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.