A Better Mouse Trap #28

A patent for a better mouse trap features a fake cat that has an apparatus inside that entices mice to enter the mouth of the cat and become trapped inside of a vacuum like box that kills the mouse. The device dispenses an odor that smells like cheese to capture the attention of the prey. This device attempts to kill mice by catering to one of their most powerful instincts, an addiction to smelly cheese. This device, although is much more complicated than a typical mouse trap, can definitely be considered useful, nonobvious, and novel. That being said, it's silly. Why would you create a mouse trap made of a scary looking cat when mice are genetically predisposed to fearing sharp teeth on cats?

Take a look at the youtube video that was created here as a satirical description of the patent. The other issue I'd like to raise is about requiring short video clips to become a part of the patent filing process. In an age where technology and efficiency are keys to success, I believe the patent system could be vastly improved by requiring a 3-4 minute video as a part of the patent process. This added requirement could serve as a good and simple synopsis of any filed patent, one that explicitly states the structure and function and ultimate use case of any intellectual property in a single video clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fLe8rIy_FeY

Silly Patent: Optical Illusion Wear #27

On September 19, 2006, the US Patent and Trademark Office issued a patent for optical illusion wear. Filed under bathing suits and exercise wear, this patent protects any clothing that has optical illusions on it to deceive someone into thinking the person who is wearing said clothing is slimmer. There are many ways to become thinner: exercise, dieting, dietary supplements. But even those methods might require too much work. Sometimes, creating a "false or deceptive visual impression" is all you need to achieve that ideal look.

In order to assess this patent objectively, we must recall the three pillars of a good patent: novel, nonobvious, and useful. Sometimes they can qualify for all three characteristics but are not feasible and are seemingly ridiculous. In this case, although the USPTO determined this idea as worthy of a patent, I think it falls under the "seemingly ridiculous" category. Furthermore, I actually think that although this product is novel, and nonobvious, I believe it is not useful at all. Perhaps my misunderstanding of the fashion industry does not make me a credible critic, but I truly do not see a world in which people would go out a buy "optical illusion wear" just so they could look slimmer. But then again, people do some innovative and sometimes crazy things to lose weight, or at least look like they've lost weight. 

 

Silly Patents #26

Inventions are not always novel, nonobvious, and useful. Sometimes they're not even feasible and are seemingly ridiculous. There are a number of characteristics that should be considered when thinking about the viability of a patent: validity, prior art, enablement, obviousness, and common sense. But it is important to note that not all issued patents are smart. Many of them don't even make practical sense.

One of the patents we discussed in class is the "Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force." The patent describes an apparatus on which a mother giving birth would be strapped down to and ultimately be spun around to pop the baby out through the force of centrifuge. Although I initially reacted by thinking how simply stupid and dangerous this idea was, a further analysis of it revealed its qualification for a patent on several fronts.

Based on some of the qualifying criteria, for example, this patent is definitely not obvious, which we've learned is a basic tenant for a patent to become viable. Another requirements that the device must be novel. It goes without saying that this product is one of the more novel ideas I've seen in quite some time. I've now proven that this device qualifies for two of the major requirements for a valid patent. The device, however, fails in achieving the third criteria of "usefullness." I can never imagine how such a device could be considered useful given the impracticality of spinning a birthing woman on a table and shooting a newborn out of a womb. I wonder, then, how this patent was actually issued.

This brings me to my point: how can the patent system be taken seriously if devices like this are protected under the rule of law? At what point does a product become unpatentable? It seems as though anything under the sun can be patented, even devices that have zero practical or safe implication in the real world. It's patents like these that create a slower turnaround time, and ultimately clog the bureaucracies to prevent faster and more efficient turnover for more valid patents.  The question then becomes, where do we draw the line, and how do we determine what is worthwhile and what is not?

Rejecting the Injunction on iPhones #25

The US International Trade Commission rejected Motorola's patent claim that attempted to block the import of some Apple iPhone products into the US. The ITC dismissed Motorola's claim that accused Apple of infringing on patented technology that makes touch screens ignore fingers when people are holding their smartphones up to their ears during a call.

Lisa Barton, the acting commission secretary, indicated the investigation into the Motorola complaint filed in 2010 was terminated. The ITC explained that the technology being considered in the patents was not original enough to support an accusation.

The patent wars between tech giants like Google, Apple, and Samsung have been battling for market supremacy in the booming areas of smartphones and tablets. The question then become, what will these companies focus more on in order to achieve market power? Will they continue litigating and fighting tooth and nail to assert injunctions, license technologies, and undermine one another through the patent litigation system? Or will they use this regulatory system to boost innovation and beat each other out by simply being better than the last?

Just last month, a judge cut $450 million from a $1 billion award to be paid by Samsung in a major patent lawsuit from Apple, claiming that the jury had wrongly calculated the damages. I wonder if these mini victories of receiving damages is a sustainable solution to generating profits or if companies will begin to focus on other revenue streams that don't rely on litigation. 

"Obviousness" #24

One of the five basic tenants of patentability is "nonobviousness."

The other four are: subject matter requirement, written description, utility, and novelty. For the purpose of this blog, I'm not going to go into these other four and will simply discuss the word "obviousness." Nonobvious means that a "person having ordinary skills in the art wouldn't have easily thought of it given the plurality of prior art."

Even when combining two prior art references, it may not be obvious to do so, for example a glow stick and a toothbrush to create a glow-in-the-dark toothbrush. Are the two products obvious to combine? If so, then a patent might not be granted, but if it's not, then a patent could be issued.

Also, the more prior art references an examiner needs to cite in order to reject claims based on obviousness, the weaker their argument against patentability.

I want to discuss how the patent system has incorporated such a subjective notion into a legal framework. Although it seems as though there is some legal precedent to distinguish between what is obvious and what is not in certain industries, I feel that the concept of obviousness is too hard to legally define from an objective standpoint.  

Computer Pen? #23

A patent was granted to Apple last month that describes a pen that doubles as a wireless device: capable of sending and receiving text messages, emails, and voice data. This patent reveals a portable wireless computer of sorts that would be equipped with a cellular and or GPS technology that would allow for wireless communication. It would also act as an advanced digital pen that would include accelerometers to recognize handwriting and facilitate speech-to-text and text-to-speech conversations. This pen would also feature a touch screen, a microphone, speaker, and rechargeable battery. Interestingly, in some cases the patent describes the device as a cellular telephone and in others, a portable computer. Based on our deconstruction of a patent last week in class, I think it's interesting to note that these alternating names may significantly impact the effect of this patent.

Perhaps most notable is the turnaround time it took for this patent to get approved and issued. Initially filed in 1998, the the patent was first issued in Sept. 2011, but was again examined and approved by the USPTO after Apple decided to add descriptions about the wireless and cellular features.

Perhaps Apple will never make this product and may only sit on the patent for as long as they have legal oversight over it. But this story brings up two very important questions about the patent system.

1. Why did it take so long for the patent to get issued when it was initially filed in 1998?

2. What are Apple's intentions with this patent? To actually create the product? To protect themselves against competitors who want to make a similar product? To create a revenue stream by licensing this technology to other companies? 

Aquire a company and the patents with it #22

The U.S. Department of Justice has endorsed Google's decision to sell the Motorola Home set-top business to Arris Group for $2.35 billion. This was the last regulatory hurdle that the deal faced, and now the broadband technology provider expects to close the deal by Wednesday. Arris Group is expected to use this tuck-in acquisition to improve the networking equipment it offers to cable providers.  


When Google inherited Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion last year, Google was more interested in Motorola's mobile business and wasn't eager to invest in the set-top box business, especially since it didn't appear to offer much to Google's TV initiative. The deal will transfer 7,000 Google employees to Arris's employment, as well as a series of patent infringement lawsuits with TiVo, related to digital video recorders that Arris's CEO Bob Stanzione has expected to result in damages of billions of dollars.


During negotiations, Google offered to cap any liability Arris might face in the event Motorola Home is found to violate any patents owned by TiVo. Under the terms of the deal, Google will receive $2.05 billion in cash and $300 million in newly issues stock, giving it at 15.7% ownership stake in Arris upon the deal's closure. The deal will also allow Arris to license a number of Motorola Mobility patents.