was granted a patent for “a system permitting iTunes purchases using offline credits, according to the 2010 filing.” I would not consider this patent as an innovation, but more like an improved way of making more money. At least that’s what I suspect the whole idea got started. It certainly would also benefit the users to purchase music that they would like to listen to when there is no internet available. I also agree that the system will increase the sales of iTunes. I think this patent is considered as a good business idea rather than an innovated technical idea. It would be interested to see how  
Apple is going to adapt this new system to the iTunes, and how it affects the iTunes’ sales. 

For more information, visit: http://www.idownloadblog.com/2013/04/09/offline-itunes-apple/

Post #21: Apple’s Tablet-Laptop Hybrid Patent

On Tuesday, April 9^th, Apple finally revealed to public its vision of a “hybrid device that combines a touchscreen tablet and a notebook computer.” One interesting feature is that the users can charge the hybrid device wirelessly when the device’s base and display are detached. I thought it is incredible. 

I wonder if when you detach and reattach the base and display, the data will be saved in the display, and simultaneously back up on the base device when attach. It will be really cool to see the hybrid device in the market. I bet a lot of Apple’s fans are looking for this hybrid tablet-laptop. Hopefully the device has more feature of a laptop. I wonder if the device is heavy or light. I feel like most people choose a tablet is because they are light, smaller than regular laptop, and easy to carry around. For people who shop for the laptop, they are looking for a device that can handle more work, and have more features compared to a tablet. I wonder how the hybrid tablet-laptop will affect the markets for just tablet and laptops. It will be interesting to see how the other companies are going to adapt to this new vision of a tablet-laptop hybrid, and how the hybrid will affect the market.

For more information, visit: http://bgr.com/2013/04/09/apple-tablet-laptop-hybrid-patent-416882/

Post #20: German Court Denied Apple’s Slide-to-Unlock Patent

On Thursday, April 4^th, Mueller posted on Foss Patents blog that the Germany’s Federal Patent Court “ruled that all claims of EP1964022 on ‘unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image’ are invalid as granted.” Apparently the slide-to-unlock gesture has “a visual representation was not deemed to constitute a technical innovation” in Europe. It is very different from the U.S. patent law, where “everything under the Sun Made by Man is patentable as long as it is new and inventive. It makes me wonder that a lot of innovations are biased from subjective point of view. What exactly is the universal standard for new technology?  It seems like the European judge the innovation based on very technical point of view, rather than considering broad aspect of designs to be patentable. I feel like the day where when there is a unified universal patent court is still very far away. People will have different standard on whether the innovation is really patentable or not.  

For more information, visit: http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/apples-slide-to-unlock-patent.html

Post #19: USPTO Rejects iPad Mini Trademark

The U.S. Patent Trademark Office denied Apple’s application to trademark the iPad mini tablet on January 24^th. Apparently, the iPad mini mark “merely describes a feature or characteristic of applicants good.” The iPad mini “do not create a unique, incongruous or non-descriptive meaning in relation to the goods being small handheld mobile devices comprising tablet computers capable of providing Internet access.” It seems interesting that Apple was able to own a trademark for the iPod nano for example that is named around characteristics that “merely describe” the feature of the device compared to iPod. It seems odd that the USPTO would reject iPad mini trademark and not iPod nano. However, Apple does have until July 24 to prove that iPad mini is unique from iPad to the USPTO rejection letter that seen as a formality.

For more information, please visit:
http://topnews.us/content/254287-apple-s-application-ipad-mini-trademark-rejected-us-patent-office
http://phys.org/news/2013-03-patent-office-denies-ipad-mini.html

Post #18: Apple patents Multitouch Display without Content Showing User Interface

On March 26, Apple was granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for “‘Playback control using a touch interface,’ describing a method of input that registers touch gestures when no content is displayed on the multitouch screen.” This feature can be applied to portable devices. By tapping the screen, the user can control to play/pause, go to next/previous item, fast forward, rewind feature for songs. Circling on the screen will control the volume.

From the patent summary:

“To allow a user to control media playback using a touch sensing device without requiring the selection of displayed options, the electronic device can include a mode or configuration for which the touch sensing device can sense touch events, but not display any content on a display. For example, an electronic device with a touch screen can have a mode in which no content is displayed on the touch screen (e.g., the touch screen remains dark), but the touch screen is operative to detect touch events of the user.”

This new feature will definitely save the smartphone’s battery life. It is interesting to see how this patent is yet another improvement from the existing technology. I feel like this new feature will require a short adjustment period for the users to gain muscle memory on the tapping, etc. I wonder if the elder will appreciate this feature. 

For more information, visit: http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/03/26/apple-patents-no-look-multitouch-user-interface-for-portable-devices

Post #17: Apple’s Wrap around AMOLED Display Patent

Say goodbye to buttons on your smartphone! In September 2011, Apple filed a patent to the US Patent & Trademark Office for a new smartphone feature: a “curved AMOLED display” wrapped around a smartphone. The wrapped display will eliminate any button on the smartphone. The new AMOLED display not only will create a 3D effect with multiple layers of displays, but also supplies facial recognition technology. Apparently in January, Apple’s main competitor Samsung showed off a prototype smartphone with a bent display around the edges as the “‘virtual buttons’ for the user’s touch.” I wonder if this wrapped display is actually an improvement for the smartphone. Despite the additional technology, such as the 3D effect and facial recognition, I doubt the “wrapped around” design is a good fit. I feel like the design will make it difficult for the user to hold the phone. However, I think it is pretty cool to have 3D effect and facial recognition technology on the phone. 

For more information, visit: http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_apple-patents-wraparound-amoled-display-concept-smartphone_1816963

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020671593_iphonepatentxml.html

Post #16: ITC rules in favor of Microsoft Xbox against Motorola Patent

On March 22^nd, the ITC judge decided that Microsoft Xbox’s wireless communication technology did not infringe Motorola patent. This determination is “a recommendation to the full commission that has until July to affirm or modify the finding,” which means that Motorola still has the chance to fight back. A lot of cases today involved with popular consumer electronic devices, such as iPhone, Xbox, and more. I wonder how the market for these wireless devices is going to change by the decisions from the judges. It is somehow scary to think how the judges and juries’ decisions can impact the future economy. No wonder the process per case takes a long time, sometimes in years to determine. Also, how previously the court has decided to allow the industry expert to conduct research on the effect of iPhone ban in the smartphones market. It is important to protect the inventors’ idea, but I wonder if the impacts from infringements are building up to a catastrophic damage to the market.   

For more information, please visit: http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2013/03/22/itc-finds-microsoft-xbox-doesnt-violate-motorola-patent/

Post #15: Android’s tethering feature already existed back in 1995

Florian Mueller posted on his blog, Foss Patents today about “Android likely infringes Nokia patent on tethering as Google and HTC lose out on claim construction.” Apparently Android’s tethering feature already existed back in 1995, patented by Nokia (Patent No 5,884,190). The patent is about “a method for making a data transmission connection from a computer to a mobile communication network for transmission of analog and/or digital signals”. Android’s tethering feature “enables mobile phones to act as network routers in order to share their internet connections with portable computers.” To me, the Nokia patent and Android’s tethering feature is equivalent from a broad scope. It is interesting what Mueller stated in his blog on most defendants “seek to narrow the scope of a patent through their proposed claim” to deny infringement. However, Google failed in this case. What is really funny is that apparently Nokia did not know back when they filed the patent the value of this patent will become. I wonder if Nokia spent some time going through their old technology, and made improvements from those, or even applying those features in smartphones today, Nokia might climb its way up to the top again.

For more information, visit: http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/android-likely-infringes-nokia-patent.html

Post #14: Apple Patent on Inductive Smart Cover Charging Device

On Thursday, March 14^th, an AppleInsider Report revealed a new feature for the future iPad: “wireless charging, allowing an inductive Smart Cover with an in-built battery to charge the iPad.” “The new Smart Cover will have standard magnetic attachments and embedded Hall Effect sensor. But instead of the usual layered padding, the segmented body will include battery cells and essential wireless charging circuitry.” Despite the war between Apple and Samsung, it is good to know that innovation has not been stopped. However, even though the design is new, the technology is not new. The patent again reminds me what Professor Lavian has mentioned in class that 99.9999...% inventions are improvement of something in the past, and only 0.0000…1% are actual inventions from original ideas. The new Inductive Smart Cover Charging feature from Apple definitely falls under the 99.999…%. 

For more information, please visit: 

http://www.ibtimes.com/apple-ipad-5-features-new-patent-filing-suggests-wireless-charging-ipads-inductive-smart-cover

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/03/14/apple-proposes-on-the-go-wireless-charging-via-ipad-smart-cover-with-built-in-battery

Post #13: iPhone Ban?

On Wednesday, March 13^th, the U.S. International Trade Commission announced the delay of the Samsun and Apple patent case till May 31^st. The ITC is “[giving] industry experts a chance to comment on the effect that an iPhone sales ban would have on the public.” The fact that the ITC has decided to delay the case in order to see the potential damage on the public, it probably already implies bad news for Apple. The ITC seems like already ruled in favor of Samsung, if there were no potential significant damage to the smartphone and tablet markets. No matter what the decision will be, this case is going to have a major impact on the smartphone and tablet markets for the future. If the ITC would rule in favor of Samsung, we might foresee the beginning of the Apple’s sinking ship and the rise of Samsung to the top.

See more information, please visit: http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2254954/itc-to-explorer-repercussions-of-potential-iphone-ban

Post #12: Samsung vs. Apple in UK Court

Yesterday, Florian Mueller posted “UK judge declines Samsung’s job offer, invalidates three 3G standard-essential patents in Apple case.” Mueller mentioned that Samsung as of yesterday has lost to Apple in 25 standard-essential patent (SEP) assertions, and just of last week, Samsung lost 22 SEP assertions. I must say, Samsung really is not backing down, and impressed by their strength of keep fighting. Apparently, Samsung is not doing that well for any non-SEP assertions against Apple in the world. I thought EU just signed an agreement to unify the patent office in Europe. I guess the unified system has not taken places yet in time to deal with the Samsung vs. Apple case. It should be interesting to see how the system is going to play out especially when the German court ordered a retrial for Samsung, while the UK court did not. The difference in opinions between courts should be interesting to see how the case will play out. Especially this reminds me how the court in Australia has assigned two judges to the Samsung vs. Apple case.

For more information, please visit: http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/uk-judge-delines-samsungs-job-offer.html

Post #11: Samsung vs. Apple in German Court

In today’s Foss Patents blog, Florian Mueller posted his discussion, titled “German court keeps Samsung’s hopes alive by scheduling retrial in 3G patent case against Apple.” Apparently Judge Andreas Voss ordered a retrial for this summer because Apple has not yet provided any proof as a defendant in a 3G standard-essential patent (SEP). Samsung has requested “an injunction against the iPhone’s voiceover feature…, and one over a smiley input method patent,” meanwhile Apple was not doing so swell against Samsung as well, besides the success in temporarily removing the Galaxy Tab 10.1 from the market due to “Community design (the European equivalent of a U.S. design patent).

The tug-of-war between Samsung and Apple in Europe for patent issue does not seem to come to an end. I am actually impressed by how these two companies can constantly find something from each other infringing its own innovation. Maybe one of these companies should patent some version of software that is used for searching key words in patents and filtering them out to match the company’s own patent to see if the other company is infringing the idea. It would definitely save them more time and resources for this never ending tug-of-war between these two giants.

For more information, please visit: http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/german-court-keeps-samsungs-hopes-alive.html

Post #10: Two-judge panel for Apple vs. Samsung patent litigation

Surprisingly, the federal court in Australia appointed two judges to hear the initial case about Apple and Samsung patent war. It would be interesting to see if the two judges have different opinions on the case. I wonder how much public resources Apple and Samsung are using with these complex cases. Slowly I realized that this patent war is never going to stop between the two giants. I feel like instead of spending the money on innovation, they are spending money to fight for being the last giant standing. I understand the importance of protecting ones innovation, especially how much it will affect the company’s future. However, I feel like they do not understand that they are the people who slow down their innovation. By suing another company, they also suffer from losing time in innovation. How much more of these money and public resources are going to be drained from the patent war?

For more information: http://www.davies.com.au/pub/detail/697/apple-v-samsung-patent-litigation-federal-court-appoints-two-judge-panel

Post #9: SHIELD Act against the Patent Trolls

Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) proposed the Saving High-tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes (SHIELD) Act. Finally, the government sees the need to protect the innovators from the patent trolls. Apparently, this year’s SHIELD Act will not only protect the computer and the software companies, but also all other types of the industry. I was surprised to find out that in 2011, the patent trolls “drained an estimated $29 billion” in America. I agree with the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s statement on “Congress needs to make measures like the SHIELD Act a priority in 2011 so that innovative companies and entrepreneurs can continue to grow without the threats posed by non-practicing entities.” Patent trolls are the barrier for our economic growth. With the help of SHIELD Act, hopefully the patent trolls will learn their lessons.

For more information:

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/285247-bill-would-force-patent-trolls-to-pay-legal-costs

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/285247-bill-would-force-patent-trolls-to-pay-legal-costs

Post #8: EU States form the Unified Patent Court

The article, EU States Sign Patent Litigation Agreement states that 24 out of the 27 EU states agreed on forming the Unified Patent Court yesterday. Only Spain, Poland, and Bulgaria did not sign the agreement. The Irish minister, Richard Bruton said that “the agreement was ‘a tangible expression of creating a single market in a very important area, the area of patents.’” I agree with minister Bruton, and I think this incidence promotes the future in the patent litigation system. The hopes for protecting the inventors’ ideas across the border are definitely approaching. I feel this article presents an inspirational message to the idea of patents with no border. 

To learn more about the article, please visit: http://www.managingip.com/Article/3157489/Managing-Patents-Archive/EU-states-sign-patent-litigation-agreement-photos.html

Post #7: Facebook Infringed the “Like” Button

Joannes Jozef Everardus Van Der Meer, the founder of Aduna purchased the domain name “surfbook.com.” Surfbook offered an online social networking environment just like Facebook. Surfbook allowed its users to approve data with a “like” button. He was granted the patents in 2001 and 2002. Van Der Meer passed away shortly in 2004. In the memory of Van Der Meer, Rembrandt Social Media filed a complaint for patent infringement against Facebookin the U.S. District Court of Virginia. The article, Facebook Sued for Patent Infringement over “Like” Button and Timeline Function indicated that “ ‘The complaint states that Surfbook also lets users ‘collect personal information and third-party content, organize the information chronologically on a personalized Web page, and share the information with a selected group of people, such as the end user’s friends, through the use of user-settable privacy levels.’ "

Facebook is actually aware of Van Der Meer’s patents, because Facebook cited Van Der Meer’s patents as reference when Facebook was issued a patent for applications on wireless devices. I wonder what Fafcebook is going to do next. I feel like Facebook would either buy the patents if possible, or create another feature that is similar to the “Like” button. This article reminds me when Professor Lavian mentioned in class that 99.999…% inventions are improvement of something in the past, and only 0.0000…1% are actual inventions from original ideas.

See more information from the article, visit: http://www.ipbrief.net/2013/02/19/facebook-sued-for-patent-infringement-over-like-button-and-timeline-function/

Post #6: U.S. Patent Suit King

The article, Texas' Eastern District was U.S. patent suit king in 2012, illustrated that Texas’ Eastern District dealt with the most patent suits last year. Second place was the District of Delaware. However, the number of defendants dropped by around 16.5%. The main reason was that the plaintiffs can join in one suit, resulting in more separate law suits filed per plaintiff, which leads to more cases. This leaves out a lot of marginal law suits against the defendants. I suppose you can argue this turnout could be good or bad. The good side is that public resources can be saved for more severe cases. The bad side is that smaller cases, where patent infringement is genuinely occurring, are less likely to rule in favor of the plaintiff. I am actually surprised that the Northern District of California has the least patent suits. I thought there would be more suits here because of Silicon Valley’s many startups.

For more information on the article, please visit: http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/blog/2013/02/eastern-district-was-us-patent-suit.html 

Post #5: Wi-Fi Patent Troll vs. the Wi-Fi Manufacturers & End-Users

Innovatio was created by Noel Whitley, who was the former IP lawyer of Broadcom. In the article, Wi-Fi patent troll hit with racketeering suit emerges unscathed, Innovatio started suing hotels and coffee shops for Wi-Fi patent infringement. Their strategy is to sue the end-users instead of the manufacturers of Wi-Fi routers, hubs, adapters, etc. On the other hand, the manufacturers, Cisco, Motorola, and Netgear teamed up to file a RICO claim against Innovatio. However, Judge James Holderman threw out the RICO claims, because Innovatio was not engaged in “sham litigation”, and the company is protected by the First Amendment. In addition, RICO claims are generally against crime families. Fortunately, Holderman will allow the manufacturers to file contract claims against innovation. However, the hotels that were sued by Innovatio will still have to pay up if the hearing next week does not go towards their favor.

Personally, I wish the court will not let Innovatio “troll” these small businesses. Otherwise, Innovatio’s next step could be target private home users, and that means we would be the next target for the patent troll.

                                                       

For more information on the article, please visit: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/wi-fi-patent-troll-hit-with-novel-anti-racketeering-charges-emerges-unscathed/

Post #4: Intellectual Property War

Due to the rapid change in the wireless mobile devices, and the fast growth of technology, companies are constantly caught themselves in the intellectual property war. I am surprised that the companies are still capable of producing new products to the public even though they are constantly fending off litigation. It must be difficult to encourage innovation in the company while dealing with the possibility of “stealing” others’ ideas at the same time. This makes me wonder what will happen when two parties copyrighted the same idea at the same time, or filed patents that generate the same feature for the mobile devices, but written in different computer languages.

Post #3: Marble Security Patent

The United States Patent and Trademark Office recently issued Marble Security patent No. 8,356,105 entitled “Enterprise Device Policy Management”. The patent ensures a secure pathway that only allows the enterprise’s administrators to unlock the mobile devices that were storing data through a third party cloud service, even if the service was jeopardized. The patent was filed in 2009, and it was issued on January 13, 2013. I wonder if during these five years period, other companies have come up with the same method of this security system. Will those companies be sued for infringement?  

For more information on the article, please visit: http://www.bloomberg.com/article/2013-02-06/aEq4kEU9ptOo.html

Post #2: What I hope to gain from IEOR 190G: Patent Engineering

I want to understand how to protect one’s own invention from an engineering perspective, especially in a rapid-changing industry such as wireless mobile devices. These devices have evolved rapidly throughout the years. Protecting your own invention as well as keeping up with the flow of technology at the same time is a difficult challenge. I hope to gain as much as knowledge as I can in patent engineering to advance my future dream as an entrepreneur. 

Post #1: About Myself

My name is Angela Tsao. I was born in Peoria, IL. My family moved back to Taiwan when I was seven months old. My sister and I came back to the U.S. when I was sixteen years old. I am currently a senior, majoring in chemical and biomolecular engineering. I found my passion for nanotechnology when I was in high school. Designing and studying the effects of microfluidic devices inspired me to choose the path as a chemical engineer. Currently, my research project is on fabricating and analyzing gecko-inspired adhesive materials with polymers. In the future, I want to be an entrepreneur in the field of chemical engineering. I am excited to learn more from the IEOR 190G: Patent Engineering class at UC Berkeley. I hope to learn how to protect my own inventions.