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?
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
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.
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.
Monday, April 22, 2013
"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.
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?
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?
Friday, April 19, 2013
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.
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.
Monday, April 15, 2013
Remote Display Tablet: Innovative Patent #21
Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon, has filed a patent for a "remote display" devices that would take cloud computing to a whole new level. GeekWire reports that the display would get data and power from a centrally located primary station. The tablets or simple screens would not then need to include a large internal battery or significant local processing power, since both those concerns would be taken care of in the primary base station.
The patent views processors and large internal batteries as the next major roadblocks in the pursuit of thinner and lighter devices in the mobile industry. The patent claims, "The ability to continue to reduce the form factor of many of today's devices is somewhat limited, however, as the devices typically include components such as processors and batteries that limit the minimum size and weight of the device. While the size of a battery is continuously getting smaller, the operational or functional time of these smaller batteries is often insufficient for many users."
The patent also provides other use cases for these "remote displays" that wouldn't need to wait on this theorhetical wireless tablet to be developed. For example, a camera or sensor can detect when a hand is passed over a reader display and can respond by turning the page. Transferring power and data wirelessly to displays as described in the patent is currently not feasible with existing technologies, but it does present an interesting idea for the future of tablets and e-readers.
It's interesting to consider that companies can file patents with non existing technology. They are literally monopolizing an idea because they simply filed it first. I think this provides an interesting point about the patent system. Perhaps someone out there has the technology to create and facilitate such an idea but are discouraged from doing so because Jeff Bezos owns the patent to the idea itself. On the other hand, perhaps this notion of filing patents before the technology is built will actually encourage innovation and force the company to incentive the R&D of that product.
It all depends on that intention of the person/company filing the patent. If the filer is looking to maximize profits by claiming non-existing technologies and then charging licensing fees to those that do, or if it is to discourage others to innovate so certain technologies can stay relevant on the market for longer, or if they are creating incentives for their company to be the first to develop the product.
All these are valid, but only few reasons actually promote innovation while the other reasons inhibit it.
The patent views processors and large internal batteries as the next major roadblocks in the pursuit of thinner and lighter devices in the mobile industry. The patent claims, "The ability to continue to reduce the form factor of many of today's devices is somewhat limited, however, as the devices typically include components such as processors and batteries that limit the minimum size and weight of the device. While the size of a battery is continuously getting smaller, the operational or functional time of these smaller batteries is often insufficient for many users."
The patent also provides other use cases for these "remote displays" that wouldn't need to wait on this theorhetical wireless tablet to be developed. For example, a camera or sensor can detect when a hand is passed over a reader display and can respond by turning the page. Transferring power and data wirelessly to displays as described in the patent is currently not feasible with existing technologies, but it does present an interesting idea for the future of tablets and e-readers.
It's interesting to consider that companies can file patents with non existing technology. They are literally monopolizing an idea because they simply filed it first. I think this provides an interesting point about the patent system. Perhaps someone out there has the technology to create and facilitate such an idea but are discouraged from doing so because Jeff Bezos owns the patent to the idea itself. On the other hand, perhaps this notion of filing patents before the technology is built will actually encourage innovation and force the company to incentive the R&D of that product.
It all depends on that intention of the person/company filing the patent. If the filer is looking to maximize profits by claiming non-existing technologies and then charging licensing fees to those that do, or if it is to discourage others to innovate so certain technologies can stay relevant on the market for longer, or if they are creating incentives for their company to be the first to develop the product.
All these are valid, but only few reasons actually promote innovation while the other reasons inhibit it.
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Samsung Violates Apple Patents #20
An ITC Judge said that Samsung infringed an important piece of an Apple patent by including a text-selection feature in its smartphones and tablets. If this decision is upheld, a decision that is expected in August, the ITC can order any infringing device to be barred from importation into the United States. Apple had claimed that that the Samsung Galaxy, Nexus, and Transform devices are all made with the infringing technology. Applie filed a complaint in mid-2011, accusing Samsung of infringing its patents when manufacturing many of their smartphone and tablet devices. ITC Judge Thomas Pender said in a discussion in October, that Samsung infringed 4 of Apple's patents but did not infringe 2 others listed in the complaint. The full commission said it wanted the judge to take another look at the portions of two patents where he initially found that Samsung infringed.
Apple is also waging an offensive war on several fronts against Google, whose Android software powers many Samsung devices. The legal battles between Samsung and Apple have now taken place in over 10 countries as they fight for market share in the mobile industry. Google's Android software has become the world's number 1 smartphone operating system. Apple's battle against the software has dragged to hardware vendors that use it, including HTC and Samsung.
Samsung also supplies parts to Apple, producing multiprocessing chips, flat screens, and memory chips for the iPhone, iPad, and iPod. Apple has reduced orders from Samsung for chips and screens.
It is interesting to consider how this litigation will play out and whether or not Apple will decide to continue this process and sacrifice relations with Samsung as a supplier. Perhaps they're not mutually exclusive, but it's hard to imagine high profile patent litigation cases while also wanting cooperation on the business side of things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FzRefGDPgk
Apple is also waging an offensive war on several fronts against Google, whose Android software powers many Samsung devices. The legal battles between Samsung and Apple have now taken place in over 10 countries as they fight for market share in the mobile industry. Google's Android software has become the world's number 1 smartphone operating system. Apple's battle against the software has dragged to hardware vendors that use it, including HTC and Samsung.
Samsung also supplies parts to Apple, producing multiprocessing chips, flat screens, and memory chips for the iPhone, iPad, and iPod. Apple has reduced orders from Samsung for chips and screens.
It is interesting to consider how this litigation will play out and whether or not Apple will decide to continue this process and sacrifice relations with Samsung as a supplier. Perhaps they're not mutually exclusive, but it's hard to imagine high profile patent litigation cases while also wanting cooperation on the business side of things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FzRefGDPgk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)