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.

Week 8 #4: patent troll cases & info

In this blogpost I will talk a little bit more about patent trolls and how they are affecting our society now.

As I was researching the topic of patent trolls, I came across this study published by UC Hastings and Lex Machina, who analyzed about 13,000 cases spanning about 30,000 patents. What they concluded was that about 56 percent of the patent-related lawsuits filed in the U.S. in 2012 were filed by patent monetization entities. In an earlier blogpost, I introduced patent monetization entities as patent trolls, who are people or companies that license patents but doesn't actually have any business involving the patent.

This puts small companies, particularly startups, at a disadvantage because they cannot easily tell if a patent has been asserted and what territory is being claimed by the patent holder. As a result, tech companies like Google, Blackberry and others are asking the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice to scrutinize NPEs who are hurting consumers and businesses.

I found the top 10 businesses targeted by patent trolls in 2013, which in order are AT&T, Google, Verizon, Apple, Samsung, Amazon, Dell, Sony, Huawei, and Blackberry.

Week 8 #3: patent infringement lawsuit

In this blogpost, I will focus on patent infringement lawsuits. I found this topic very interesting and wanted to share it here.

So how does a patent infringement lawsuit begin? Well it begins with a filing of a complaint alleging patent infringement by the patent holder. The holder must have a "complaint" document and a "summons" document.

In response to this, you can contact an attorney familiar with patents to assist and help you decide on the best course of action. Otherwise, you can choose to deny the proof that the patent owner has provided, negotiate with the owner for a settlement of the lawsuit (which involves agreeing to a license or a statement that you do not infringe the patent), or try to invalidate the patent based on references that show the patent is invalid.

So in order to determine whether you are truly infringing a patent, you should know that the accused must perform each and every element of one or more of its claims, or actively encourage, sell or offer to sell a component that leads to another's infringement.

I thought this information was interesting and important in the event that I ever get filed for patent infringement. I would definitely want to know the procedure and whether or not I am infringing in the first place.

Week 8 #2: patent infringement

In this blogpost I will be talking about patent infringement. After introducing this, I can go further into specific cases of patent infringement in the next blogposts.

So what is patent infringement? It is the act of making, using, selling, or offering to sell a patented invention, or importing into the US a product covered by a claim of a patent without the permission of the patent owner. In addition, those who encourage others to infringe patents, or supplying or importing components of a patented invention, and related acts can also give rise to liability in certain cases.

A patent owner can then sue you in federal court. If the owner is able to prove infringement, then the court may order you to pay monetary damages and/or stop infringing one or more patent claims. Otherwise, the court may conclude that the patent claim is not valid due to invention being disclosed in other sources or offered for sale.

As we all know, the consequences of a patent infringement can be quite harsh. In an earlier post I talked about Apple v. Samsung, which dealt with patent infringement. The result of this case were millions of dollars in damages. So I will definitely watch out for patent infringement in the future.