What I learned in this class::
I will take away many important points from this class.
I now understand that patenting is a very importance means to protect your intellectual property. However patenting is not always easy. Our legal system — with many clauses and constraints — makes it quite difficult and takes lots of time to grant a patent. Thus, we should start early! Know the in's and out's of the patent and prior art to the patent so as to not infringe on a previous patent.
I also understood patent trolls, why they came into such power, and how they endanger the current patent system.
And finally, I will take way the idea that we can all build from each other. Creativity comes from finding ingenuity in things that already exists. This is by no means plagiarism of the sort we are taught against to do. Rather, we should learn from products & take their best parts and further develop it. You never know -- this could lead to your very own patent! (:
What I learned in this class::
After reflecting on this class, I think I would split what I learned in this class into three different components: patents, the interdisciplinary nature of patenting, and the importance of social media.
1. PATENTS As the class suggests and the reason I decided to take this course - I learned a lot about patents in this class!
I now understand the basics about what makes something patentable, namely that it must be useful, novel, and non-obvious.
In deciphering what this actually means, it helped to think about what is then not patentable. I found examples of this:
- Laws of nature: existed before you were born
- Physical phenomena
- Abstract ideas
- Algorithms: 1981, the way you can patent this is by patenting a hardware machine that includes the algorithm by its memory
I feel like I know the essentials of what goes into a patent now! I know the official terms now that I can Google to learn about more details involving patents.
2. INTERDISCIPLINARY NATURE OF PATENTING
I learned that patents do not just involve one discipline, i.e. the discipline that the patent comes from. Instead, law is always involved and really dictates how a patent is written, how it can be protected, and how there can be trials for infringement using the law. In fact, one of our guest speakers said that lawyers rule our patenting system, because they are the ones that write the supporting legislation. I definitely agree with this!
Further example of this? The KSR case study we examined:
- KSR argues that Teleflex patent is not patentable because it is obvious
- pushing car can be both manual or automatic
- adding a sensor to the pedal is not patentable because it is obvious
Most important part of claim – part d.) an electronic control for providing a signal, rather than a mechanical control
- KSR won by district court initially, but Teleflex won in appeals court by relying on TSM test, finally Supreme Court won again à said that TSM is wrong method TSM = teaching, suggestion, motivation in the prior art to combine elements in the prior art in order to find a patent obvious
- Supreme Court’s decision changed the patent system that existed for at least 50 years, said that the appeals court made their decision by interpreting the patent too literally (rigid and formalistic way)
*You must think about common sense, as described by the law.
3. IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL MEDIA
Finally, our use of blogs, YouTube videos, and Twitter proved that social media can play a pivotal role in learning and collaborating between students and teachers in the classroom. As I mentioned in my two previous posts and by students during our last class, these social media tools really solidified our understanding of the content in this class and allowed us to channel our creativity into how we wanted to learn in this class. This idea of bringing social media into the classroom was very unique to this particular Berkeley course I have taken, and I have to say — it was a very positive experience!
Thank you, Professor Lavian for your unique and dedicated way of teaching!
Of all the social media tools, I really enjoyed the Twitter concept the most in this class! Although I admit that I, along with many other students, was quite skeptical of creating a Twitter account just for a classroom and sharing my thoughts on the Web - I actually found this super useful! Tweeting throughout the week kept me interacting with the issues at hand during class. If I ever read an article that I felt would be relevant to the class, I made sure to not only Tweet about it but this also got me thinking a bit deeper about the article. As I mentioned in my previous Youtube video, this allowed the ideas discussed in class to linger on in my mind.
In addition, I really enjoyed using Twitter during class! It really kept lecture interactive in a way that did not interrupt the lecture. I realized I was a much more proactive listener when there was the need to Tweet about interesting ideas and quotes during class. I actually think I was a much more active listener when I did this as opposed to taking notes! In addition, I would sometimes browse the #BerkeleyCETIEOR hashtag that we were supposed to use with out Tweets and found super interesting Tweets. Looking at others' thoughts brought about new dimensions to the lecture that I had not thought about or made me realize that other students' thinking very much aligned with mine. The interactive tools of "favorite-ing" or re-tweeting other students' posts helped all the students interact with each other.
As to how other professors can include learning through social media -- I think bringing Twitter into lectures is a great option! Although blogs and Youtube videos are great ways to solidify understanding, they may not be as relevant for a class (depending on the content of the class). However, Twitter is a very easy addition and does not require too much work on the students' part — which is a great plus for a class that already may have problem sets or projects for the course.
I come from a Cognitive Science background, an inter-disciplinary major in an attempt to study the brain in all of its glory. In a major like mine — where studying a wide variety of subjects such as Neuroscience, Psychology, Computer Science, Linguistics, and Philosophy is required — I am a total supporter of collaboration. It allows us to learn what other individuals know the most about, and then to channel all the creative, unique thoughts into some new kind of study.
I think the same mission should be greatly underlined when thinking about bringing collaborative social media to the classroom.
I think we can all learn a lot from each other so the academic and intellectual implications of collaboration are quite clear and have become even more evident through all that we have learned from each other in this class! More importantly, however, I believe collaboration leads to an atmosphere of support and positive learning rather than harsh competition. I think this kind of an atmosphere is wonderful to facilitate a good learning atmosphere.
Stay tuned for my next post where I will explain some ways that we can collaboratively learn in the classroom by bringing ideas from outside the classroom!
Early adopters: people/institutions than take risks on new products, technologies or services. According to the Everett M. Rogers in Diffusion of Innovations, they make up 13.5% of the consumers who will adopt an innovation. They pull an innovation into their circle of family, friends or co-workers. They can make or break the market values of intellectual property upon which the innovation is based.
- This is pretty interesting. I actually would expect early adopters to make up a bigger distribution of people in industries. Especially right now with start-up craze in technology and in California. My confusion brought me to do some further research and I was able to find some of the common misconceptions about Roger's curve that really helped clarify what this all meant with regards to IP portfolio strategies.
2 main misconceptions about this curve are::
1. Early adopters are 13.5% of the general population.
I totally fell for this conclusion when I first saw this curve. The problem - Rogers' curve is just a mathematical model, it doesn't give any conclusions about the real world though. The curve is not saying that there are 880 million early adopters in the world; it’s simply a visualization of the 13.5% of a population adopt early, in the context of innovation. They should not be considered a demographic but more of just a phenomenon that happens in industries.
2. Early adopters are opinion leaders.
This can be true, but is not necessarily so. It’s only true if later adopters follow the early adopters because they feel compelled to try the new product as well.
IP MARKETPLACE STRAGETY:: micro (what we can control)
-Open
innovation: you don’t have to build everything yourself, term coined by
Berkeley HAAS professor
-We have a first to file system: start filing
patents very early, file a provisional (not very expensive!)
-Freedom to operate (FTO): know your market, this is
how you can actually build a product Wait, what is FTO though?? FTO = when testing or commercializing a product can be done without infringing valid intellectual property rights of others.
Since IP rights are specific to different jurisdictions, a "freedom to operate" analysis should relate to particular countries or regions where you want to operate. If you want to commercialize a new variety in one country, you might have complete freedom to operate if there are no patents or other IP rights covering that product.
However, you might not have the same freedom to operate if you want to export the seed to another country, where patents or other IP rights may have been already issued.
Advantages of trade secrets:
-Trade secret protection has the advantage of not being limited in time (patents last in general for up to 20 years). It may therefore continue indefinitely as long as the secret is not revealed to the public.
-Trade secrets involve no registration costs (though there may be high costs related to keeping the information confidential).
-Trade secret protection does not require compliance with formalities such as disclosure of the information to a Government authority.
Disadvantages of trade secrets:
-If the secret is embodied in an innovative product, others may be able to inspect it, dissect it and analyze it (i.e. "reverse engineer" it) and discover the secret and be thereafter entitled to use it. Trade secret protection of an invention in fact does not provide the exclusive right to exclude third parties from making commercial use of it. Only patents and utility models can provide this type of protection.
-Once the secret is made public, anyone may have access to it and use it at will.
-A trade secret is more difficult to enforce than a patent. The level of protection granted to trade secrets varies significantly from country to country, but is generally considered weak, particularly when compared with the protection granted by a patent.
-A trade secret may be patented by someone else who developed the relevant information by legitimate means.
Video 1: Pool medical patents, save lives by Ellen 't Hoen What is the video about? This video talks about patent practices regarding drug prices: new drugs are expensive to develop - She discusses how to help with the HIV/AIDS phenomenon with better patent practices by having cheaper drugs at less wealthy countries - She wants all countries to have new medicinal product - She relates this to Nelson in Kenya who has high expectations of accessing new drugs at a cheap cost for patients like his own son! How? --> Medicines Patent Pool: having products go to market at a low cost
Video 2: How I beat a patent troll by Drew Curtis What is the video about? Fark.com CEO discusses patent trolls and what problems there are in the patent system that lead to the success of patent trolls
An impression of a patent troll
- The average patent troll lawsuit can take $2 million! So most companies settle out of the case, but Fark.com did not! - Asked the patent troll to ask for screenshots of Fark of where the patent was violated (on news release via email) - The case had no non-disclosure agreement - 3 things learned::
+ If you can, don't fight the patent - fight the infringement
+ Make it clear that you have either no money at all or you'd rather spend your money fighting the lawsuit
+ Make sure you let the patent troll know that you will make this very annoying for the patent troll!
- His final solution: to troll patent trolls out of existence!
Video 3: Embrace the remix by Kirby Ferguson What is this video about? Kirby says that creativity involves copying, transforming, and combining what's already out there!
American patents use this same notion that ideas only build upon each other, you do not invent something from nothing! - I loved this Ted Talk, and it was so relevant to our IEOR class! Professor Tal has always taught us that plagiarism, in this class, is okay and even encouraged! This Ted Talk just further establishing this that creativity is about building products from older products and not just starting from nothing.
Video 4: Demand a more open-source government by Beth Noveck What is this video about? The former deputy CTO of the White House talks about her idea of having a more open government in order to create better teams and networks. - The government makes public goods, but we do not have institutions that are particularly good at helping with this! So how do we create "open-source government" policies? - We do not spend enough money on reinventing our already established institutions, which is what we should be doing! - We can learn from social media! Why is Twitter so successful? It opens up its platform so we can learn from each other in new and exciting ways! We need to do this with the government - This was a very interesting video, and I have to say - very relevant as I was tweeting about this and thus, being a part of an open platform that the speaker of this TedTalk speaks so greatly about!
Move over ray bans - there's a new pair of tinted glasses in town. And these glasses do more than provide shade from sunlight, they can control you.
The glasses include a pair of subliminal imaging spectacles which provides a pair of visual subliminal images designed and placed so as to merge into one image due to the stereoscopic effect of human vision. Consequently, this imparts a subliminal message to the user.
+ These glasses can be used as an aid for teaching and preventing bad habits such as smoking or drinking.
Analysis of obviousness::
Though I added this patent to my list of silly patents found, I actually think this is the coolest patent in my list of 4 patents (hence it's the last one). Though the images and description kind of sound like a stretch, I think this patent could be of feasible value.
A lot of people do not believe in the effects of subliminal messages, but if they do seem to have any effects - I'm sure those same effects can be seen from these glasses. I feel like this idea is definitely not obvious since it combines two different disciplines - the technology of technology with the glasses and the psychological effects of subliminal messages.
Hiccups are horrible and I don't know about you but drinking a bunch of water never works for me. But... I'm not so sure about this device as the means to relieve me of my misery.
A device for the treatment of hiccups specifically using a method and apparatus involving galvanic stimulation of the Superficial Phrenetic and Vagus nerves using an electric current.
Claim 1 uses a metallic cup-like vessel with 2 electrodes: one electrode for producing electricity adapted to be applied to the lip of the user and a second electrode electrically insulated from the first electrode being affixed to the vessel.
Analysis on usefulness::
This device will shock the user using its 2 electrodes every time the person hiccups. The goal is the shock will cause the person to stop hiccuping. I think that is quite useful considering that there aren't actually any real treatments for hiccups out there currently. I believe this product is very novel, as it combines ideas from two disciplines: electromagnetism in the realm of physics and the construction of the cup from modern technology.
Not only is it novel, but there is a real use for this cup. Though it is a ridiculous idea to think about, this is actually one of the better silly patents I have heard of compared to other ones that I cannot see having a use in our society.
Don't you hate it when rays of sunlight damage to hoppy taste of your IPA? I don't care either, but the people who authored this patent must have been really passionate (or very influenced from the effects of beer) about this problematic situation...
This product, the "Beerbrella", provides a small umbrella which may be removably attached to a beverage container in order to shade the beverage container from the direct rays of the sun. The apparatus comprises a small umbrella approximately five to seven inches in diameter, although other appropriate sizes may be used within the scope of this product.
+ The product can be used with either a solid, plastic or a cloth umbrella.
+ The clip in the product can be made either of spring steel, passtic, or formed cardboard.
+ Suitable advertisements can also be added to the umbrella for promotional purposes.
Analysis of the patent regarding usefulness::
I do not understand the point of this patent. There really is not (even somewhat intelligent) reason that such a product should exist. Beer is not human skin, so I do not understand why rays of sunshine would damage the drink. Moreover, the author of this patent compares his "Beerbrella" invention to coffee sleeves for cups. I do not think this comparison is at all warranted. Coffee sleeves have an actual purpose, namely to keep drinks insulated. However, using a "Beerbrella" to maintain coolness for your beer will be quite ineffective in my opinion. I think keeping your bar in an iced container (more similar to a coffee sleeve) would be more efficacious. Rather, I believe that the only argument this author can make for the purpose of this argument is for its amusement purposes.
Who hasn't tried to become healthier, especially with the goal of shedding a couple pounds? And let's face it, diets can be torturous. Still, you can convince yourself that eating healthy is the "right thing to do" and continue on dieting/exercising. If that stops working, however, you always have the following option -- that might look more similar to something you would find from a torture chamber.
Ananti-eating face maskwhich includes a cup-shaped member conforming to the shape of the mouth and chin area of the user, together with a hoop member and straps detachably engageable with a user's head for mounting the cup-shaped member in overlying relationship with the user's mouth and chin area under the nose thereby preventing the ingestion of food by the user.
- It comprises a screen formed of a plurality of wires, said wires in said screen defining said openings there between.
Analysis on PRIOR ART::
I am not sure how "new and innovative" this patent is. It is basically a face mask, which already exists and I am sure there are face masks that only use wires (possibly part of some torture chamber?). The only unique part of this invention is its intention, to force someone not to eat... I think the author knows this and emphasizes on this intention - the authors discusses how this patent would be a wonderful (let's disregard humane) way to fight obesity in America! Moreover, housewives wearing anti-eating face masks will be able to resist slipping in a few bites of the food they cook. Hmm, not so sure how I feel about the Real Housewives of Berkeley wearing these masks.
This patent focuses more on intentionality than the actual product because well, the product itself is really basic and it would be pretty silly to talk about how to make a mask since the common man probably knows how a mask it most likely made.
And with that, let's all go back to eating chocolate cake, mask-less.
WHAT IS BEING DONE TO FIGHT AGAINST PATENT TROLLS?
Though companies (like Life360) have their own suggestions and advice on how to recognize and fight against patent trolls, this is not enough. Patent trolls curb innovation and create aggravating costs, which can cost a business - especially something like a start-up - its entire foundation! So courts must get involved too...
- April 2014: the Court made it somewhat easier for a defendant to recover its legal costs if the judge sees the plaintiff’s suit as frivolous
- June 2014: the Court made it easier to challenge the validity of a vague patent.
- June 2014: the Court made it apparent that you cannot get a patent just by implementing an existing business method on a computer; this was due to the Alice Corp vs. CLS Bank trial
The case study I earlier explained (Life360 with Chris) was quite an exception! Most defendants, regardless of how strong their case against the patent troll may be, ends up settling with the patent troll. Litigating patent cases is very expensive and companies do not want to have to deal with this. This extra financial burden is even greater in the realm of start-ups, something that is becoming a bigger part of the technology field, especially here in California.
Trolls know this and use the cost of defense to extort settlements. In the rare case where someone shows a willingness and financial means to fight with the accusation, the patent troll will often save its patent at the last moment with a "walk-away deal."
Do your research. Find out about the NPE and how legitimate they are, you can find so much on social media which will reveal how big of a threat they are! Professor Tal said so himself: social media platforms like Twitter are being used by people to 'sell themselves', see if the NPE is doing this!
Be public about the situation. Tell the media what is going on so the patent troll is publicized.
Share information and resources by open-sourcing prior art with the relevant community. In doing this, you will make it harder to for the patent troll not only to sue you but also to sue others.
Commit to your gut. You know your product and if you have actually infringed a patent or not. If you do not want to settle and think you can win a trial case, go with it and don't listen to other people to settle!
Life360 was accused by Advanced Ground Information Systems Inc. for patent infringement
- The company did not seem completely legitimate: they had no employees on LinkedIn, and a waterfront mansion in Florida as the corporate headquarters.
- Life360's reply to the company:
Dear Piece of Sh*t,
We are currently in the process of retaining counsel and investigating this matter. As a result, we will not be able to meet your Friday deadline. After reviewing this matter with our counsel, we will provide a prompt response.
I will pray tonight that karma is real, and that you are its worthy recipient,
- Chris
- In court, the jury returned a verdict of non-infringement on all the claims against Life360: patent troll was defeated!
Purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent
Enforces patents against purported infringers without itself intending to manufacture the patented product or supply the patented service
Enforces patents but has no manufacturing or research base
Focuses its efforts solely on enforcing patent rights
Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large industry that is composed of non-copiers
So basically... A patent troll enforces a patent.
The negative parts:: a patent troll is a term given to a person or company who misuses the patent system. Their business strategy is to buy a patent and then either:
a.) launch lawsuits against infringing companies
b.) hold the patent without planning to use it in an attempt to obstruct another company from using it as well
The practice by a patent troll is seen as an unethical and immoral business strategy. It forces us to see the flaws in the current patent system, especially that in the United States. And most importantly, it reduces innovation and productivity.
The positive parts:: the patent system is upheld. patent trollers make a living! Someone has to enforce it, especially when the "little guys - the inventors of a patent" cannot fight against the bigger companies who are using their patent. The patent trolls do give revenue/shares to these inventors if they win a case.
Words to know -- Non-practicing entity (NPE) / Patent holding company (PHC): aka patent troll, this will be discussed in length below! Patent infringement: Using the idea or product from a patent without permission from the patent holder Rent seeking: An attempt to increase one's wealth without actually creating wealth American Rule: stipulates that each party (prosecutor and defender) is required to pay its own respective amount of money from a trial
This is fun and creative video I found about obviousness. The narrators use horse boarding in England as the basis of what is and is not obvious, and how it directly relates to everyday life (especially if you are a horse boarder).
Key points:
+ Inventions are usually "small incremental steps of improvement". This video says that it's okay to add different features from different subjects together, it does not necessarily make the product obvious. + Depending on the person whose viewpoint you are looking at, something can be obvious or not obvious. This really depends on the gut feeling of the person who is judging your patent. + The narrator says that in his experience, if you are linking three or more things together - especially from three different disciplines - then the judge and jury will not think your product is obvious. + U.S. patent laws require product to be non-obvious. European patent laws require that an "inventive step" has been found in the invention and must be necessary for an issued patent.
I watched the following Youtub clip that the Professor assigned to us, and it was super interesting and easy to understand! I highly suggest taking a look at it, if you haven't already.
This video really takes emphasizes the fact that obviousness is found by looking at multiple pieces of prior art. In the latter part of the video, the "venn diagram" illustration shows that the current product must be compared to both Invention B and Invention A (two different pieces of prior art) to see if the product is obvious or not.
OBVIOUSNESS: - Section 103 of the Patent Act has the fundamental test on what is considered obviousness for patents, namely that “differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious . . . to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.”
- You must look at multiple pieces of prior art, not just a single one (as you did with anticipation) ----> this is something I failed to mention before, and I now think is very important!
- From the KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc court case (550 U.S. 398) in 2007: decisions for obviousness vs. non-obviousness must be based upon common sense and does not require a particular teaching-suggestion-or-motivation found within the prior art itself. Thus, it is not just a person having ordinary skill in the art only, but hopefully like most of us: has COMMON SENSE!
err, we'll disregard this part
Revised claim: "...differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious . . . to a person having ordinary skill in the art and average common sense to which the claimed invention pertains.”
