Now I will discuss another Ted Talk. Overall, these are super fascinating, and I am glad we had the opportunity to discuss them in class. I will now look at Drew Curtis and his discussion of patent trolls.
Last year, Drew’s company was sued along with MSN & Yahoo by a patent troll- Gooseberry Natural Resources. They owned a patent for news releases via email. It may seems strange, but it can be patented. Take something that is already done and patent it. The problem is that the mechanisms are obscure and most of these lawsuits are settled and disclosed.
However, his company was not in violation of this patent. But when you are sued by a patent troll, you have to prove that you don’t infringe on the patent they are suing you with but this takes so long. It costs $2 million and takes 18 months- and this is the best case scenario. No companies infringed on this patent but they still settled. They settled because it was cheaper. It would also constitute major distraction from your company.
When it finally came around to the discovery phase- Drew asked Gooseberry Natural Resources to send screenshots of his company actually infringing on this patent. However, no such screenshots existed- but all of the sudden they wanted to settle. And wanted to close it out ASAP. His response was “NOTHING”. He didn’t have high hopes for that outcome, but THEY SETTLED! There is no non-disclosure agreement on this case because he took it off.
He learned three things: don’t fight the patent, fight the infringement. Second, make it clear that you have no money or you would rather spend money for your attorney then giving it to them. Thirdly, Make sure you tell them you make this process as annoying and painful as possible- it is generally their policy but use it on them.
Comes down to one thing- don’t negotiate with terrorists (in his words). He says they have done more damage- $500 billion to be exact- to our economy than many other pressing issues. Although, there isn’t a simple solution or a solution- he does have an idea- just do the same!
Overall, it was a very entertaining and funny talk and it was good to learn that in some cases you can have power in these situations.
This week we discussed in class the Ted talks. Abigail assigned us to analyze two Ted talks. For this first one, I will be looking at Johanna Blakley's talk about fashion. The title of her Ted talk is called lessons from fashion's free culture.
Johanna starts off with a story about an Italian fashion designer who found a jacket from a little shop in France. She is analyzing and staring at the jacket and while she plans to purchase the jacket, her main objective from purchasing the jacket is to replicate it. The academics in the world may think this is plagiarism, but in fashion- it is genius.
Is this illegal?
No, it is not. In the fashion industry there is very little intellectual property protection. There is only trademark protection. It means that anyone can copy anyone and sell it as their own design- they just cannot copy the trademark logo. That is why some companies blast their logo on their items since it is much harder to copy exactly.
Why?
Long ago the patent offices decided that clothing should not be patented because it is too utilitarian. They did not want designers owning basic blocks of our clothing- but "too utilitarian"- not really. Maybe unnecessary or silly but not too basic.
Argument
Because there is no copy right protection, fashion designers have been able to elevate clothing into something considered art. Because there is not copyright it is very open minded and spurs innovation and growth while also recycling old successful and timeless pieces. The magical side effects of a culture of copying, then there are TRENDS! It is legal for each person to copy one another. If you talk to any designer they say their main inspiration comes from the street and where they get their creative inspiration- making it a both top-down and down-top industry.
When there are lawsuits, they loose more often than winning because the courts say you do not need protection for clothing. Here is a great example of two brands- one the original creation and the second- the knock off.
Makes you think- how do the expensive brands stay in business?! A famous designer said that he found after research that the counterfeit customer is not the high end designer. They are appealing to very different demographic. There is status, brand, titles. Therefore, the copy designer is not taking anything (in terms of customers) from the high-end brand. Because of this, the higher-end become more innovative and different making it harder to copy.
Overall, this was incredibly interesting. I have never thought about it but I often see "cheaper" versions of clothing, accessories, etc. When I go shopping next I will see and compare the different items and see how innovative each item actually is.
Welcome back to my blog post. So far, I am really enjoying looking up these silly patents. There are many patented technologies or ideas that I would never think would have been patented. For this post I focused on patents of items or technologies that I never knew existed. This was a great way for me to not only learn why these patents were silly but also learn about new items that I never knew were even thought about! Hope you enjoy, and I am looking forward to reading your comments!
Patent 6929164 | Neck Wrap/Brace Organizer
The idea of this product is a neck wrap that holds items and a belt article that also carry things similar to the neck wrap as it is wrapped around the neck of a person. The idea is that the neck wrap secures together at opposite ends around the person's neck. On the neck strap, there are special features like a telephone holder, which enables the person to use the telephone in a hands-free manner. The belt article has a belt strap that tightens around the person's waist.
A medical neck brace similar to the neck wrap
The idea behind this patent is that is allows you to "de-cluttered" the your life. However, there are a few reasons why I believe that this is a silly patent. First, I do not think that this is a very valid invention. Not only is it not fashionable, but I am not sure how socially acceptable it is. A lot of time a neck brace like the one shown in the picture is generally associated with injury. Therefore, I am not sure how practical this is as an item. Second, like I previously stated, the jump to add a few loops to a traditional medical neck brace is not that far of a difference from the neck wrap shown here. For that reason, I am not sure how non-obvious this product is, and in fact I think it is a very obvious and non-novel invention. I do not believe that this should have been patented. However, I am curious to see what you all think- and mostly would you wear one of these around campus? I do agree that it could potentially make life easier but I am pretty confident I would not wear one of these!
Patent D493601 | Edible Business Cards
This product is fairly straight forward. They are business cards that are edible. I definitely did not know that this product existed. They are made out of a chocolate base and then they have edible colorful ink outlining the details. However, the practicality of these cards are in question since it seems counter intuitive. The purpose of business cards are to give people information and so they can keep your information and get in contact with one another. However, if the card is edible then they are going to eat it and the information will be lost. Therefore, I would not use edible business cards, although it seems to be a fun idea.
Additionally, the edible business card is just a version of the regular business card- there is clearly prior art in this situation so it is not novel that there are edible business cards.
Overall, I found these inventions to be very interesting because I did not know that these inventions were in existence. However, at the same time, once I learned about them, they did not seem non-obvious in any way. Hope you enjoy this post- looking forward to your thoughts and comments!
This week the professor asked us to search silly and crazy patents and analyzing why they are considered silly! I have looked up two patents that are very interesting to me mainly because the concepts seems so simply and obvious. I am even surprised that the Patent office approved these patents. Let me know what you guys think!
Patent 5443036 | Method of exercising a cat
The first patent I want to focus on is patent 5443036, which was a patent that detailed how to exercise a cat. Essentially this patent was a method for inducing cats to exercise which mainly consisted of directing a beam of light (a laser light) from a held hand device onto the floor and wall. Additionally, the patent detailed moving the laser so to cause an irregular way of fascinating cats and other animals who case on instinct. I believe that this is a silly patent because the idea of this was probably long thought of before making the idea not novel. There was actually a book "One Hundred and Eighty-Seven Ways to Amuse a Bored Cat" that entail the exact same idea but using a flashlight. Although this patent has a slight variation, it is still an obvious switch to using a laser instead of flashlight. Therefore, the patent should have never been issued but it was pointed out that United States Patent and Trademark Office has actually issued the same patent or similar patents multiple times.
Patent 6368227 | Method of swinging on a swing
The priority date on this patent is November 17th, 2000. Essentially this patent details the way that the user would be positioned on the swing. It says that a user would be positioned on a standard swing suspended by two chains from horizontal tree branch and has a side to side motion by alternately pulling on one chain and then the other.
On the technical side of this patent, it says that the method of swinging on a swing is the technical part. However, the concept of a swing has been around for generations. Although this swing is placed on a tree branch, it in no way is novel from a regular swing set or non-obvious in any regard. Therefore, it is just a variation of a past invention, and in my mind should not have been patented. Additionally, it is clear there is prior art for this invention which again, does not make sense as to why it was patented. Another thing to think about is that any person can make a swing on a tree branch- therefore, would the people who patented this invention charge a royalty every time someone made this swing? It is a pretty funny invention since they have had swings around for a good amount of time now.
Thank you for reading my blog post. I look forward to reading your comments!
This week, we were asked to continue to research NPEs. In my last two blog posts, I discussed what NPEs were and the controversy surrounding these entities. In my second blog post for assignment #8, I gave a quick example of a case between a NPE and a practicing entity.This week, I wanted to look at NPEs from another perspective- I felt that I would be able to do this by researching one of the most well-known NPEs.
Understanding Intellectual Ventures
Intellectual Ventures, a well known patent troll, is one of the largest NPEs and according to many articles, the most hated company in tech.
To begin, Intellectual Ventures was founded in 2000 by Microsoft employees Nathan Myhrvold and Edward Jung. Intellectual Ventures has collected close to 70,00 “intellectual assets” on a variety of different technologies and has control on over 40,000 of the 70,000 “intellectual assets”.
In the past, Intellectual Ventures has taken a lot of heat. They have been compared to the Mafia in the tech world who demand money and hinder development and growth in this industry. Needless to say, it is clear that Intellectual Ventures is one of the world’s biggest patent trolls.
Really Understanding Intellectual Ventures
The paragraphs above explain what most people think about Intellectual Ventures. However, after doing some research, I have learned what Intellectual Ventures thinks of itself.
The company actually functions in two parts. The first part is a think tank, where people come up with the most insane and innovative ideas to fix the world’s problems. The think tank part of Intellectual Ventures (also known as the fun side) has spun off into two businesses. First, TerraPower (a company building new, cleaner nuclear reactor) and Kymeta (produces antennas that improve satellite connections). The fun side of the business shows the brilliance and intelligence of their employees.
The other side of the business, is in fact, the troll business. The aggressive, assertive and lawyer-driven organization looking to make money from the insane amount of patents that it owns. This is the part that receives the criticism, but without it, the groundbreaking innovations that occur at Intellectual Ventures would not be taking place.
Myhrvold and their employees understand their negative public image, however, they believe that inventors need their fair share- people should get paid for their work. Myhrvold even said that “inventors should get rich. We should have more inventors, It’s good for everybody”. It makes sense that if you are using the technology that someone else invented, you should get paid for it. Personally, this seems very logically, however, when explained from the other viewpoint, I understand the feelings of anger others must experience.
Why do people hate Intellectual Ventures?
If the above is true, it doesn’t make sense why everyone has such strong, negative feelings towards Intellectual Ventures.
Intellectual Ventures has the most patents than any company in the United States. However, because they have so many patents, the only way to pay them off would be to engage in aggressive troll like behavior. They license to companies like SAP, Samsung and HTC.
Since Intellectual Ventures is a NPE, they have advantages in the courtroom since they are not as vulnerable. Additionally, these companies are built for litigation and they are not afraid of the costs. NPE do not even have an discovery costs because they do not even have any products. For this, people believe the patent system favor NPEs. People feel like NPEs have nothing to loose.
Furthermore, in a study done in 2011, it was not just large corporate companies getting sued. The median company being sued had only $10.8 million in revenue. Any sort of patent litigation to a startup could be deadly since they do not have the funds for the actual ligation let alone the settlement.
Although this seems unfair- it is not only NPEs suing companies for patent infringement. Apple, Google, Facebook and other companies spend millions to acquire patents just as a defensive mechanism (you sue me, I’ll sue you).
This leads to the question, why does everyone hate Intellectual Ventures so much! The company’s executives think that they are just misunderstood.
While they have the potential to tear down small or large companies, and are built for litigation- they are focused on helping inventors and creating new inventions. Other companies that are not NPEs may participate in similar behavior, however, the negative stereotypes around NPEs leave Intellectual Ventures with a misunderstood public image. However, the employees seem to understand their mission to continue to create and innovate.
Defending Intellectual Ventures
While it is understandable why companies may hate Intellectual Ventures (since they have so many patents) they actually create some of their patents in house.
They have intense brainstorming sessions where they spend hours coming up with solutions to some of today's most pressing issues along with issues that others have not even discovered yet. The company has come up with 500 patents and 4,000 patent applications and averages around 30 new patents per month. So although people may think they just take others ideas (which they do use other inventors patents) to then bully them, they are actually creating many new innovations- they are just not producing them.
Conclusion
Overall, I found this closer look into Intellectual Ventures very interesting! Although my personal view is still on the fence, this gave me a much broader understanding of NPEs. It shined a more positive light on NPEs where before, I only saw them negatively. I hope that you enjoy this post, and I am looking forward to reading your comments! Thanks :)
For my second blog post, I wanted to take a closer look into NPE's and their reputation. I was able to research them more to find out the controversy that surrounds these entities! Hope you enjoy this blog post. Looking forward to reading your comments and advice!
To begin, there is a lot of controversy behind non-practicing entities. Are they aggressively breaking down others or are they helping inventors get their fair share? This is a difficult question and it depends on who you are asking. Therefore, its understandable why there is so much controversy surrounding these entities.
Here are some reasons why there is a lot of controversy surrounding NPEs.
The main critics will argue that non-practicing entities could potentially misuse the patent system and as a result demotivate innovation by true innovators
Non-practicing entities are seen as companies that essentially diminish competition within the market (which in the long-run could potentially hinder development and growth of products, because without competition, there is less need to constantly improve products). Because they have the patents but do not create the inventions, they diminish competition which can also cause prices to rise.
Although NPEs may claim that they want inventors to receive their fair share, often times, the individual inventors are paid very small amounts in comparison to the NPEs, who earn huge settlements or licensing deals.
Non-practicing entities do not act like actual businesses or true competitors because they do not produce any sort of product or service. Because of this, it is seen that they have unfair trade practices.
Defendants in cases against NPEs cannot counter claim meaning that NPEs are immune to infringement claim or counter claims.
The most common lawsuit that involves a non-practicing entity usually involves a settlement. In fact, 9 out of 10 lawsuits involving NPEs end in a settlement, making critics believe that this is just a money making scheme.
Because of NPEs position (in which they own the patent but do not actually produce any product or service), they are the best positioned for the lawsuits they instigate and are able to extract huge amount of money from the alleged infringers. Additionally, due to the high cost and risk, the infringers are always more inclined to settle.
NPEs are seen as not adding as much value as practicing entities because they are not involved in promoting innovation and new products. They are only focused on protecting patent from others.
As you can see, there are many reasons why NPEs could be controversial. However, often times, NPEs cause many negative impacts. In fact, when NPEs accuse a company of patent infringement it negatively affects the value of the company greatly. Additionally, many times the companies NPEs are suing, do not have sufficient funds and are forced to settle. It is understandable then why there is a negative stigma around NPEs.
An example of a NPE lawsuit is the case between NTP, Inc and Research in Motion (also known as RIM). Essentially, NTP (the non-practicing enterprise) implemented patent infringement suit against RIM which resulted in a settlement of $612.5 million for NTP. However, in this case, some doubts were brought up about the validity of NTP’s patents. There was a review of their questionable patents which led to invalidating some of their patents. Unfortunately, before this took place, NTP and RIM settled their lawsuit in a settlement. RIM agreed to the settlement mainly because their was pressure from its investors and customers who was worried about RIM’s ability to continue its wireless services.
Above is an example of the influence NPEs can have in the industry. Even though the patents validity was questioned, NTP still received a huge amount of money.
Overall, I found this issue to be very interesting- what do you all think? Do you believe NPEs can be beneficial? Would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks for reading!
Hope you all had a great spring break! For assignment #8 we were asked to look into Patent trolls. For my first blog post, I want to take a closer look and define what NPEs and patent trolls are to build a good foundation. Hope you enjoy!
What is a non-practicing entity?
A non-practiciting entity is any entity that makes the majority of its revenue from the enforcement or licensing of its patents. A non-practicing entity does not sell any sort of product or service, besides the licensing of their patents. However, because they do not infringe on the patent rights in other patent portfolios, they are immune to counter assertion (a differing point of view that deals more with an idea or belief, not always backed up by fact). They can be individual inventors, universities and both small and large patent aggregators. The reason they are called patent trolls tend to be because their only purpose is to grab patents and use them against companies that manufacture similar products. Generally, patent troll has a negative connotation attached to it.
What are the main function of the NPE?
The main function of the non-practicing entity are as follows:
NPE has patents but do not produce the product of service based on the patent
Buy patents from one company to sue other companies (by saying that their patent is being infringed)
Implements patent rights through licenses or litigation
Main objective to implement patent rights using the actual patents themselves
What types of NPEs are there?
Additionally, there are also many different types of Non-patent entities. The first type is often inventors who do not want to be involved in the development, manufacturing or the sales of their inventions. This may be because they do not have the resources or the interest so instead they set out to license their inventions to others who have the ability to produce the product of service. Other times, they can choose to just sell the patents outright completely to not be involved in the process what so ever.
Other types of NPE’s may be companies whose sole purpose is to license patents aggressively. Some companies may acquire patents and aggressively license them to others while other companies use their own patents to license. However, regardless, non-patent entities present a different type of perspective and challenge than traditional operating company patent assertions.
What is the difference between NPEs and Practicing Entities?
A non- practicing entity and a practicing entity both have patent ownership, but it is only the practicing entity that actually sells the product or service. NPEs, like explained above, acquire patents with the purpose of enforcing the patents against the practicing entities. Typically, practicing entities get their patents through research and development whereas NPEs get their patents from inventors and other companies who no longer want or need them.
Hope this gave you a better understanding of this topic. Thanks for reading! :)
