Tuesday, April 30, 2013

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?

Monday, April 29, 2013

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.