#10: Trolls

Yesterday, Gregory Ferenstein, posted an article in TechCrunch called “Law Would Force Patent Trolls To Pay For Failed Lawsuits Against Innovators,” in which he discussed some ways in which law makers hope to deter patent trolls. I thought I would summarize this article because we talked about defining exactly what a patent troll does. Patent trolls buy up patents they did not produce themselves and sue companies who infringe those patents as well as companies who do not. They are considered “trolls” because their profit platform is based on returns from law suits. According to the article lawmakers decided higher penalties for entities that abuse the patent system may bring this “troll-like” behavior to a halt. According to the article a bipartisan bill, called SHEILD, has been proposed to “force so-called patent trolls, those who hoard patents for the sole purpose of suing innovators, to pay the legal costs if their frivolous patent lawsuits fail in court.” The act is supported by many major tech companies as these companies do not add any economic benefit to the country. Apparently, trolls account for “61% of all patent disputes!” The president as well as the new chair of the House Judiciary Committee are in full support of the plan. People that disagree with the bill. Alexander Poltorak, CEO of General Patent Corporation, argues that SHIELD Act supporters are overestimating the amount of lawsuits that are driven by trolls and claims that the act “was designed to ‘intimidate patent owners whose IP rights are routinely infringed by corporate bullies.’” The SHEILD Act will be changing its requirements soon to encompass not only the tech firms but all other industries as well. Ultimately, the act would create a “loser’s pay” system to deter unnecessary.  

http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/27/law-would-force-patent-trolls-to-pay-for-failed-lawsuits-against-innovators/

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/pissed-off-politicians-want-loser-pays-rule-for-patent-trolls/

#8: Solving the Patent Problem

I read two interesting articles about changes tech firms believe could change the current patent system in order to further stimulate innovation and stymie NPEs. Basically, twitter believes that patent designers and inventors should hold all of the rights to their own patents rather than transferring those rights to companies. This, according to Twitter, should promote defensive rather than offensive patent instigation  It will also clearly define what the original intent of the patent was, which will limit litigation battles. Lastly, they hope that if someone infringes on a patent, the inventor can just license the patent to that entity in stead of a company suing the infringer. These are all great aims but not very concrete as many companies currently claim to only use their patents for defensive purposes although many do not. However, I actually think some of these ideas may become a reality if Microsoft actually goes through with its plan to publish all of its patents on the web. This will increase transparency and reduce lawsuits, especially if other industry leaders follow Microsoft’s lead. 

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/02/twitters-ingenious-solution-to-the-patent-problem-let-inventors-control-the-patents/

http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2013/02/21/microsoft-to-publish-patent-catalogue-in-move-to-deter-litigation/

#7: Apple Filed Patent for Flexible Wrist Display

Apple just filed a new patent last Thursday with the US Patent and Trademark Office for a “flexible watchlike device” that sounds really awesome. Apparently it will work “with a touch screen user input, a user can accomplish a number of different tasks including adjusting the order of a current playlist, and reviewing a list of recent phone calls.” Apple still has some kinks to work out, especially regarding the devices battery life. They have discussed curbing this issue by implementing “solar panel array spreads” to increase its battery life as people will not want to constantly take of the iWatch to charge it. All the while, Google is currently working on creating augmented reality glasses. 

Check it out!
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/apple-files-patent-for-flexible-watch/

#6: Obama Nominates Attorneys to US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Yesterday we talked a lot about which courts deal with most patent cases. Interestingly enough, Obama nominated two attorneys to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which is the nation’s top patent litigation court. Raymond Chen, a lawyer that has worked at the US Patent and Trademark Office since 1998, and Todd Hughes, who has worked in commercial litigation at the Department since 1994, may soon make vital decisions especially in the Smartphone lawsuits.

Chen has often supported the USPTO in important cases, such as In re Bilksi. Nominating a patent office insider will be good for patent system supporters but bad for those who wish to reform the system. However, Chen sounds like he would be very well suited for the position. He earned his B.S. in electrical engineering from UCLA, his J.D from NYU and therefore has gained much experience in patent prosecutions for electronics and new technology.

Hughes has recently received much media attention because if his nomination is confirmed he will become the first openly gay federal appeals court judge in the U.S. history. However, I am much more interested in his background and how he may lean in important patent litigation. He received his B.A from Harvard, and earned an M.A. and J.D. from Duke. In his practice he has focused a lot on veteran benefits, government personnel law, international trade, and government contracts. He is definitely more of a “wild card.”

Although these are just nominations, these individuals may soon make decisions that could effect the big firms as well as smaller firms and individuals. I feel like Chen, will probably end up being the judge that protects the inventor. While, Hughes may fluctuate in his views. He brings international perspective into the court so this could make for some interesting news to come.

#5: Keeping Your Invention Safe

                In class we discussed how filing a patent costs a lot of money and can be a quite lengthy process. More specifically, filing a complete utility patent application can take over a year and it can cost thousands of dollars. Regardless, many engineers will go ahead and file it to protect the idea or invention from becoming publicly shared as this could cause the engineer to lose international patent rights. However, it does not really make any sense to spend that kind of time and money if they the engineer has not done sufficient market research to decide whether or not it is financially worth it to file for a utility patent. And in order to even go about conducting such research the engineer risks exposing the idea and loosing the rights over it. Luckily, there is a more cost and time effective way to protect an idea or invention.

                Apparently an engineer can file a provisional patent application. Although it is not a patent, it gives the engineer the legal “patent pending” right on the original design for one year. During that year the engineer can conduct market research, share the idea, and decide whether or not it is a good idea to go ahead and file for an actual patent. Overall, it is much cheaper and still protects the idea. What do you guys think? Could this method be useful or do you think it would be a waste of time?             

                This article also discusses a similar idea for trademarks. Here is the link if you would like to read more http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/204918.

#4 Patent Wars Part 2

On the other hand, patent wars are also seen as having negative impacts on our society because smaller companies are obviously hit harder in the turmoil which ultimately eliminates choices for consumers and keeps the tech giants in power. I recently spoke to a Marketing VP at a brand new start up and he discussed how a larger tech company just started using their patented idea. He told me that they are currently going to court to resolve the issue. However, it will take years for them to win the dispute. The bigger company is fine with or without the innovation, while the start up desperately needs the new platform model to gain headway against its competitors.

I found Eric Schmidt’s opinions quite interesting. While in Korea promoting Nexus 7, he stated that "patent wars prevent choice [and] prevent innovation." And added that "[Google is] obviously working through that and trying to make sure we stay on the right side of these issues” (http://www.techradar.com/us/news/phone-and-communications/googles-schmidt-says-patent-wars-are-bad-for-innovation-1100375). However, I think this is a very interesting position for Google to take as they own and buy patents all the time. Their products violate tons of patents from Apple and Microsoft and if another company were to use their patents they would go to court, as they have done many times in the past. For example this past October, Google was sued over its Google Wallet smartphone application. In august 2012, CNN reported that Steve Jobs was fighting Google for supposedly ripping off the iPhone. They have sued multiple Android phone and tablet manufacturers around the world. In response Google, struck back, suing Apple for the same thing. Ultimately another argument is that these patent wars are distracting innovators from what is truly important.

#3: Patent Wars

All of this discussion about patent wars in class makes me wonder whether or not they are good or bad for our society. There are obviously two sides to the story, and after reading a few articles on the issue I thought it would be interesting to share my findings.

I read one article about the history of patent wars which was really fascinating. Basically, few people realize patent litigation rates were the same or higher in the early nineteenth century than they are today. Zorina Khan’s research shows that “the patent litigation rate today is around 1.5% [while] the average patent litigation rate between 1790 and 1860 was 1.65%. Moreover, “between 1840 and 1849, for instance, patent litigation rates were 3.6% — more than twice the patent litigation rate today.” The Sewing Machine War of the 1850s had the same issues we see in the smart phone war: “numerous overlapping patents covering single products; high-profile lawsuits; expensive litigation; lawsuits in multiple venues; patent-licensing entities obtaining injunctions against manufacturers and entering into licensing agreements; patents sold and traded among firms, etc.” I think this goes to show that maybe the patent war is not so sever as it may seem to us.

Then again it is enough of an issue to still cause politicians to act. The America Invents Act (AIA) was signed into law in September 2011. It is recognized as "the most significant reform of the U.S. patent system since 1836" in helping reform litigation disputes. (http://asmarterplanet.com/blog/2013/01/patented-innovation-and-patent-wars-some-historical-perspective.html).

There are also proponents to the litigation war. Jesus Diaz writes an opinion piece in which he argues that these litigation wars only allow the best products to survive in the market which is ultimately beneficial for consumers. He uses Apple as an example. They are constantly suing “copy cat” companies that are not producing anything better or different than the iPhone. This then, according to Diaz, gives consumers the best products. For example, Windows 8 "introduces diversity, new methods, evolution. That, as someone who loves brilliant technology, excites me. You should be excited too. And you should hope that Apple wins all these patent wars against the lame and lazy. Because that would mean they'll all have to do something new to beat Apple at their own game." For Diaz, Apple’s victories will drive innovation, will drive prices down, and promote more and ultimately better products. (http://gizmodo.com/5938193/apple-winning-the-patent-wars-is-great-for-innovation).

           

#2: Why take IEOR 190G?

Communication technology has changed drastically throughout the decade. This originally pulled me toward Media Studies (formerly known as Mass Communication Studies) as more complex communication became possible and popular. I have studied campaign strategy, journalism, and social media. These are all fields have been dramatically effected or have been developed entirely by the innovations in communication technology. I really enjoy studying how these innovations have  changed the way we live our lives.

However, in this course I hope to gain a new perspective on communication technology. I want to look beyond media content and focus on how this technology evolved form a more technical standpoint. 

#1: About me

My name is Kyra and I will be graduating with a double Bachelor’s degree in German and Media Studies this Spring. I was born in Germany but immigrated to the United States with my family when I was young. My commitment to learning the language has been quite practical for visits and I hope to work there upon graduation. 

At cal, I am involved in various clubs and organizations. The Student Learning Center is probably one of my favorites and that is why I have worked there for the past three years. I taught the International Relations study group with the Social Science department this past Fall and really enjoyed the experience. Now, I am looking forward to meeting the students I will be working with this semester. 

Otherwise, I like to read, travel, and run. In the past year I have taken multiple physical education courses such as aerobic and core conditioning. I have also taken restorative yoga course which I highly recommend as I find that it is easier to reflect and come up with innovative ideas during such activities. Anyway, all of these activities helped me run the Nike women’s half marathon last semester and I am training to run a full marathon this year. If anyone is interested in reading about running and travel, I highly recommend picking up Christopher McDougall's book Born to Run. 

As for entrepreneurship and intellectual property, I have some ideas that I may want to further develop later on in my career. For now, though, I am much more interested in gaining knowledge and inspiration from others. I look forward to learning about what everyone else is interested in and is working on.