Video Logs

All my video logs for the semester can be found here:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1_Nqd2L6ItcvdYeKPQQmCA

Social Media

Although I didn't like the idea much originally, I must say I became more accustomed to the idea as the semester went on. I definitely liked the blog posts better than the youtube clips because they were usually the ones that I did research for. Video logs ended up being reiterations of my blog posts. But I understand why we were made to do video logs; they definitely made me do something I normally wouldn't. Post weekly video logs on youtube.

The comments didn't work as well as they should've for me, I found myself on more than one occasion ignoring comments posted by my peers on my blogs or videos and just comment on others' videos. I did however respond to other students' comments on other students' postings, this definitely allowed for a conversational type learning but usually I would never get a response back (just like I would never respond back to peers who commented on my blogs and videos.

I think using social media gets us familiar with social media, and in an age where social media is so prevalent this is a must. Not only this but as we wrote about IP and Patents throughout the semester, we are also giving ourselves web presence on a hotly debated issue.

Overall, I liked the incorporation of social media in the classroom. It harnesses a collaborative work effort (although not strikingly so) since we only met once a week for class.

I also found this interesting article on social media's place in the classrooom:

http://www.edutopia.org/blog/guidebook-social-media-in-classroom-vicki-davis

Semester Recap

The semester blazed by, it seems like only last week that I was writing the first blog post about why I was taking the course and what I expected from it. 190G was definitely one of my most practical classes this semester. (The other being IEOR 190B). With that my overall experience this semester was one that was enjoyable. I liked what I was learning and the social aspect of learning forced me to learn in a different way than I normally would.

I think what this class gave me the most is the basic framework of general intellectual property and patents. I may not be an expert, but I am confidant that I know more about them than the average person. I remember saying that I hoped this class would give me the practical knowledge to aid me if I ever decided to file for a patent at any point. And I definitely feel that this class gave me those nuggets of information. At the end of the day I believe that this class is giving me another skill and diversifying my way of thinking. From this point forward I'll definitely think of patents differently since I have gained a general understanding of the patent system (USPTO) and the shortcomings of the current system.

I want to end this post by making a brief comment. A friend of mine took this course 6 years ago. Same course: IEOR 190G but back then I don't think it was focused on mobile technologies. Back then he said the class was project based and students ended up filing a provisional patent by the end of the semester. Although this would have been a lot more work, I feel like I would have liked this approach much better. I also don't think this class should maintain focus on mobile technologies, I think it should be a broader survey of IP/Patents. CET should opt to go back to the old structure. But it goes without saying that I still learned plenty this semester with the current format.

I felt satisfied at the end of the semester with regards to this class. Unlike microeconomics or international trade, this class is extremely practical and taught things that I can apply almost instantaneously; not theories I'll never visit again.

The Life of a Patent App (post filing)

So after you submit you patent application the following happens:

• If you filed via mail, you'll receive a receipt postcard. If you filed electronically, you'll receive a filing acknowledgement. It'll contain your date of receipt, your serial number or application number, and also your confirmation number. You should keep both your serial number and filing date confidential.

•  About one to three months later you will receive an official filing receipt by mail. This would include: the name of the inventors, the title of the patent application, the examining group of your application, the filing date, serial, and confirmation number, the number of claims, the filing fee paid, your name and address. You should make sure all the above information is correct as printed. 

•  Patent Pending States starts when your regular patent application or PPA is filed and lasts until the patent is actually issued

•  After receiving your official filing receipt you should send in your Information Disclosure Statement. The PTO wants the IDS to be filed within three months of your filing date.

•  Finally, about six months to three years after the filing date you'll receive a "first Office Action" (OA) that consists of forms and a letter from the examiner. The OA will: reject claims, list defects in drawings or specs, cite prior art that may show your invention as not novel or obvious.

More information about the IDS: The IDS is essentially a disclosure to the USPTO of all prior art and any other information such as relevant litigation of which the inventor is aware of that might influence the patent examiner in deciding on the patent application itself.

Like usual, the reference used was this book.

Going Abroad

So why file your patent application in other countries? Because the US patent will give you a monopoly in only the US and not anywhere. So in order to get protection for your invention you must file in each country where you plan to launch the product. But this process can be very complicated, expensive, and time consuming.

The most important thing to note about foreign filing is the International Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. Or people in the patent industry just call it "Paris Convention". This treaty was initially started in 1883 and has been augmented and revised countless times since then. What this convention means for inventors is basically the following: If you file a patent application (PPA or normal) in any of the countries that signed the treaty then you can file a corresponding application in any other country on that list  within one year of your earliest filing date. Your application in the new countries will show the original date of filing for your very first application filed. This especially helps in situations of prior art. Once you miss the one year deadline, any foreign apps filed won't be entitled to the original application date.

The European Patent Office (EPO) is another important entity to know. It grew out of the European Union and services those same countries. Members of the EU are also covered under the European Patent Convention (EPC). Under this agreement, one patent filing with the EPO will be covered in every country you select within the EU when first filing for the patent.

Lastly (for purposes of this blog), there is the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). Under this treaty which was entered into in 1978, US residents can file a patent with the USPTO and make a single international filing with the USPTO within a year of the original filing date. This will cover all of the PCT jurisdictions including the EPC.

However, there are always Non-Convention Countries that aren't party to any treaties. But filing patents in these countries are similar to any patent application. This time however, you won't have the benefit of entitling your application to your first application date to establish prior art. In addition, each country will of course need to be filed for separately. Extremely time consuming work!

Resource was this book. Chp 12

What does "Obvious" Mean?

Keeping with the subject of obviousness this past week, I wanted to expand on what obvious means. According to the NOLO 'Patent it Yourself' book, and the discussions in class; it is clear that most patent attrneys, patent examiners, and judges can't agree on the meaning of the term. What makes this situation even more complicated is the fact that courts have used different definitions of the term over the year. One used is that unobviousness equates to a "flash of genius". Another phrase used to define it was "a synergistic effect (the whole is greater than the sum of its parts). Foreign courts usually require an "inventive step." The problem or confusion is only extrapolated by the fact that these definitions are just as difficult to fully understand as the term obviousness itself.

As we learned in class, in 1966 with the court ruling on Graham v. John Deere; the Supreme Court set these guidelines for classifying an invention as obvious or unobvious. These were the following steps:

1. Determine the scope and content of the prior art
2. Determine the novelty of the invention
3. Determine the level of skill of artisans in the pertinent art.
4. Against this background, determine the obviousness or unobviousness of the inventive subject matter
5. Also consider secondary and objective factors such as commercial success, long-felt but unsolved need, and failure of others.

But let's examine these steps for just a second. When detailing the way to spot obviousness vs. unobviousness, the court uses the words  obviousness and unobviousness. Which makes little sense to me. That's like saying a circuit board, is a board that has circuits on it. But what is it really?

In my opinion, the first thing you should do to determine if your invention is patentable is to follow the John Deere case and see if achieves new and unexpected results. But even the courts deem that it doesn't, remember there are ways around these technicalities. One of which being is that if your product enjoyed commercial success it may be considered unobvious.

Like always, article was referenced from the following:
Pressman, David. Patent It Yourself: Your Step-by-step Guide to Filing at the U.S. Patent Office. Berkeley, CA: Nolo, 2012.

Arguments against Obviousness

If let's say the USPTO deems an invention as obvious, there are steps around it. Below are 15 general arguments against obvioussness with brief descriptions.

1. Unexpected results- The result achieved by the invention were unexpected, critical, or unusual
2. Assumed unworkability- Those skilled in the art thought the techniques were unworkable until this point in time
3. Commercial Success- The invention has attained commercial success
4. Purchase Offers- Others (especially accused infringers) have tried to purchase or license the product
5. New Principles of Operation- The invention uses a new principle of operation.
6. Inability of Competitors- Competitors could not copy the product until the method of reverse engineering was employed or by using details of a publication
7. Professional Recognition- The invention has been given an award or recognized in a professional publication.
8. Copying by Others- others have chosen to copy or implement the invention
9. Misunderstood Reference- "the reference does not teach what the exminer relies upon it as supposedly teaching"
10. Inoperative References- Prior-art references that were relied on are inoperative
11. Poor References- the prior-art references are vague, conflicting, or old and should be construed narrowly. 
12. Solution of Long-felt and Unsolved Need- The invention solves a long-felt, long-existing, but unsolved need
13. Crowded Art- The invention is classified in a crowded art, so small steps could mean big innovation and edge over competitors.
14. No Convincing Reasoning- The examiner did not present sufficient or convincing enough evidence as to why the invention is obvious
15. Solution of Long-Felt and Unsolved Needs- the invention solves a long-felt, long-existing, but unmet need

The list goes on, but this should give the general idea that there are plenty of arguments for when the court declares your invention as obvious. So don't give up! Unless your invention really is that obvious, in which case: don't waste your time!

Post can be referenced below:
Pressman, David. Patent It Yourself: Your Step-by-step Guide to Filing at the U.S. Patent Office. Berkeley, CA: Nolo, 2012.

What can I Patent?

So what are the legal requirements to file a patent for your brilliant new invention? It depends on which type of patent you are trying to file but there are the same basic legal requirements for all of them.

First and foremost, it must fit into a Statutory Class. That means the invention must fit into one of five classes established by the PTO. This means that the invention could be: a process (method), a machine, an article of manufacture, a composition, or a new use for one of the first four. Legally, this last class fits into process, but the author of "Patent it Yourself" makes a distinction to make it more prominent. One thing to note here since we are in the middle of the tech start-up era is that "processes" as described above would also include software.

Second, the invention must have utility. This means that it must be useful and in the case of design patents it must be considered ornamental.

Third, is that the invention must be novel. Meaning it must be different in any way from all previous inventions that came before it.

Lastly, and this one we definitely touched on a bit in class is that the invention must be unobvious. Like Dr. Lavian said, unobviousness is a complicated issue. But Patent Attorney David Pressman defines it as the following, "Will the PTO consider that the invention is unobvious from the standpoint of someone who has ordinary skill in the specific technology involved in the new invention..."

A lot of patent applications that go through the process pass the first three steps with relative ease. It is the unobviousness factor that sees a lot of patents get rejected at the PTO. Now, plant and design patents are subject to the same scrutiny by the law. Design patent applications are not put through the same unobviousness test however because the aesthetics of the design are more relevant than the actual functionality. Plant patents too have a couple additional requirements, these are that the plant must be asexually reproduced and that the plant must be a new variety.

** Please keep in mind that this is just a broad and general overview of some of the legal requirements for an invention. As I read on into the chapter, the technicalities it seemed were endless but if you are interested you should definitely read more. There are some very specific cases that you guys will find interesting. For example, there is something called a "whimsical invention" where the PTO will reject an application because it is completely nonsensical  even if it is useful in some weird way. Other inventions categorized in a special way are: inventions used for illegal purposes, non operable inventions, nuclear weapons, theoretical phenomena, aesthetic purpose, tax-avoidance schemes, or human organisms. Interesting stuff!

The Three Types of Patents

I decided to start writing exclusively about the patent process and not current events within the patent war. Part of this is because writing about the war got boring and I this way I can learn things that we haven't touched on in class yet. Here's one that might be a review for some of you:

There are three different types of patents. These are Utility and Design which we learned about in class as well as Plant Patents. There is usually a slight confusion between utility and design patents on the part of the inventor, so let me begin by differentiating the two. First off, utility patents are the most commonly filed patents. This is because they cover any invention made by humans. This could be the newest computer chip or an exceptionally functional shoe sole. If I told you to think of a random invention right now, chances are that it would be covered under a utility patent.

Let's say now that the only thing patentable about a new computer chip was the fact that it was ultra slim and had this nice piano black finish. Functionally, it is not an improvement. In other words, it's utility did not rise. This would be considered a design patent. Or let's say there wass  clock designed to look like that exceptionally functional shoe sole. This would be considered a design patent.

Lastly, there are plant patents. These are patents that are filed mostly by botanists and plant geneticists. For example if I were to alter the genes of a plant so that it grew from a seedling into a rose with black petals instead of red I would be able to patent this strain of rose plant. Plant patents have been implemented only as recently as 1930.

Old is Gold? Maybe. But Old Patents are a Goldmine.

Another blog post I read this week focuses on the trial between IPCom and Apple and specifically that the Germany Federal Patent Court declared that no infringement was found on the part of Apple. It is still unclear as to whether or not IPCom intends to appeal. But regardless of the final outcome of this non-sense we are seeing in courts across the world, I want to focus on something else. And that is about corporations buying old patents to pursue litigation for current technology.

This just so happens to also be what happened in this specific trial. IPCom "acquired the wireless patent portfolio of Bosch years after the latter had exited the car phone market and is now monetizing it." Did you catch that? Basically IPCom has bought old technology that resembles newer technology for the sole purpose of exploiting the system and monetizing their acquisition.

There is something wrong with that picture and the fact that a company like IPCom thinks that they can go to a federal court to pursue a trial. In this case, I am very happy with the verdict and definitely believe that IPCom was trying to troll to the nth degree.

Usually I like to sympathize with the trolls because I picture tiny corporations trying to make a dent in these giants. I appreciate that type of david vs goliath floweriness. But in this case, IPCom, like all trolls we've read about thus far has gone too far to make some money. At this point it's plain ridiculous. In fact, I feel it is so ridiculous that this is my last blog post or video log where I discuss anything related to a patent troll. From now on, I will stick to actually learning something about Patents.

You can reference the article below:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/ipcoms-22-billion-lawsuit-against-apple.html

Taking Sides

So this week I read two blog posts that were closely related. One was about IPCom's ongoing litigation with Apple and the other was Microsoft versus Google. Yes they are both patent litigations but the connection I want to focus on is that of the lawyers between the two trials. Specifically: Quinn Emanuel's Dr. Marcus Grosch. According to the author of Foss Patents "he's the undisputed number one among Mannheim-based patent litigators." So what we have here is an all-star patent attorney. And teams are recruiting him hard to play on their teams.

In the case of Apple versus IPCom, Dr. Marcus Grosch is being paid big bucks by the latter to milk as much money from Apple as possible. Unfortunately this time, he was on the losing side and the German courts defended Apple's usage of the debated technology. Turns out Dr. Marcus Grosch also took part in the Microsoft versus Google stand-off. For this trial he was working with Microsoft to pursue litigation against Google for infringing on map-based technologies employed in smartphones and applications.

What I find most interesting about this is that naturally I would assume that an entity like IPCom is mortal enemies with a giant like Microsoft. But we see here that there is one attorney for these two companies that stand is stark opposition to one another. For me, this is an example of how convaluted this patent "thing" has become.

I remember hearing in class that a lot of the time, small patent-holding corporations give a cut of potential settlement or judgement. I don't think either Microsoft or IPCom is giving this lawyer any percentage of the total awarded amount because these trials are on too large a scale. But I definitely believe that these lawyers go wherever the money is. Wherever the money is, that's the side to fight for.

You can reference both blog posts below:

http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/federal-patent-court-of-germany.html
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/ipcoms-22-billion-lawsuit-against-apple.html

An End to the Trolls?

Finally. In November 2013 the United States Senate held a hearing to contemplate possible ways of solving the problem of deceptive demand letters by patent trolls. So far there have been no break-throughs in this process but it is too early to tell. There was good news however in the Kentucky Senate where bill (SB116) sought "to establish a bad-faith assertion of patent infringement as a violation of Kentucky's consumer protection chapter and authorize the utilization of the remedies available for those violations in addition to private remedies established in the bill" was passed unanimously. The bill is similar to one that was passed by the Vermont Legislature last year.
 
 The way it will work is by setting guidelines of what a bad faith patent assertion vs a good faith patent assertion is. So which factor are evidence of bad faith?

• "The claim is meritless and the patent holder knew or should have known this."
• "The claim or assertion is "deceptive" (not defined).
• "The patent holder is a non-practicing entity."

And evidence of good faith?

•  "The patentee "engages in a good-faith effort to establish that the target has infringed the patent and to negotiate an appropriate remedy"."
• "Previous behavior can be helpful to a patentee if he previously demonstrated good-faith business practices in enforcement of the same patent or a substantially similar one, or successfully enforced the patent or a substantially similar patent through litigation."

 It is nice to finally see some effort in stopping this long and drawn out patent war that has no end in sight. We have yet to see if these efforts by the federal government will have any real impact on current or future litigations but it is exciting to finally see a glimmer of change in the patent framework. This is something I've been mentioning since week one of this class. The current system is inherently flawed. At least, now we can hope for some change.

The original blog post can be referenced below:

 http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/kentucky-senate-committee-approves.html

A Matter of Principle?

This week, I read an article about the acquisition of Skyhook Wireless by Liberty Media's TruePosition and its larger implications on the ongoing patent war. One thing is for certain, TruePosition made this deal happen because Skyhook Wireless holds patents and IP that have already been used to attack Google's technology. But why is this history important? Because it validates the assumption that Liberty Media will go after Google yet again in the courts.

What's refreshing about this battle is that the patents that are now owned by TruePosition do in fact help the company out. But we cannot say that Liberty Media is not just another patent troll. On the contrary, Liberty Media is just as big a troll as someone like IPCom.

We still cannot tell what the implications of this acquisition will be on the overall pending Google patent litigation. But one this is for certain. If Google decides to wage war it will face a worthy adversary and not just another small firm trying to make big bucks. There is always a chance that if this does proceed to court Google and Liberty Media will come to a settlement. But the intentions of Skyhook Wireless' new owners is not clear and Google has never been big on actually agreeing to pay licensing royalties.

It's also interesting to see how Liberty Media might have to enforce Skyhook's IP just to maintain credibility. In the words of the author:

"It wouldn't be logical for Liberty Media to acquire IP and tout it in a press release only to dismiss a case without getting royalties. In doing so it would devalue Skyhook's patent portfolio and call into question the rationale for the transaction."

Hey. At least they'll be sticking to their principle.

The original article can be referenced below.

 http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/liberty-medias-trueposition-acquires.html

Motorolla's Many Suitors

At this point, Motorola has been passed from company to company like a loose cheerleader amongst a football team. We all know the original buy. Google in a landmark purchase, spends upwards of twelve billion dollars to essentially secure the hundreds of patents in Motorola's portfolio. After purchase however, it is implied that Google was quick to realize that the patents were not as useful as they were originally thought to be.

Then news recently surfaced that Lenovo would pay just shy of three billion dollars to acquire the once titanic cellular giant.  But why the price discrepancy? Google decided that the patents were indeed useful to them and the sale is taking place without most of the patents that were originally consumed by Google. The patents in the first place were purchased by Google to protect them from rival companies and patent trolls. It is not clear however if this tactic ended up putting Google in the positive in the long term.

But was this sloppy seconds transaction a smart business decision by Lenovo? I think not. It is a sure fact that the reason for Lenovo's purchase was in fact to try and gain a footing in the competetive cellular device market in the states. However it is unclear if customers still hold the same brand loyalty to Motorola as they once did. Motorola as a brand is not the same as it once was. And simply applying a historical brand to a device does not make it any better. Motorola simply has too much mileage on it. In the past it was a thing of beauty. The beauty is long gone and what remains is a fraction of its former glory.


Full article can be accessed below:
http://bgr.com/2014/01/29/lenovo-motorola-3-billion-dollar-merger/

Another Patent Troll

We talked at length this week about these "patent-trolls" who are also known as patent-holding firms. What these firms do is purse litigation options against big companies that they feel infringed on their patents. What happens to these firms is usually the same, the come to an agreement with the larger corporation and the battle stops there. But every once in a while one causes a stir. So is the case between Apple and IPCom.

IPCom is a German patent-holding firm that only recently acquired their patents in 2007 from a private seller. Now Apple is being sued for upwards of two million dollars by the firm who claims that Apple infringed on their patents. To break down how much two million dollars is for a firm like Apple in Germany; the article cited a source to have said that that was approximately 51 percent of Apple's revenue in Germany. It suddenly makes sense why Apple would not handle his specific situation quietly like they do with most patent trolls.

In fact, Apple is so intent on winning this skirmish with the Bavarian firm that they are citing minute technicalities to swing the judgement in their favor. When you get down to the engineering level, the patent dispute is essentially over a mere bit of data. IPCom's Patent covers a single bit of data achieveing a task while Apple's technology employs three bits of data to achieve the same task.

Based off of technicalities alone, it seems that Apple is correct; and they should not in my opinion make any reparations to this patent-troll. But this whole situation just affirms on how petty this patent war has become.

You can reference the full article on the Wall Street Journal below:

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/02/11/bit-by-bit-apple-fights-patent-infringement-claim/

The Neverending Patent War

We are all familiar with the patent war that is raging on between the cell phone giants. This week I read an article about how this patent war is continual and ongoing. Mind you, this article was more than a year old. And the fact that it could pass for an article written just a few days ago stands as testament of how long and drawn out, similar to this sentence, this patent war has been. The current war revolves around a lot of fourth generation technology employed in our smartphones. But even this fourth generation tech like its third generation predecessor will fast become outdated and unpopular.

The eventual emergence of an even newer generation technology will dominate the market for the near future as this technology makes itself apparent. With that being said; there is bound to be an entirely new patent war with newer technology at its front and center. Get ready to see plenty of more news articles highlighting the ongoing clash of the titans between Apple and Samsung. It was 3G, now it's 4G, and will eventually move on.


You can reference the full article below:

 http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/smartphone-patent-wars-the-coming-sequel/

An End in Sight?

So is there an end to this patent war? It seems like some companies are finally taking initiative to stop these legal confrontations. In an article from the A Register, Iain Thomson writes about the agreement struck between Cisco and Google, two of the patent giants in the industry.

To avoid litigation and long trials in court, it seems that these companies are focusing on other methods to maintain IP while avoiding the judicial system. These companies are losing millions of dollars in legal fees; it's no wonder that they'd be eager to change their routine. None of this means however that these global giants will stop aggressively maintaining hold of their intellectual property. In fact, striking agreements would lead to an easy system of taxing royalties on willing parties.


Article can be referenced below:


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02/04/google_and_cisco_sheath_swords_with_deal_in_patent_wars/

Why IEOR 190G?

So why I am I taking IEOR 190G IP/Patents? Simple reason. I feel the coursework in this class is extremely relevant for many practical applications. It's an integral part of an entrepreneur's skill-set. And like professor Lavian said, having a patent differentiates you from millions of peers. I hope to gain thorough insight into the IP/Patents process and gain experiential knowledge into the industry.

Another reason I'm taking this class is because a friend of mine suggested it. He graduated from Cal a few years ago as an IEOR major and now owns a successful venture in Oakland. In his opinion he learned things in this class that prepared him for many hurdles in his entrepreneurial journey. I hope that this class can be of as much use to me as it was to him.

Introduction

Hello! My name is Osama Shahzad and I am currently a senior at Cal. I'm majoring in Political Economy with a minor in Religious Studies and trying to complete the CET curriculum. Originally from Los Angeles, I love the culture and energy of the bay. I see myself as an entrepreneur and have tried my hand at many ventures through the years. My goal after I graduate is to own my own venture and work for myself. The road will be a long one, but I look forward to the journey as much as the destination.
I enjoy playing and watching basketball and pretty much any outdoor activity including hiking. In my free time I like to explore the city and find new spots of interest. I love to travel, although I haven't gone to many places yet.