Week 12: intellectual property #4

In this blogpost, I will summarize my online research in regards to the topic in the presentation.

I found this interesting article that listed 5 best practices for creating an IP strategy. I thought it would be cool to share it here.

1. File early for patents
New patent laws in the US are based off the "first to file" regime. Filing early is absolutely critical to getting your idea in first, and getting your patent underway as quickly as possible.

2. Control the distribution of your ideas
There is a difference between distributing non confidential information for feedback, as opposed to sharing the totality of your idea, including all the novel, patentable aspects of your innovation. Once your ideas have leaked into the public domain, you may never be able to patent them anywhere, as the idea is not considered novel anymore.

3. Own the process: don't leave it all to the lawyers
Understanding the filing process, working efficiently with the lawyers and creating a strategy and roadmap around filing patents are critical for getting the best return on investment.

4. Build an IP portfolio that increases your evaluation
The iP filling needs to be very strategic, creating the right balance of offensive and defensive goals while positioning the company to gain market share, enhancing valuation and positioning for funding, and increasing the likelihood of a successful exit.

5. Manage the risk of litigation
Having strong patent portfolio can provide ammunition to countersue the competitor, and in that regard, will make them think twice before suing you.

Week 12: intellectual property #3

In this blogpost, I will focus on IP strategy for growth.

Above is a chasm graph that illustrates the IP strategy lifecycle. The key here is that you want to build an IP portfolio to increase valuation. Your goals are: freedom to operate, block competitors, support future products, hedge against litigation, attract buyers & investors, monetization, liquidation value.

A strong IP portfolio supports the later stages after the chasm. Your sources of IP can come from internal R&D and filing patents, buying patents, or in-licensing (university, government labs, etc.).
As you can see from the graph, before the chasm is labeled as developing IP position. After that, you begin your IP commercialization and monetization. And eventually, portfolio liquidation.

It is important to keep in mind that IP strategy can determine a product's success, market share, and profitability. A failure to properly address IP issues can result in loss of market share, margin erosion, and reduced market competitiveness.

Week 12: intellectual property #2

In this blogpost, I will go more into the IP industry as explained in the presentation.

There are four major forces impacting the patent marketplace: the IP litigation is at an all time high, very active patent transaction markets, USPTO overloaded and underfunded, global competition is changing the iP playing field. As we all know, the US patent prosecution process is on a "first to file" basis.

In the current 21st century patent marketplace, there is an addition to simply IP creators and IP users. Now, IP creators are operating companies, independent inventors, universities, research institutions, government labs. There are intermediaries that include non practicing entities, patent funds / aggregators, market makers, and financial services. Finally, there are IP users which include operating companies and others.

I found really interesting the industry trends to watch in patent monetization. These include 3 main points.
1. enforcement business model is under attack - patent litigation declines for first time in 5 years
2. patent transactions slowing down - especially soft. patent; buying moved to China
3. focus shifting to validity

In the next blogpost I will talk about growth, but I included this one because it has a good overview of the current IP marketplace.

Week 12: intellectual property #1

In this week's blogposts, I will be talking about our guest speaker's topic: The role of intellectual property as a strategic business asset.

Just to start off, it is interesting to see that 80% of S&P 500 Market value is consisted of intangible assets. These can be patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, etc.

I actually learned how to differentiate the terms I just listed above. In the presentation, she says that copyrights are original works of authorship (and this can take any form of work) and it lasts author's life and 70 years. Trademarks is a word, name, symbol, or device used in trade to distinguish goods. Trade secrets are business items/information that are of economic value and are kept confidential. Patents are right to exclude others from making, using, or selling products covered by invention in a defined territory. Patent's life is 20 years from filing.

I thought the distinguishing definitions of each of these intangible assets really clarified my doubts and made the entire material more clear. It is definitely surprising that over 80% of the market value are laid in these secrets / patents. It makes sense when you think about it, especially in a largely growing tech industry.

Week 11: Ted talk #4

In this blogpost I will talk about Johanna Blakley's presentation on "Lessons from fashion's free culture".

In my opinion, I thought this was the most interesting and engaging presentation. So her presentation relates to the idea that many creative industries are shackled by patents and copyrights, however, there is one that remains different: fashion. Counterintuitively, this has been great for this industry.

She says that fashion's intellectual property only goes as far as trademarking. It is very common for designers to build upon each other's ideas. And like we all know, fashion is very fast paced and constantly moving forward. Designers have to come up with new fashion trends for each season every year.

She mentions how top quality brands like Gucci aren't concerned with others copying their style because the end consumer is different. Those who shop at Gucci is there for a specific reason, and those who shop at H&M with knock-off styles are there because they are a different set of customers.

She then goes to argue that people think fashion can survive without patents because it is a low earning industry. However, when she pulled a chart of top grossing industries, the top ones are all without patent controls, and way at the bottom are technology and other industries that are heavily patented.

I simply thought this presentation was extremely interesting and it was very cool to learn about fashion and viewing it in a different light.

Weel 11: Ted talk #3

In this blogpost I will talk about Beth Noveck's presentation on "Demand a more open-source government".

As the former deputy CTO at the White House, Beth Noveck thinks that a government should call upon its citizens to share their expertise for the sake of better governance.

She gives an example of how in the past, a single person in the US Patent Office has had the authority to bestow a patent. However, with the new Peer-to-Patent system, anyone can weigh on applications, including those who have a deeper base of knowledge in a field.

Although we haven't yet seen what this type of governance may look like, we have made small steps towards open-source government. From the projects overseas to simply hackathons, we see the power of people contributing together in government.

Opening up government data can definitely lead to more innovative and useful applications where this data can be used for an interesting use.

I definitely agree with her viewpoint here, because more minds to a common problem can only bring more ideas and better improvements. This is the key idea behind working in group projects at school: students from different backgrounds with similar knowledge can each share their ideas to jointly create something amazing.

Week 11: Ted talk #2

In this blogpost I will be going over Drew Curtis' presentation on "How I beat a patent troll".

He first defines patent troll. It is a term given to anyone who files a patent for something already being done, and then sues the people already doing it.

He explains that his company was sued for violating a patent for "news releases via email". He says that his company deals with news, and they were being sued for it. However, news releases at the time only referred to press releases and printed forms of media, which did not include email.

He says that the average troll defense can cost $2 million and take over 18months (if you win). This is why most companies settle during a patent lawsuit, even though most of the companies did not infringe on the patent. The point to settle is that it will be much less cheaper this way and less time consuming.

However, he was persistent about pressing on the lawsuit. He made the patent troll provide proof and replied no settlement to the patent troll's offer of a settlement.

One of the key takeways here is that infringement is much easier to prove than a patent. And that it is important to make it clear that either a) your company has no money at all or b) you would rather spend all that money with a lawyer and pressing on the lawsuit charges. He says that patent trolls' end goal is a settlement, because they make money by taking a percentage from the settlement. However, when a settlement cannot be reached, they are less incentivized to press on.

Week 11: Ted talk #1

In these next few blogposts, I will be talking about the TED talks we watched in class. The videos can be found here: http://blog.ted.com/6-talks-about-problems-with-patents/

I will be talking about t'Hoen's presentation on pool medical patents.

Years ago, the cost for HIV drug cocktails was about $12,000 per person per year — meaning that people in wealthy countries had access to them while those in the developing world did not. India, however, did not recognize medical patents at the time and companies there began producing generic formulations. Because of so much supply of these drugs, the cost dropped to $350 per patient per year. As a result, many lives were saved and more medication were available. 

However, in 1995, the Word Trade Organization instituted new rules, calling for all countries to ensure 20-year patents for new medications. Since then, the number of patents in the area of ARVs (or the area that cures HIV) has skyrocketed.

t'Hoen then goes on to talk about her own solutions and ideas. I really liked her views on this issue. The idea she presents here is quite interesting. It led me to think that maybe some industries shouldn't have patents.

Week 10 #4: silly patents 4

In this blog post I will be talking about the newborn infant art patent.

At first I was very confused about what this patent actually is. It seems like it is just a patent on a drawing board that allows the infant to paint. Turns out, the patent is exactly that! The patent says "the addition of a newborn infant to a family inspires feelings of nostalgia and the related desire to create a lasting remembrance of the child's infancy".

Essentially, this is a paint kit for kids and parents who miss the idea of painting. The patent was awarded in 2000, and I was very confused as to why it would be patented. This is simply a drawing board and it is essentially patenting the idea of people wanting to paint after having a baby?

I thought the patent was also very obvious because it provides nothing new. Both the paint and the drawing board were already prior arts and so I can't imagine how this could possibly be an innovative, yet needed invention.

This is my last blogpost on the idea of silly patents, and sure enough, it made me realize how many ridiculous patents there are out there. This assignment definitely opened my eyes.

Week 10 #3: silly patents 3

In this blogpost, I will be talking about the patent of a helmet that only shields the back side of your head.

As you can see from the picture, the helmet does not shield anything on the front, only on the back.

The patent says "most types of protective head gear or helmets cover and protect the entire or majority of the user's head. For many activities that require protection of the head, maximum protection is desirable. However, there are some activities where only some protection is desired".

I was very confused by this patent because it says "some activities" only require partial protection. And judging from the picture, the guy is skateboarding, which requires maximum protection of the head. The picture is misleading because it made it seem like you are completely safe when falling backwards, however, skateboarding could easily make you fall face forward.

The helmet ultimately can only shield you if you fall backwards. And in terms of protection, normal helmets also protect you on a backward fall. This patent was very obvious because it just took a normal helmet and shifted it downwards on your head. Additionally, it is very unsafe and unnecessary, as standard helmets already do a better job of what it tries to accomplish.

Week 10 #2: silly patents 2

In this blogpost I will be talking about Be the Bike patent.

As you can see from the picture, the patent name pretty much explains it. The patent says "the body of the rider acts as a connecting means between the front and rear roller assemblies and allows high performance riding, exercise, and competition".

The first thing I thought of when I saw this was how dangerous this could be. For one, this requires incredible amount of stabilizing muscles in your body because you want to keep yourself in that position the entire ride no matter what kind of road you are going through. If your body stretches just a little bit too far, it would be incredibly difficult to get yourself back up. Even in a regular bike, people find it hard to balance themselves during bumpy roads because it requires a lot of strength.

Also I noticed how since there were no pedals, this could only work downhill or if the parts were motorized. Given that it is a motorized means of transportation, it would also be extremely dangerous because there is no safe way for you to stop in case of an emergency. If you fall, then you would be rolling over yourself in high speed and could easily break your bones.

Overall, although this patent might be non obvious, I think it is way beyond what we can truly use to roam the streets. This means of transportation would create so much liability and be extremely dangerous for the average user.

Week 10 #1: silly patents #1

In this blogpost I will be talking about the Quick Draw Call patent.

As you can see from the picture, this patent that was awarded in 2004 is a strap that holds your phone on your wrist. When you want to "store" your phone, it rests on your wrist. However, when you want to use it, you can push it out to your palm and use the phone. 

The actual patent says: "no one of the devices actually known allows the possibility of quickly and easily setting the cellular telephone to its use condition and then as well quickly and easily setting it back to rest". 

My personal thoughts on this patent is that I guess at first, this does look kind of cool. Its like how magicians hide cards in their sleeves. However, the more I look at it, the more I would not appreciate it and found flaws. 

I do admit that it would be a very easy and quick way of accessing and "storing" your phone. But I do put quotes around "store" because the way it is stored in the picture would be terrible for me. It would be way too inconvenient to have a phone hanging around my wrist all the time, especially with the huge phone screen size trends lately. 

In addition, I also do not see a need for pulling and storing your phone in such quick speeds. I do not need to constantly check my phone back and forth. And even if it was to shorten the amount of time needed when I get a call, I have a good 15 seconds to reach my phone before the call drops. 

Overall I think this patent was very unnecessary and quite obvious. It is simply a strap on your wrist that can hold a phone. People are already reluctant to have smart watches and bulky wrist watches, so I couldn't imagine what would make them want to wear this.

Week 9 #2: patent troll bill renewal

In this blogpost I will be going over the patent troll bill that was renewed earlier this February.

The House Judiciary Committee chairman brought up a bill that targets abusive practices by companies that buy up patents for the purpose of extracting settlements, otherwise known as patent trolls.

He emphasized that the legislation is meant to target abuse, not specific entities. And he has the support of several technology companies, retailers, and restaurant associations.

One of the key things in this bill is that it would limit the amount of discovery necessary. This means that this could remove a tool used by the trolls to run up the costs of litigation in order to extract a settlement. The bill calls on the Judicial Conference of US to come up with rules to allow for additional discovery if the party making the request pays the cost.

The entire legislation passed 325-91 in the congress. Reading about this article made me realize how big of an issue patent troll is and I am glad that the government is taking good measures to cut these trolls. The votes in the congress really portray the one-sided argument here, which is that patent trolls are abusive and deserve to be more closely monitored.

Week 9 #1: patent troll example against Google and Motorola

In this blog post I will be giving an example of a patent troll case that occurred a little over a year ago.

Patent trolls are everywhere, and one of the biggest one is called Intellectual Ventures. This was a case against Motorola, which was owned by Google. It claimed that Motorola's phone displays, software update system, and other elements infringe on six of Intellectual Venture's thousands of patents.

Meanwhile, Intellectual Ventures claims itself as an "invention marketplace", because it buys up massive amounts of intellectual property and licenses it in bulk. Over the years, as the company built up its portfolio of patents, it became more of a threat than a help.

So in this case, if Google and Motorola wanted to win the case, they would have to convince a jury either that they are not infringing Intellectual Venture's patents, or that those patents are invalid. This could be a long and expensive process, as the court would have to determine what the patents mean and how they can be applied. If Intellectual Venture's patents define a software update tool in terms that don't match with Motorola's system, or if the steps it describes are obvious that anyone could think of them, then IV loses.

This example just made me think more about patent trolls, and how even though the government may be trying to cut them down, there are still giants out there who are targeting the largest tech companies in the industry.