I just came across this article and thought it would be perfect to share with the class. Check it out everyone!
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/05/owen-nannarone/
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Monday, May 6, 2013
Silly Patent #30
PNEUMATIC SHOE LACING APPARATUS
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=www.google.com/patents/US5205055.pdf
I really like this dumb patent because it gives an explanation to the Marty McFly's shoes from one of my favorite movies, Back to the Future 2. This patent was granted in 1993, I guess 1993 was the year for receiving dumb patents. This invention is definitely useful for the disabled or elderly. Essentially anyone who would have trouble tying their own shoes. The notion of self strapping or tying shoes is obvious but the method in which this inventor describes is not too obvious. The idea is clearly not novel as it was portrayed to the world in 1989 in Back to the Future 2. I guess the method in which is laces itself is the novel part. It is even in the title of the invention "Pneumatic". I will admit I had to look up what Pneumatic ment and this is the definition I found, Pneumatic - Adj. containing or operated by air or gas under pressure. Nike put 1000 pairs of the shoes from the movie up for sale a few years ago at a charity event for $1,000 each. They sold out in less than a day and do not even include the self lacing apparatus. Currently these shoes are being resold on ebay for $7,500. Imagine how much they would be going for if they included this pneumatic shoe lacing apparatus!
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=www.google.com/patents/US5205055.pdf
I really like this dumb patent because it gives an explanation to the Marty McFly's shoes from one of my favorite movies, Back to the Future 2. This patent was granted in 1993, I guess 1993 was the year for receiving dumb patents. This invention is definitely useful for the disabled or elderly. Essentially anyone who would have trouble tying their own shoes. The notion of self strapping or tying shoes is obvious but the method in which this inventor describes is not too obvious. The idea is clearly not novel as it was portrayed to the world in 1989 in Back to the Future 2. I guess the method in which is laces itself is the novel part. It is even in the title of the invention "Pneumatic". I will admit I had to look up what Pneumatic ment and this is the definition I found, Pneumatic - Adj. containing or operated by air or gas under pressure. Nike put 1000 pairs of the shoes from the movie up for sale a few years ago at a charity event for $1,000 each. They sold out in less than a day and do not even include the self lacing apparatus. Currently these shoes are being resold on ebay for $7,500. Imagine how much they would be going for if they included this pneumatic shoe lacing apparatus!
Silly Patent #29
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=www.google.com/patents/US5255452.pdf
I have attached the link to view the PDF of the patent I found when I searched for Silly Patents. It is a device for giving the illusion for anti-gravity. It is a shoe that supports the person who wears it when they lean forward. While it is silly I have seen something like this be "useful". While I personally have no use for it I have seen street performers use similar devices to just stand there leaning. I guess if you are a street performer this is something of high use. I do not know how to claim this as novel as it is just a support system, and it was filed in 1993. I guess in terms of a shoe this is a new idea for a shoe (one that supports your body weight when you lean forward). In addition to that, it can be considered a non-obvious shoe device. Again, I see no use for it personally and I still consider it a silly patent but I see why someone would have a use for it and why someone would want to patent it.
I have attached the link to view the PDF of the patent I found when I searched for Silly Patents. It is a device for giving the illusion for anti-gravity. It is a shoe that supports the person who wears it when they lean forward. While it is silly I have seen something like this be "useful". While I personally have no use for it I have seen street performers use similar devices to just stand there leaning. I guess if you are a street performer this is something of high use. I do not know how to claim this as novel as it is just a support system, and it was filed in 1993. I guess in terms of a shoe this is a new idea for a shoe (one that supports your body weight when you lean forward). In addition to that, it can be considered a non-obvious shoe device. Again, I see no use for it personally and I still consider it a silly patent but I see why someone would have a use for it and why someone would want to patent it.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Steady increase in patents #27
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/patent-grant-update.html
It looks like the number of patents issued has continued to increase since 1983 with a slight drop during the recession. The numbers have since picked up to reach record highs and are on track to be the year with the highest number of patents issued. As technology is advancing there is more use to file patents. Also, now that the patent "game" has received more publicity with many high profile cases resulting in millions of dollars transferring hands people are starting to see dollar signs in their eyes. It is great that our government is able to process this many patents in the coming years and are willing to help protect the intellectual property of inventors but not all of the people filing patents are doing it for the right reasons. The drop during the recession makes me wonder why. Was it because patents are somewhat pricey to file or was it because people were just focusing their efforts elsewhere?
It looks like the number of patents issued has continued to increase since 1983 with a slight drop during the recession. The numbers have since picked up to reach record highs and are on track to be the year with the highest number of patents issued. As technology is advancing there is more use to file patents. Also, now that the patent "game" has received more publicity with many high profile cases resulting in millions of dollars transferring hands people are starting to see dollar signs in their eyes. It is great that our government is able to process this many patents in the coming years and are willing to help protect the intellectual property of inventors but not all of the people filing patents are doing it for the right reasons. The drop during the recession makes me wonder why. Was it because patents are somewhat pricey to file or was it because people were just focusing their efforts elsewhere?
Patenting a sandal? #26
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/patent-conscious-preparation-for-a-summer-at-the-beach.html
After reading this article I am conflicted. On one hand I want to commend the inventor for patenting such a simple stupid idea probably with the hopes that Crocs will buy it from him. On the other hand this guy sucks and so does whoever let it slide through the patent office. I understand this as a design patent but as a utility patent? How was this classified as new and useful. The concept of sandals that make imprints has always been out there. I remember as a young kid seeing cheap plastic sandals from China on the beach that would do the same thing. And I have no idea how this is useful. Im sure I could come up with a bogus excuse as to why it is useful. But again, this guy played it smart he took the chance to patent it and it worked. I highly doubt he will go ahead and produce these sandals. The more realistic route is to sit on this patent and wait to be bought or for someone to infringe. Im torn.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Natural Phenomena? #25
An article on Patentlyo says that the supreme court has ruled that abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature are now ineligible for patent protection even when previously unknown or discovered. In the article there is a poll you can take that asks: Whether you think those non-textual exclusions should be treated as "prior-art. The results are as follows: abstract ideas 20%, natural phenomena 32%, laws of nature 32%, and none of the above 15%. I would really like to know how someone could even attempt to patent a natural phenomena and the USPTO let it slide. I think there is something that I am not understanding here is they are just now making laws of nature etc. un patentable. I would like to hear some feedback from the class in the comments section to discuss this.
Budget Cuts #24
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/uspto-budget-cuts.html
I cant believe with all of the back logged patents and work that is not being dont in the patent and trademark office the government thought it would be a good idea to not only cut the budget, but also turn over the user fees to the treasury. It seems like in a time like this the user fees would be what would sustain the USPTO. Apparently someone really wants to screw with everyone filing a patent and everyone working in the patent office. I am going to do some more research in the next few days to see who is in charge of making the call to cut the budget. I saw this article and i thought it was a joke. If you thought the USPTO was backlogged before, you havent seen the worst of it yet.
I cant believe with all of the back logged patents and work that is not being dont in the patent and trademark office the government thought it would be a good idea to not only cut the budget, but also turn over the user fees to the treasury. It seems like in a time like this the user fees would be what would sustain the USPTO. Apparently someone really wants to screw with everyone filing a patent and everyone working in the patent office. I am going to do some more research in the next few days to see who is in charge of making the call to cut the budget. I saw this article and i thought it was a joke. If you thought the USPTO was backlogged before, you havent seen the worst of it yet.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Micro - Entity? #22
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/do-i-qualify-for-micro-entity-status-at-the-patent-office.html
I wish I had read this blog post a few months ago. I was unaware of such a thing as a micro-entity. When filing the provisional patent for Flowbit I has filed under a small entity. A small entity gets 50% reduction in fees and the micro-entity gets 75% reduction in fees. Since I was advised a few patent attorneys to file as a small entity I am sure there is a good reason I was not told to file as a micro-entity. In the grand scheme of things the extra 25% reduction of fees is not a make or break situation but I would like to find out the other benefits or drawbacks between entities. After my initial research it seems as if the only difference is the extra 25% discount. Hopefully the next provisional I file I will be able to get the full 75% discount as a micro-entity. Also, any fellow students of Patent Engineering looking to file any kind of patent make sure to look for the micro-entity box and check it off.
I wish I had read this blog post a few months ago. I was unaware of such a thing as a micro-entity. When filing the provisional patent for Flowbit I has filed under a small entity. A small entity gets 50% reduction in fees and the micro-entity gets 75% reduction in fees. Since I was advised a few patent attorneys to file as a small entity I am sure there is a good reason I was not told to file as a micro-entity. In the grand scheme of things the extra 25% reduction of fees is not a make or break situation but I would like to find out the other benefits or drawbacks between entities. After my initial research it seems as if the only difference is the extra 25% discount. Hopefully the next provisional I file I will be able to get the full 75% discount as a micro-entity. Also, any fellow students of Patent Engineering looking to file any kind of patent make sure to look for the micro-entity box and check it off.
He pushed me first! #21
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/sony-v-red-digital-redcom.html
This blog post talks about Sony suing Red Digital, a company founded by the founder of Oakley. It seems as if Sony is going after Red Digital in retaliation. Red had previously sued Sony first. This serves as a good lesson for younger companies that have a great track record, good product, and think they are invincible. Although a larger more established company may be obviously infringing on your product, case you know you can win, it may be wise to either let it go or wait a little longer until you decide to sue. These larger companies apparently hold grudges and will have you on their radar just waiting for the right moment to strike back and this time with the intention of completely destroying you. At the end of the day, regardless of the product or infringement, the larger company has the money to keep the litigation going until it drives the smaller company into the ground. The patent litigation game is more than meets the eye, it involves a ridiculous amount of strategy.
This blog post talks about Sony suing Red Digital, a company founded by the founder of Oakley. It seems as if Sony is going after Red Digital in retaliation. Red had previously sued Sony first. This serves as a good lesson for younger companies that have a great track record, good product, and think they are invincible. Although a larger more established company may be obviously infringing on your product, case you know you can win, it may be wise to either let it go or wait a little longer until you decide to sue. These larger companies apparently hold grudges and will have you on their radar just waiting for the right moment to strike back and this time with the intention of completely destroying you. At the end of the day, regardless of the product or infringement, the larger company has the money to keep the litigation going until it drives the smaller company into the ground. The patent litigation game is more than meets the eye, it involves a ridiculous amount of strategy.
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Banning old iPhones and iPads #20
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/samsung-affirmatively-says-us-import.html
It would be interesting to find out if the sales of older iphones and ipads were significantly affecting the sales of samsung products. Contrary to this I wonder if Apple being forced to stop selling all of their older model products will affect sales of their newer products. There are so many different components of a company's business operations that these patent cases affect. It goes beyond the courtroom and lawyers and all the way down to the retailers. In a time when we as a country need to encourage consumer spending to boost our economy, removing desirable and affordable apple products can hinder this goal. The article states that Apple can only be affected at the low end and the repair business but I feel that it goes beyond this. While it may only affect these areas directly, it affects a lot more indirectly.
It would be interesting to find out if the sales of older iphones and ipads were significantly affecting the sales of samsung products. Contrary to this I wonder if Apple being forced to stop selling all of their older model products will affect sales of their newer products. There are so many different components of a company's business operations that these patent cases affect. It goes beyond the courtroom and lawyers and all the way down to the retailers. In a time when we as a country need to encourage consumer spending to boost our economy, removing desirable and affordable apple products can hinder this goal. The article states that Apple can only be affected at the low end and the repair business but I feel that it goes beyond this. While it may only affect these areas directly, it affects a lot more indirectly.
Predicting Patent Issuance #19
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/predicting-patent-issuance.html
This article merely poses a question and one that I find quite interesting. It is unfortunate that the author left the reader hanging with this question. I was really hoping there would be an answer or at least some evidence to support a claim. The question is are there objective factors that occur between the original application filing and the invention being patented. I am curious to know if there are objective factors and I wonder if the results of a study of this nature would prevent applications from dying before they are actually patented. I think if there are objective factors, which I have a feeling there are, this could be used by many inventors as a road map of things to avoid.
This article merely poses a question and one that I find quite interesting. It is unfortunate that the author left the reader hanging with this question. I was really hoping there would be an answer or at least some evidence to support a claim. The question is are there objective factors that occur between the original application filing and the invention being patented. I am curious to know if there are objective factors and I wonder if the results of a study of this nature would prevent applications from dying before they are actually patented. I think if there are objective factors, which I have a feeling there are, this could be used by many inventors as a road map of things to avoid.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Its a Race! #18
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/03/pre-aia-filing-numbers.html
Due to the graph in this article it seems as if the patent filing world has entered into a big race. The amount of non-provisionals filed tripled in one week. It seems as if inventors all across the country felt the need to prepare themselves for the ultimate change. Im curious as to how many of the patents included in this tripling were from large corporations and how many were from the average everyday inventor. I also wonder how this will affect the patent office. With the rapid influx of patents being filed will this cause errors in reviewing the patents because there are so many? Will they need to hire more staff to review all of the patents? We discuss patents from the side of the inventor but we need to remember that there is another side to the end stage of a patents completion. I kind of regret not throwing together some rough ideas I had into a provisional patent to hop on this filing band wagon.
Due to the graph in this article it seems as if the patent filing world has entered into a big race. The amount of non-provisionals filed tripled in one week. It seems as if inventors all across the country felt the need to prepare themselves for the ultimate change. Im curious as to how many of the patents included in this tripling were from large corporations and how many were from the average everyday inventor. I also wonder how this will affect the patent office. With the rapid influx of patents being filed will this cause errors in reviewing the patents because there are so many? Will they need to hire more staff to review all of the patents? We discuss patents from the side of the inventor but we need to remember that there is another side to the end stage of a patents completion. I kind of regret not throwing together some rough ideas I had into a provisional patent to hop on this filing band wagon.
Google's Open Source Pledge #17
http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/28/4156614/google-opa-open-source-patent-pledge-wont-sue-unless-attacked
This is a great move for the entire tech industry by one of its leading giants. Google has decided to take a defensive approach rather than an offensive one. They will not sue unless sued first. Hopefully this sentiment will catch on with other companies but I have a feeling it wont. Google has the power to turn its efforts away from the suing game without taking a major hit to the overall company. They know the power and potential of open source and are finally publicizing that it should be nurtured rather than obstructed. This pledge causes me to grow fond of Googles company culture and their passion for straight up innovation. Rather than suing a bunch of people, which they easily could, Google is doing the exact opposite. They are open sourcing some of their patents. Google even called out other patent holders in the industry asking them to do the same. I can only imagine how intimidating it must be to get called out by Google!
This is a great move for the entire tech industry by one of its leading giants. Google has decided to take a defensive approach rather than an offensive one. They will not sue unless sued first. Hopefully this sentiment will catch on with other companies but I have a feeling it wont. Google has the power to turn its efforts away from the suing game without taking a major hit to the overall company. They know the power and potential of open source and are finally publicizing that it should be nurtured rather than obstructed. This pledge causes me to grow fond of Googles company culture and their passion for straight up innovation. Rather than suing a bunch of people, which they easily could, Google is doing the exact opposite. They are open sourcing some of their patents. Google even called out other patent holders in the industry asking them to do the same. I can only imagine how intimidating it must be to get called out by Google!
Friday, March 22, 2013
Why not License? #16
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/03/intellectual-ventures-v-symantec.html
After I read this article it made me wonder why companies dont just offer a huge licensing on protected aspects of their technologies. The article states that Intellectual Ventures recieved Billions of dollars for its patent licensing program and rather than resorting to litigation their competitors are willing to pay top dollar to buy the licenses. I understand the fact companies may not want to license their products out to their competitors but after examining the tech and patent world we have seen that if a company really wants something they are just going to build it then deal with the litigation later. The licensing program that Intellectual Ventures not only skips a step and the headache but also makes them lots and lots of money.
After I read this article it made me wonder why companies dont just offer a huge licensing on protected aspects of their technologies. The article states that Intellectual Ventures recieved Billions of dollars for its patent licensing program and rather than resorting to litigation their competitors are willing to pay top dollar to buy the licenses. I understand the fact companies may not want to license their products out to their competitors but after examining the tech and patent world we have seen that if a company really wants something they are just going to build it then deal with the litigation later. The licensing program that Intellectual Ventures not only skips a step and the headache but also makes them lots and lots of money.
Samsung Countersues #15
http://www.mobileworldlive.com/samsung-countersues-ericsson-over-patent-claims
As has been mentioned by many of the other blog posts Samsung has decided to counter sue Ericsson. I have found a different article that mentions something very interesting. In the article it states that "The companies have also filed complaints against each other in the International Trade Commission concerning the same patents with Ericsson reportedly requesting a US import ban for Samsung products". This seems like this dispute has made its way beyond a product and money issue and is now on a personal level. I have a feeling it has to do with a disagreement over a license deal between the two. The US market is huge for Samsung products and Ericsson is trying to get back at Samsung by blocking from getting to this market. I highly doubt that the ban will be put in place but it will definitely be interesting to see how this all unfolds. Another thing I want to point out is that Ericsson said they spent over 5 Billion on research and development is 2011. This shuts me up on allocating company funds for R&D rather than suing other companies. I guess the millions the use to sue other companies is chump change compared to the Billions they actually use for research and development.
As has been mentioned by many of the other blog posts Samsung has decided to counter sue Ericsson. I have found a different article that mentions something very interesting. In the article it states that "The companies have also filed complaints against each other in the International Trade Commission concerning the same patents with Ericsson reportedly requesting a US import ban for Samsung products". This seems like this dispute has made its way beyond a product and money issue and is now on a personal level. I have a feeling it has to do with a disagreement over a license deal between the two. The US market is huge for Samsung products and Ericsson is trying to get back at Samsung by blocking from getting to this market. I highly doubt that the ban will be put in place but it will definitely be interesting to see how this all unfolds. Another thing I want to point out is that Ericsson said they spent over 5 Billion on research and development is 2011. This shuts me up on allocating company funds for R&D rather than suing other companies. I guess the millions the use to sue other companies is chump change compared to the Billions they actually use for research and development.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
EXPANDING ITA PRODUCT COVERAGE #14
http://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2013/er0313ll1.htm
I have to be honest, after reading this report I am still not 100% sure of what it entails. But what I can deduce from it sounds like this is going to be great news for myself and the Flowbit team. We are dealing with the exportation of Information Technologies and have not really considered the cost of tariffs to our customers. Although India is not covered in this agreement, Mexico is and our first customer is currently operating in Mexico. I truly believe that this agreement will have a positive global impact. Not only will it increase trade and hopefully boost some struggling economies, but also it will motivate innovation because it is breaking down one of the many hurdles needed to jump over in this industry. I will do some more research on this matter and report back as it pertains to Flowbit in the future.
I have to be honest, after reading this report I am still not 100% sure of what it entails. But what I can deduce from it sounds like this is going to be great news for myself and the Flowbit team. We are dealing with the exportation of Information Technologies and have not really considered the cost of tariffs to our customers. Although India is not covered in this agreement, Mexico is and our first customer is currently operating in Mexico. I truly believe that this agreement will have a positive global impact. Not only will it increase trade and hopefully boost some struggling economies, but also it will motivate innovation because it is breaking down one of the many hurdles needed to jump over in this industry. I will do some more research on this matter and report back as it pertains to Flowbit in the future.
Nokia's HTC patent #13
http://www.mobileworldlive.com/nokias-htc-patent-complaint-dismissed-by-german-court?elq=ce9bc372a78a4c5c9c9b50aaacdd63a4\
Another win for innovation and the world of mobile! I believe that the judges are catching on to the patent trolling and putting their foot down (well at least in Germany). This article states that Nokia “exaggerated the scope of its patent in order to extract unwarranted licensing royalties from Android handset manufacturers”. Since we have studied the narrowing of claims, I feel this judge's reason is one we can all understand and put into perspective. Nokia claimed that HTC infringed on what seems like the most vague claim possible, “Method for using services offered by a telecommunications network, a telecommunications system, and a terminal for it”. To me that sounds like they are trying to claim the use of mobile phones. It seems as if Nokia has brought this case against Apple as well and Apple had to settle. I wonder why Nokia did not going after every single mobile phone company if they got the big wigs at Apple to settle. Regardless, now that they lost im sure they will take a break from trolling and get back to the real work.
Another win for innovation and the world of mobile! I believe that the judges are catching on to the patent trolling and putting their foot down (well at least in Germany). This article states that Nokia “exaggerated the scope of its patent in order to extract unwarranted licensing royalties from Android handset manufacturers”. Since we have studied the narrowing of claims, I feel this judge's reason is one we can all understand and put into perspective. Nokia claimed that HTC infringed on what seems like the most vague claim possible, “Method for using services offered by a telecommunications network, a telecommunications system, and a terminal for it”. To me that sounds like they are trying to claim the use of mobile phones. It seems as if Nokia has brought this case against Apple as well and Apple had to settle. I wonder why Nokia did not going after every single mobile phone company if they got the big wigs at Apple to settle. Regardless, now that they lost im sure they will take a break from trolling and get back to the real work.
Friday, March 8, 2013
German Court Keeps Samsungs Hopes Alive #12
German Court Keeps Samsungs Hopes Alive by Scheduling Retrial
While reading this article I started to feel bad for Samsung and anyone involved in this case. It just seems like a huge headache for all parties involved. This case is obviously one with the purpose of preventing Samsung from competing. "Further analysis of how various German mobile networks operate will apparently be needed, and a ruling entitling Samsung to damages (the amount of which would have to be determined in a subsequent proceeding) is still a possibility." This process seems like it will take excessive amounts of time and money. After reading numerous articles like this I am starting to rethink how I feel about Apple's business practice's. This suit is completely unnecessary and ambiguous. Even the parties involved do not know exactly how the networks are operated which will require analysis to even figure out how to proceed with this case. It is very frustrating for me to read and I just hope that when I have a career and am apart of a business I am not involved in situations like these.
While reading this article I started to feel bad for Samsung and anyone involved in this case. It just seems like a huge headache for all parties involved. This case is obviously one with the purpose of preventing Samsung from competing. "Further analysis of how various German mobile networks operate will apparently be needed, and a ruling entitling Samsung to damages (the amount of which would have to be determined in a subsequent proceeding) is still a possibility." This process seems like it will take excessive amounts of time and money. After reading numerous articles like this I am starting to rethink how I feel about Apple's business practice's. This suit is completely unnecessary and ambiguous. Even the parties involved do not know exactly how the networks are operated which will require analysis to even figure out how to proceed with this case. It is very frustrating for me to read and I just hope that when I have a career and am apart of a business I am not involved in situations like these.
Narrowing Claims #11
http://www.fosspatents.com/
The following post is about Apple and Samsung narrowing their claims. I find this blog post interesting and relevant since last class we talked about claims. Since the court is narrowing the claims it will be harder for Samsung to infringe on Apple's patents. In my opinion I think this is a large step for the tech world. It seems as if the courts are trying to take the side of the "smaller" companies. Hopefully this will start a trend with patent infringement cases in the coming years. I still find it kind of silly when massive companies try to sue other companies over miniscule design infringements. I am a huge fan of innovation and this is one of the large inhibitors of innovation. "the Court will not permit the parties to involve over fifty experts in this litigation". I love this! Apple has the money and power to hire hundreds of experts and lawyers and this limitation prevents them doing so. I definitely think 50 experts is sufficient and I'm sure the experts like it as well. Limiting it to 50 experts lowers the intimidation factor of the larger companies.
The following post is about Apple and Samsung narrowing their claims. I find this blog post interesting and relevant since last class we talked about claims. Since the court is narrowing the claims it will be harder for Samsung to infringe on Apple's patents. In my opinion I think this is a large step for the tech world. It seems as if the courts are trying to take the side of the "smaller" companies. Hopefully this will start a trend with patent infringement cases in the coming years. I still find it kind of silly when massive companies try to sue other companies over miniscule design infringements. I am a huge fan of innovation and this is one of the large inhibitors of innovation. "the Court will not permit the parties to involve over fifty experts in this litigation". I love this! Apple has the money and power to hire hundreds of experts and lawyers and this limitation prevents them doing so. I definitely think 50 experts is sufficient and I'm sure the experts like it as well. Limiting it to 50 experts lowers the intimidation factor of the larger companies.
Monday, March 4, 2013
University Mobile Challenge
The purpose I was at the Mobile World Congress was to compete at Applied Innovation's University Mobile Challenge sponsored by Facebook, GSMA, and LabOne. 12 teams from around the world were competing. Some of the schools that competed were Harvard Business School, Oxford, University of Waterloo, NUS, and UCSD just to name a few. They broke the teams up into two groups of six and each group had a different panel of three judges ranging from different mobile fields. Each group had five minutes to present and five minutes for Q&A and feedback from the judges. I would say about half of the teams were asked by the judges about proprietary rights. All of the teams that were asked this question has some sort IP rights to their innovation. Then the judges would ask if the team has considered licensing their innovation. None of the teams had really thought about this yet, or wanted to do so, because they were mainly focused on building their own company and product. It seems as if young start-ups all move fast to get some sort of IP rights to what ever it is that they are building. A representative for Facebook spoke to all of the teams and was the main judge in the final round. She is a developer advocate at Facebook and graduated from Stanford in 2010. I just love the fact that someone so fresh out of college has the ability to work their way up the chain of command at a tech huge tech company so fast.
Mobile World Congress 2013
This past week the Center for Entrepreneurship and Technology sent my start-up team, Flowbit, to represent Cal at the University Mobile Challenge at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona. Wow, this was an experience of a lifetime. It was held at a brand new convention center with 9 large halls all filled will booths of mobile tech companies. They had many seminars with speaker panels and series of keynote speakers. Unfortunately my badge clearance did not allow me to attend any of the keynote speakers, but I definitely took advantage of the seminars. Some of the seminars were relevant to my start-up and some were just for fun. They ranges from "Taking Mobile Agriculture Innovation to Market" to "Social Entertainment: Paradigm Shifts and the Future of Converged Entertainment". Two elements of mobile that were being emphasized at the conference by the GSMA (the company that threw the event) were the push for new mobile advertising and NFC. NFC was everywhere, but only because GSMA was pushing it hard. Many of the companies that had booths and engineers that I spoke with did not care too much for NFC and thought it was humorous that the GSMA was pushing it that hard. What I found very interesting was many of the new ways companies are approaching mobile advertising. They are taking more of an opt in or active approach where consumers can opt in for push notification ads or shazaam like features to find more about advertisements. I find this very interesting because I find ads annoying and there is no way Im going to see an ad on TV or on my phone and think to myself "Wait a second, I need to find out more about this entertainment interruption and fast". I'm not going to lie, a lot of the companies were data analytics and software oriented and were way over my head as a non engineer attendee, but everyone was extremely friendly and was happy to explain as best they could their product or company to me so I could better understand. Aside from tech companies showcasing their new product lines, The Internet of Things had a large presence a well at the congress. This was very relevant to Flowbit as we are creating hardware that is controlled wirelessly. Some of the tech that was displayed in this field was a prescription bottle that has a cap you click to let your pharmacist know you need a refill (AT&T) and a chip that can be installed in pretty much anything (they displayed a coffee pot) to control with your phone (Qualcomm). Just to be clear no social media companies were in attendance and of course Apple was not there either. Sorry for the late post, it has been one hectic week but if you would like to know more about the congress just let me know and I would be happy to talk about it.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
White House vs. China
http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/20/white-house-anti-ip-theft-strategy-comes-out-swinging-against-china/
I think this is great for the United States but I wonder if China is laughing as hard as I was when I read this. I honestly think China is not going to waste its time with this and just keep doing what it is and has been doing. We also look like we are scared be not directly mentioning China, but China is pretty smart Im sure they can figure it out. I do think this will significantly help out cases similar to the one quoted about DuPont and an individual stealing trade secrets, but when it comes to manufacturers in China I dont see much of a change in the future. I think this is super interesting and have not had the chance to read the entire 141 page report but will do so sporadically in my free time.
I think this is great for the United States but I wonder if China is laughing as hard as I was when I read this. I honestly think China is not going to waste its time with this and just keep doing what it is and has been doing. We also look like we are scared be not directly mentioning China, but China is pretty smart Im sure they can figure it out. I do think this will significantly help out cases similar to the one quoted about DuPont and an individual stealing trade secrets, but when it comes to manufacturers in China I dont see much of a change in the future. I think this is super interesting and have not had the chance to read the entire 141 page report but will do so sporadically in my free time.
Apple vs. Samsung
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/apple-samsung-judge-says-she-may-put-second-patent-case-on-hold/2013/02/15/7bc0f8b2-7730-11e2-b102-948929030e64_story.html?wpisrc=nl_tech
I understand the monetary reasons why apple would want to continue with this and not put it on hold but I am curious to see how this pans out. Maybe by putting it on hold Apple will be able to focus their efforts elsewhere, or maybe they just build a stronger case against samsung? By the time this case resumes we all know apple and samsung will have newer and better products on the market. I find it fascinating that an infringement on six patents resulted in a 1.05 Billion dollar pay check for Apple. Had these patents not been infringed upon would Apple have generated this amount is sales?
I understand the monetary reasons why apple would want to continue with this and not put it on hold but I am curious to see how this pans out. Maybe by putting it on hold Apple will be able to focus their efforts elsewhere, or maybe they just build a stronger case against samsung? By the time this case resumes we all know apple and samsung will have newer and better products on the market. I find it fascinating that an infringement on six patents resulted in a 1.05 Billion dollar pay check for Apple. Had these patents not been infringed upon would Apple have generated this amount is sales?
Thursday, February 7, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
This New York Times article "The Patent, Used as a Sword" touches on the headache that patent litigation and explains how large of a role it plays in the technology start up world. I was put back by the following quote from the article. "Last year, for the first time, spending by Apple and Google on patent lawsuits and unusually big-dollar patent purchases exceeded spending on research and development of new products, according to public filings." I just started to imagine how advanced our technology and society would be if Apple and Google used all of that money spent on patent lawsuits and purchases to fund research and development. Then I started to think if it would even have made a difference. If Apple and Google didnt take this course of action would they not be where they are today? Many people think the patent system is broken and that being able to hold a patent on a vaguely described concept is bogus. I have mixed feelings on this and cant choose a side, but will be able to experience this first hand in the coming months.
This New York Times article "The Patent, Used as a Sword" touches on the headache that patent litigation and explains how large of a role it plays in the technology start up world. I was put back by the following quote from the article. "Last year, for the first time, spending by Apple and Google on patent lawsuits and unusually big-dollar patent purchases exceeded spending on research and development of new products, according to public filings." I just started to imagine how advanced our technology and society would be if Apple and Google used all of that money spent on patent lawsuits and purchases to fund research and development. Then I started to think if it would even have made a difference. If Apple and Google didnt take this course of action would they not be where they are today? Many people think the patent system is broken and that being able to hold a patent on a vaguely described concept is bogus. I have mixed feelings on this and cant choose a side, but will be able to experience this first hand in the coming months.
iPhone Trademark
In conjunction with our last class discussion I found this article to be extremely interesting.
http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/06/apple-will-reportedly-lose-the-iphone-trademark-in-brazil/
The article explains how apple will not have iPhone trademarked in Brazil because a Brazilian company trademarked it back in 2000. The decision is made on the 13th of this month but Apple has the ability to challenge it. I was wondering if it is worth Apples time and money to challenge this Brazilian company and fight or the trademark or if it would be easier for them to just pay the $60 million the company is asking for it and buy the trademark. I think what IGB is doing to apple is brilliant. They know the smartphone market in Brazil is booming and they are ready to capitalize on it without putting in much effort. The last sentence of this article makes me think of trademark legitimacies and opportunities. "But it does make you wonder if we’ll see more trademark claims pop out of the woodwork in other key international markets" I feel like some international business man could easily make a lucrative business out of just buying and maintaining a bunch of trademarks of names that could potentially make its way to their international market. But is this the right thing to do? or is everything fair game when dealing with the corporate giants?
http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/06/apple-will-reportedly-lose-the-iphone-trademark-in-brazil/
The article explains how apple will not have iPhone trademarked in Brazil because a Brazilian company trademarked it back in 2000. The decision is made on the 13th of this month but Apple has the ability to challenge it. I was wondering if it is worth Apples time and money to challenge this Brazilian company and fight or the trademark or if it would be easier for them to just pay the $60 million the company is asking for it and buy the trademark. I think what IGB is doing to apple is brilliant. They know the smartphone market in Brazil is booming and they are ready to capitalize on it without putting in much effort. The last sentence of this article makes me think of trademark legitimacies and opportunities. "But it does make you wonder if we’ll see more trademark claims pop out of the woodwork in other key international markets" I feel like some international business man could easily make a lucrative business out of just buying and maintaining a bunch of trademarks of names that could potentially make its way to their international market. But is this the right thing to do? or is everything fair game when dealing with the corporate giants?
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
IEOR 190G
As I previously mentioned I co-founded a company in a different CET class, IEOR 190E. The company my team and I created is an information technology company that deals with remote automation, control, and data collection for rural water systems. We currently have a prototype and I will be drawing up the patent in the coming weeks. I have recently spoken with many patent and copyright lawyers but in order to write the patent this class is crucial. From the research I have done, and the description of the course during the first class, IEOR 190G and Dr. Lavian are going to be an important part to finalizing the patent. I highly value every class offered through CET and genuinely enjoy the program. In 190G I hope to be able to better understand the technical side of patents as well as how to carefully construct them from an engineers prospective.
About me
My name is Cory Levy and I am fourth year Political Economy major at UC Berkeley with a concentration in Society, Technology, and the Economy. I am from Los Angeles and was hesitant at first to go to school in the bay area but after moving here I quickly grew to love it. I have a passion for information technology and how our society reacts to the constant change and innovation, which is why I designed my concentration. I love all the major sports and am an avid Dodgers, Packers, and Lakers fan. I have always been enthusiastic about helping children with special needs and I used to direct a basketball league for mentally and physically handicapped children. Currently I am the president and founder of the Bowling Club of Berkeley and try to bowl at least once a week. Last semester I co-founded a company called Flowbit. Flowbit started in a CET class and has grown to become a full time commitment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)