Post #27: Google Loses to Microsoft. Again...

Google is just on a losing streak against Microsoft.  They can't seem to get anything right.  This streak includes Microsoft's patent agreement with China's ZTE becoming public and how they received royalties from an Android patent license; defeating Google's pursuit of an injunction in Germany when Microsoft formed an agreement with Hon Hai; obtaining a FRAND decision related to Google's SEP and lastly, the patents that Google purchased from Motorola for $12.5b not helping Google at all in the current case of Motorola v. Apple.

The patents that Google purchased right now from Motorola are literally giving them no leverage in any cases they have faced so far.  So far, Microsoft has won three cases against Motorola this year, including a U.S. import ban and will most likely win another one later this year.  Microsoft's first German injunctions were ordered by the Munich I Regional Court all the way back in May of 2012.  The case is based on "communicating multi-part messages between cellular devices using a standardized interface".  Interestingly enough, the Munich Higher Regional Court rejected Google's appeal, which means that the Motorola Germany ban will stay unless an infringement finding is overturned by the German Federal Court of Justice  but that is unlikely or if the original patent in question is invalidated by the Federal Patent Court -- neither are likely.

Fortunately for Google, even though it can't overturn the injunction, that still doesn't affect it's production.  Companies still want to produce and license Android products.

Maybe Google will be able to stage a comeback in Germany, but as of now, they are really struggling to do so.

Post #26: Eight more for Samsung -- Will Ericsson ever stop?

In one of my most recent blog posts, I discussed how Samsung asked for a two month extension for this current case because Ericsson has asserted over 130 patents against Samsung and they want more time to prepare to defend themselves.  With Ericsson throwing in eight more patents, who knows when this trial will actually happen.  It is literally a battle of the patents and if these companies keep going at it, the court case may not happen until even later.

Right now, the court case is scheduled June 2014 and who knows how much father back it is going to be delayed with 8 more patents.  The patents in question are:

1. U.S. Patent No. 6,029,125 on "Reducing Sparseness In Coded Speech Signals"
2. U.S. Patent No. 6,031,832 on a "Method And Apparatus for Improving Performance Of A Packet Communications System"
3. U.S. Patent No. 6,070,078 on "Reduced Global Positioning System Receiver Code Shift Search Space For A Cellular Telephone System"
4. U.S. Patent No. 6,418,130 on "Reuse of Security Associations For Improving Hand-Over Performance"
5. U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510 on a "Security Access Manager In Middleware"
6. U.S. Patent No. 7,286,823 on a "Mobile Multimedia Engine"
7. U.S. Patent No. 8,023,990 on "Uplink Scheduling In A Cellular System"
8. U.S. Patent No. 8,214,710 on "Methods and apparatus for processing error control messages in a wireless communication system"

It appears the message Ericsson is trying to send is that it is ready to fight with Samsung.  It wouldn't keep asserting these patents if it did not think it was going to lose.  As I said in one of my previous posts, we will just have to wait until June 2014 for the case to actually begin.  I'll be following this case closely though, so look out for updates.

Post #25: USITC Litigation

In class we have discussed the USPTO, but the USITC is equally important.  The USITC or United States International Trade Commission, is  US-based agency that is supposed to help protect US domestic industry from foreign competition.  This includes, and why I chose to write about it, the unauthorized importation of patented goods.

In addition, someone who has a patent can allege patent infringement at the USITC or Federal Court and that there are no restrictions from doing both at once.  Since the case of eBay v. MercExchange, about 20% of the investigations with companies who have licensed patents don't use the invention, which is well below the numbers seen in federal district courts.  This doesn't stop the fact that the investigations have been on the rise peaking in 2011.  Companies that license patents typically make that money when the patented technology is used by other people and royalties come into effect.  

Post #24: Samsung asks ITC for two month delay

When Samsung first received Ericsson's complaint, back in November of 2012, they expected to go into litigation around April 8, 2014.  Now, just from looking at the second date, we can see just how delayed these battles can drag out for considering it takes up to a year and a half to even get a court date... 

However, Samsung still believes they need more time and have asked the ITC for a 60 day extension on the original court date.  They say it is warranted because "of the breadth of [an] outstanding discovery" and Ericsson's inability to drop patents from the claim meaning Samsung needs more time to prepare.  Yet, Ericsson has only been asserting 134 claims from 11 different patents versus Samsung's 190 claims.  When you look at it, that means there are still 335 that a judge needs to look over just for one case which is a tremendous amount.  Another complication is that seven of Ericsson's patents are FRAND which means they need to get information from third parties to demonstrate that they aren't breaking any laws.

Even though the trial was supposed to originally happen in August 2013 and has now been pushed back to April 2014 and is now being pushed back even farther to June 2014 shows just how massive and complicated this case is and will be when the judge finally starts making decisions.  I feel bad for the judge reviewing this case because he or she will be doing a ton of meticulous work.

Post #23: Multiple Design Patents for One Idea

The value in Intellectual Property only seems to increase as time goes on.  Previously, people who patented designs just focused on the entire design versus the many different aspects that actually go into it.   Now, since there is the possibility of literally getting sued for whatever reason, people want to make sure they are protected and have the ability to do the suing themselves as well.  People want to protect what the invented and have the capability to determine what happens with the overall end product or design.

I think it is good that these people are patenting multiple parts of the design patent because they are rightfully protecting what is theirs.  If they weren't, someone could claim ownership of their design since it was included in the overall "package" of the original patent.  However, you could also claim that this is a waste of time for the USPTO since they are already backlogged by thousands of patents.  Instead of having to review six different patents they would just need to review one.  There are pros and cons to each approach, however, it must be up to the person filing the patent to ultimately make that decision.

Post #22: Sony vs. Red Digital - Patent War!

Sony has entered into a patent war that it may not win...  Jim Jannard who owns both Oakley and the company that Sony is suing Red Digital Cinema, a company that makes professional digital video cameras for a very expensive price, have entered into a very strategic litigation scandal.  Sony is making the claim that Red Digital infringes on seven different patents which all claim priority back to original applications filed in Japan.  However, it has just been exposed that Sony's complaint is actually an action to attack Red Japan back because Red had actually claimed infringement against Sony back in December.  This just further demonstrates almost the childish nature of the patent war since if one company does it, another wants to quickly follow suit.

I say that Sony may lose this time because Red has the advantage.  Since Oakley is a company that focuses on sunglasses, they have faced countless lawsuits most likely centered around bootleg copies.  Even though Sony has also fought in its fair share of patent litigation cases, Jim Jannard has a much closer relationship to this kind of battle since he seems to be more familiar on the prosecuting end.  Having been on both ends of litigation gives him the distinct advantage of knowing where the prosecution may attack.

This is the first time I have written about Sony -- it is nice to get a breath of fresh air and not just talk about Apple, Samsung or Google.

Post #21: Slide-to-Infringe

Apple just has been on the losing end of things lately.  It was recently handed a ruling in Germany that said its slide-to-unlock patent is invalidated.  Now if I'm not mistaken, this is what originally caused problems with Samsung and forced them to figure out another system to unlock the their devices.  My Android right now offers a variety of options to unlock, some of which are pretty neat such as face recognition, movement or sliding a code onto the screen.  Not just slide to unlock or putting in a few numbers.  The fact that Samsung didn't have the patent to do this kind of patent forced it to innovate, which is an interesting idea because patents are normally the source of the innovation.

The patent in question was EP1964022, which says "unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image."  Even though Apple had come up with fourteen different arguments as to why it shouldn't be invalidated, the Bundespatentgericht, Germany's Federal Patent Court still said it was.  The judges said that it failed to meet the technicity requirements under European Patent Law because it doesn't solve a technical problem through a technical solution and the slide is not a technical innovation.  Clearly the slide isn't a technological innovation, but it was able to get patented in here in the United States because we can patent "everything under the sun made by man," as we learned in the beginning of class.  The question I have is whether it is advantageous or not to have such technical requirements to get patents? I can't quite think of an example right now... but I can see how this could be a problem.  As stated before, the patent in the US forced Apple's competitors to figure out other slide to unlock features and it wouldn't have if there was no patent.  Are these strict patent laws in Europe good or bad?

Post #20: You Wish You Could Collaborate With Me

We haven't really talked on this topic much, but Joint Inventorship is an interesting topic to explore.  What does it mean when you're racing to invent something against someone else and you both patent your invention at the same time? When you're both working on the same thing and your competition patents it before you?  These are the questions many inventors face everyday when they know they are working on something that is also getting worked on by many other inventors across the world.  Joint Inventorship let's you patent something that multiple people worked on so you can all take credit for it.  However, back in 2000, this didn't quite happen for Dr. Rubin and Dr. Gusella.

In a classic race to discover something new and get patented/published, although Dr. Rubin won the race, he didn't turn out to be so lucky.  When he identified the IKAP Gene mutation as something that caused Familial Dysautonomia, he sent his article to the American Journal of Human Genetics to get it peer reviewed.  However, they sent it to Dr. Gusella, Rubin's known competitor.  When that happened, Gusella realized the position he was in with his competitors information and filed a provisional patent in early 2001.  When Gusella was approved for his patent, Dr. Rubin sued under 35 U.S.C. §256, saying that he should be a "join-inventor."  As it turns out, since they never directly worked together, there wasn't much leeway for Rubin to explain himself as a "joint-inventor."  And that is exactly what happened -- the court dismissed the case since there was no evidence of collaboration.  


I think it is unfair to Rubin who spent just as much time as Gusella on working to identify this gene and then when he did, he got it swept it away by shady antics.  I am just curious as to why Rubin doesn't get any credit for it since he was getting it published and I assume eventually patented, but didn't because of a mistake by the AJHG.  It is also quite disheartening to see how intense competition is to the point where someone will do something like Dr. Gusella, even though Rubin had discovered the IKAP Gene mutation first.  Hopefully this doesn't happen to me or anyone I know in the future.

Post #19: USPTO Needs More Money

The USPTO appears to be understaffed since they can't seem to examine all the design patents they have been getting these past few years and the number of backlogs has been steadily increasing.  This is a major problem for the U.S. economy because it means individuals have to wait more and more until they can get their patent approved and begin producing whatever they invented.

Currently, the USPTO has the capacity to look at 25,000 design patents a year.  Although this may seem a lot, there backlog right now far exceeds that number which means some people are going to have to wait over a year until they will finally get to see their patent approved.  It is interesting to note however, that in September, nearing the end of the examination period, for a $900 fee, you can get "expedited examination."  Even though there are discounts for individuals and micro-entities, it is still a good amount of money.  In the end, it will be the person who is pursuing the patent to see if it is really worth that much extra money to be put through that process.

This is fundamentally a money issue since the USPTO can't afford to employ more employees than they already have to slow the backlog down.  I believe it would be wise to put more money into the Patent Office because that is where innovation is finally certified and slowing that down only means that we're slowing down innovation -- which is not what the US economy needs right now.

Post #18: PR Stunt: Google Does it Again

Once again, Google is looking to gain good publicity by saying they won't assert ten patents against open source software.  Compared to other companies that had done this before such as IBM and Sun, which each pledged 500 and 1,600 respectively, the number may not seem like a lot -- but the actions behind it are very questionable.  When IBM and Sun first started doing moves like these, people recognized them for what they really are, a sham.  Anyone can go ahead and say they won't attack certain patents because if they have absolutely no relationship to anything you are working towards, why would you ever borrow pursuing litigation?  Also, what about the patents you DO own? Considering that Google owns around 17,000 patents themselves, just ten is a minuscule number, because they still have the ability to sue any one of those.  That leaves Google with around 16,990 other patents it can prosecute...  It is indeed a strange thing for Google to do.  We'll see if they do it again.

Post #17: Google vs. Microsoft

Google once again attempted to sue Microsoft and once again, it failed to win its case.  An Administrative Law Judge at the USITC said that Microsoft's Xbox did not infringe Google's (Motorola's) U.S. Patent No. 6,246,862 on a "sensor controlled user interface for portable communication device".  However, the case can still be put up for review, which means that the ruling can of course be overturned -- but that is still unlikely to happen.  This is coming again after a previous article I discussed where Google Map's was banned in Germany.  

It seems like Google is having a tough time winning its court cases these days.  Let's see the strategy it decides to pursue in the upcoming future and whether or not it will actually win that time.

Post #16: USPTO Fee Change

With the recent changes to the USPTO structure, without a doubt there would also be fee changes.  It is important to see how this will affect the different entities that file for patents whether they be a lone individual or an individual within a corporation.  One of the most noticeable differences is the increase in price to file a patent up from $1,260 to $1,600.  However, while there may be increases in certain areas, there are decreases in others.  One group of people that these new fee changes will help are "micro entities."  

To be considered a micro-entity there are various regulations that you must fit such as: having applied to less than four patents total; cannot have an income above $150,162 and the person isn't transferring or giving ownership of the patent to someone else.  These various qualifications create the difference between a micro or small entity patent, which get application fee cuts by 75% and 50% respectively.

Nonetheless, it appears as if people are still going to have to give up more money for their patents...

Post #15: Samsung v. Ericsson

The never ending patent war continues, and this time with Samsung and Ericsson.  Ericsson attempted to add 15 new claims against Samsung, but they were successful in blocking them.  Judge David Shaw sat on the case and was the person who prevent Ericsson from going through with the case.  Since Ericsson also already has over 100 claims against Samsung, adding 15 more would further delay the overall outcome of the investigation and it's getting to the point for everyone that it is just ridiculous.

I find it unbelievable that even though Ericsson has asserted over 100 claims against Samsung that they want to keep adding more.  Even though they know that there is a tight schedule and just adding more claims will only make the investigation go on longer, they are willing to take the risk.  Clearly Ericsson, instead of focusing on other areas, perhaps innovation, because when was the last time anyone even used an Ericsson phone or device for that matter, they want to push these litigation cases.  I hope this Ericsson realize just how childish they are acting.

Post #14: ITC Decides to Not Review Patent. Again.

The ITC recently decided to award HTC a victory by not letting Nokia assert one of its patents.  Last month, an ITC judge decided that one of nine Nokia patents that it is holding against HTC fell under standard-essential patent (SEP) guidelines.  These types of patents hold a certain agreement between companies and one of those was that if issues raised about the patent they would have to go to court.  Well they did, but nothing happened and now Nokia once again asked the ITC judge's to review the case.  However, they dismissed it on the basis that Nokia claiming HTC's argument was "wholly groundless" was just not the case.

We will have to see what ends up happening between these two companies, but like most cases, they will settle or continue to attack each other.  As a result of this sue-happy culture, many companies are forced to purchase patents just for defensive purposes and then attack companies if they sue them over something else.     In this case, it seems like Nokia is just trying to find any excuse it can to attack HTC, even if they don't really have a good argument for it.

It's good to see that the ITC judges just decided not to deal with the case any more.  This will let them move on and work on other things, instead of continuing to waste their time.

Post #13: Samsung v. Apple - A Neverending Struggle

It seems like Samsung and Apple are going at it again and not just in the United States.  This latest overseas battle is over a 3G standard-essential patent (SEP).  A SEP is a patent that claims an invention that must be used to comply with a technical standard.  The patent-in-suit is  EP1679803, a "method for configuring gain factors for uplink service in radio telecommunication system."

Today, Judge Andreas Voss ordered a retrial for July 26, 2013 because yesterday Justice Floyd in the United Kingdom declared three of Samsung's SEPs were invalid.  Voss scheduled this retrial because Samsung presented a theory that Apple didn't meet burden of proof as a defendant and that more information about the way German mobile networks work in order to make a final decision.  

On the other end, it is interesting to see how Apple successfully got a ban of the Galaxy Tab 10.1.  Regardless, these two companies just continue to fight and try to establish dominance over one another.  This wouldn't be the first time Samsung has fought over a SEP either, they've currently lost over 25 cases.

Post #12: A Ban on Google Maps?

Apparently so.  Judge Dr. Matthias Zigan of the Munich I Regional Court told Google and its Motorola Mobility subsidiary that it infringed on of Microsoft's patents.  This patent, known as EPo845124, is a "computer system for identifying local resources and method therefor," which is also the same as the US Patent No. 6,240,360.  What this means for Google is that it will most likely have to stop delivering its Maps services to Germany.

This can lead to many things, 1. A national German map based app comes out 2. People find other map service providers 3. A new app is developed, like Waze an Israeli-based company that does free GPS.  Or will Apple maps finally become more popular? Realistically, Google Maps is a great service, but there are so many alternatives out there that it won't be hard to find one that suits your needs.

Microsoft now wants to obtain a patent injunction against Google Maps service, the Google Maps Android Client app and web browsers providing access to Google Maps.  For Google to even do this it would have to completely disable its Maps service from any user who has a German IP address, discontinue shipping the Google Maps Android app in the German market and distribute web browsers in Germany only if they block access to Google Maps.

The final verdict will come within the next few months, but Google will most likely lose.  Everything Microsoft wants to do seems like it will be a huge blow to German users.  This time, not only Google loses. but so does the consumer.

Post #11: 1 Million Patents

China recently hit a huge milestone: 1,000,000 patents.  In 2012 alone they granted 210,000 patents.  What does this mean for China? Basically they are inventing and and innovating -- increasing their competitiveness with other nations and creating jobs at the same time.  The 2012 number is a 26% increase from 2011, a significant increase from the year before.  However, this still doesn't compare to the numbers that America is producing at 247,713 a year*, and which is still a record year.  Overall, we can expect emerging markets to start producing more and more patents and become more competitive as the years carry on.  Eventually China will hit 2 million patents, but only time can tell until that will happen -- I predict by 2017.

Here is the link to the original article: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2013-02/27/content_16260248.htm

*http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.htm

Post #10: What is an IPA?

Twitter recently began developing a new patent agreement between its employers that allows them pretty much full control of the patents they file.  Normally in big corporation settings, an employer completely signs off any invention they create to the company, allowing said company to use it anyway they want without the creator's consent.  However, Twitter is realizing the benefit of giving the ownership back to the creator in the company.

IPA stands for Investor Patent Agreement, and within that agreement there are three main points: A promise by the inventor not to sue anyone, unless it is for defensive purposes; a promise to only use the patent as intended for what it was for as directed by the inventor; and lastly, the inventors can hold the company/whoever eventually owns the patent accountable for what they do with it in the future.  The first main point of the agreement is especially important because it prevents patent wars from starting since there is no incentive to sue or keep companies out of the competition.  A lot of what we see today is one company suing another just simply to slow them down in production/R&D/whatever they are doing.  Although this is a good strategy, it also slows down innovation because companies work much slower in producing products, and costs billions of dollars.  The only people who really benefit from this, besides the companies of course, are the lawyers that are paid exuberant fees to fight.  Stopping the patent war is further reinforced with the second point because the patent can only be used for what the inventor intended, anything else and it has to be approved.  So even if it is bought by someone else, lets say a "patent troll," that person can't seek to extract money from other people unless the original inventor says that is OK.

The IPA, besides of course giving more ownership to the patent within the company to the original inventor, also prevents offensive attacks by Non-Practicing Entities.  This seems like a first good step in solving the all-around patent crisis that seems to have been going on these past few years.  Like my previous article, where I discuss how Microsoft is more transparent with its patents, Twitter is also becoming a pioneer in new patent strategies.

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

Post #9: Transparency: Good or bad? Depends on who you ask.

Apparently, Microsoft has decided that the best way to save money on litigation and to create a more trusting environment surrounding patents is to publish their own patents online.  This is happening as the ever so popular "patent troll" is increasingly suing companies because they keep the patents they purchase secret in order to carry out their goals.  By fostering a transparent environment on patents, it will be more difficult for patent trolls to reign over unsuspecting companies.  It seems that companies are finally starting to step up and figure out what to do with the patent trolls.  Microsoft hopes to lead with this example and demonstrate to other tech companies that they should publish their own patents as well to help prevent frivolous lawsuits.  Hopefully it doesn't end up backfiring and Microsoft somehow ends up destroying their competitive advantages.  It will also be interesting to see if other companies take the lead on this and begin publishing their own patents as well.


Here is the link to the original article: http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2013/02/21/microsoft-to-publish-patent-catalogue-in-move-to-deter-litigation/

Post #8: The King of Patents

In today's performance driven economy, there is nothing better then to file and eventually be rewarded for your patent.  As explained in Uzi Aloush's lecture on 2/25, engineers are faced with the difficult task of always designing new patents and becoming the best in their field, or be left behind.

With this type of mindset, it is no wonder company after company is constantly seeking to acquire and control the most patents possible.  For 2012, that award goes to IBM corp. --  a computer and hardware giant.  In 2012, it was awarded close to 6,500 patents, a huge number demonstrating its constant search for new inventions to improve and advance its company.  Not surprisingly, this is the 20th year in a row that it has won this award and on top of that, the 6,500 patents awarded amounted to more then Apple, Amazon, Hewlett Packard, Symantec, EMC, Intel, Oracle and Accenture combined.

IBM Corp. has been so successful in creating this innovative culture by always encouraging its employees to invent new products and work even harder to see them produced.


Here is the link to the original article: http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/techflash/2013/02/research-in-mass-helps-put-ibm-on-the.html

Post #7: Apple Seeks Innovative New Patents

This past week, Apple was awarded patents for both situational awareness functions on its devices and location-sharing to third-parties from its devices.

Situational awareness interestingly combines your activities with automatic phone responses.  What this means is that if you go into a restaurant, it might switch your phone to silent or if you are on an airplane, it can recognize that and switch it to airplane mode.  However, there are a few critiques of this new patent, considering if certain settings are met and the situational awareness features are turned on when you don't want them to be, that could be a problem.  Maybe you call someone by accident or the device turns your GPS on when you enter a car, but you don't want to waste battery or data.  There are clearly issues that can arise with this new patent, although I'm sure Apple will be able to solve them.  It would be interesting to see this developed because this is actually a really good idea and would make for a much more intuitive phone experience.

The second patent, location sharing to third-parties is supposedly related to the eventual release of the iWatch.  That way, the iWatch doesn't need any GPS tracking devices on it, it can just receive the information from the Iphone.  This could prove to be very useful later on in helping to create much thinner devices and making it easier to transfer data.

Overall, these patents seem to indicate that Apple will be coming out with some new and interesting features for their products in the near future.  We can only wait to see what Apple creates.

Here is the link to the original article:

http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/26/apple-patents-situational-awareness-and-location-information-sharing-for-mobile-devices/

Post #6: Patent Trolls: Stifling Growth?

As mentioned in my previous blog post, non-practicing entities purchase patents to then sue other companies for money.  Also known as patent trolls, these people are now being attacked by our very own President Obama because all they do is coerce other companies.  Patent offices are such an important institution because they do so much for protecting inventions and letting companies flourish through competitive advantages.  But now, they are under risk of these trolls who just want to sue and make money, when instead the patents could be going to a company that actually needs to use the invention to create their product.  Government has been slow to keep pace with technological growth and advancement -- so many laws are now either outdated or don't even exist for our technology structure today.  Government needs to step up and prevent these patent trolls from doing real damage before it's too late.


Article:

http://mashable.com/2013/02/14/obama-patent-trolls/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Mashable+%28Mashable%29

Post #5: The Power of Patents: Google sues British Telecom with Motorola Patents

This past class we learned about non-practicing entities that purchase patent rights to then sue companies that use that certain invention.  Although Google suing British Telecom with Motorola patents is not an example of this, it is essentially the same thing.  Since Motorola was bought out by Google, it gave Google the ability to own all of its patents and then use them to sue other companies who attempt to infringe.  In this case, Google was able to secure 17,000 patents and is still waiting to hear about 7,500 more, just to be able to use them as leverage over other companies.

This latest round of Google's lawsuits is especially interesting because it is coming after BT sued Google for claiming it infringed on patents of its own.  In response, Google is using the Motorola patents it recently purchased to counter sue.  This highlights the back and forth nature of patent wars, which seem to be never end nowadays.  We can only wait to see what the outcome will be.  

An interesting fact at the end of the article that I thought was worth mentioning is that "Only 5,462 [patents] were filed at the height of the technology boom in 2000, but more than 14,200 were lodged last year".  We can see the increasing importance of patents as everything is becoming even more competitive in the mobile market since it expects to increase to a 500 billion dollar industry in the next few years.  For these companies, owning these patents is what gives them a competitive edge and slowing down their competitors in litigation battles is all part of the game to own the most market share.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/9869327/Google-uses-Motorola-patents-to-sue-BT.html

Post #4: A Close Relationship Gone Astray

We've all heard about Apple suing Samsung because they were upset with how they designed their newest phones.  The media made it seem like an all out war between the two where no one would back down and that Apple and Samsung were and have always been mortal enemies.  However, after reading this article:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57568584-37/tim-cook-reportedly-opposed-patent-suits-against-samsung/

it is clear the relationship between the two is much more intertwined, then at least I had previously thought.  Seeing that Apple relied heavily on Samsung as a components supplier, the whole idea of going into court over a patent seemed ill-mannered to Tim Cook and Steve Jobs.  It seems that in this case not everyone was interested in just spending huge sums of money to sue one another because it would do much more then just resolve a patent dispute, it would also strain personal and professional relationships.  As mentioned in the article, Samsung and Apple began working very closely with each other and even the grandson of Samsung's founder ended up visiting Steve Job at home.  However, since the two companies never reached a reciprocal patent agreement, they were unable to to come to an agreement and the trial would surely take place.  Now, Apple is seeking ways to distance itself from reliance on Samsung parts.  It is interesting to see how these two companies relationships have evolved over time, and clearly they're in a stage where they're not so close anymore.

Post #3: Recognizing IP (Trademarks, Copyrights and Trade Secrets)

Today in class, we learned how to identify trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets.

1. Apparently, it is very cheap to hold a trademark and typically large corporations hold onto many throughout the world.  While one company may purchase a trademark in the United States, it is not applicable in another country.  A trademark is a logo, symbol, name or device used to identify a service.

2. Copyrights are a tool used to prevent someone from copying your product.  Nowadays, these are extremely common as musicians, software companies and the movie industry use copyrights to make it illegal to use their product without permission and often with financial compensation for themselves.  Even though there are websites that exist where you can download these files illegally, having these laws in place makes sure that at least the creators get some fair compensation and the violators are punished.

3. Trade secrets are any sort of information that is valuable and confidential.  These include: customer lists, sales or profit date, product weaknesses, internal designs and processes and procedures.  Most importantly, the trade secret is the crux that makes the company so successful because it is what gives its competitive advantage.  For example, my dad's company, Mixografia, which creates 3-dimensional hand paper prints, uses machines and processes (that my dad invented and patented) in order to create what he does.  His company is the only print-maker in the world that is able to create 3-dimensional prints and is what gives him the competitive advantage over other print makers in his field.

Post #2: Why am I taking this class?

I am taking this class to ultimately learn how to get and protect a patent if I ever invent something worthwhile.  Seeing as my dad holds numerous patents, I am interested to learn how he went about acquiring them and what will take to protect them.  Also, since the mobile industry is projected to grow to 500 billion in the coming year, taking a class in this field could prove to be quite useful later on.  Overall, I am curious to see what this class entails because as of now my knowledge about patents and the mobile industry is quite low.  I hope to use this class as a learning experience and gain insight into a sector I am not yet very familiar with.

Post #1: About Me

My name is Adam Remba, I am a second-year Political Economy and Geography double major from West Los Angeles .  This is the second class I have taken in the IEOR department and look forward to a great semester.  Currently, I am the Co-President of TAMID Israel Investment Group which runs an investment portfolio of International Equities/Equities with ties to Israel and I work for Campus Recycling and Refuse Services, leading a campaign that's directed towards Zero-Waste by 2020 on our UC Berkeley campus.  I enjoy skiing, soccer and basketball and anything sports related to Los Angeles.