Social Media and 190G Class

The course encompassed a heavy load of Social Media on various forms:

1. Twitter-  I used this form of social media to talk about general thoughts on specific topics and weeks. It was informative because I could see the twitter feeds of various students in the class and see what they thought. The ability to hashtag #Berkeley190G was good because then all the tweets were sorted. Moreover, retweeting woulda allow me to express my thoughts and disagreements with the tweets of others in the class. 
2. Blogger - This is where the weekly blog posts were written and shared on. Once again, it was useful because everyone in the class wrote freely, had pictures, and attached their youtube clips. It was good because the comments allowed me to express my opinion and likes/dislikes about other people's reaction. Particularly, I enjoyed reading the blog posts of those who did the same topic as me. Seeing the similarities and differences allowed me to enhance my blog post and make a better video. 
3. Youtube - This social media platform was used to show our faces and talk about the blog posts that we wrote. It was effective because it allowed me to present my findings and share my opinion of a particular patent and topic. 

Lastly, we used Google Docs in the class to index all the blogs, youtube, and twitter feeds for everyone in the class. In essence, this served as the portal for the various forms of Social Media.

Social Media Analysis: 

I think the usage of Social Media in this class was very different than most classes. At the most, in other classes there is one medium, such as a discussion on bcourses. Yet, there is no form of comment section on it. Secondly, the usage at the beginning was tedious in the beginning. Having to do blog post, twitter, comments, and make videos. However, towards the end it was more streamline and made more sense. I found a good way to skim over the topics of others and then do my research for my topics. In some instances, there were similarities. Comparing and contrasting my blog posts and youtube clips with others on the same topic was fun because  I always learning something new! 

Overall, the usage of social media in this class proved very effective. It was tedious at first, but fun towards the end because I had a process of going through all the information in various formats. Moreover, I got over the learning curve throughout the semester, and now know how to use twitter and Blogger effectively. I do wish that the comments/feedback were more closely paid attention by myself, in order to improve my presentation skills. 

Semester Summary

Learn from Class

This class taught me a lot about the patent system, smartphone patent conflicts, and social media. It was very fun because Professor Tal was flexible with the homework topics. Moreover, I signed up for this class because I wanted to learn more about the smartphone industry from a patent perspective. Specifically, the cases with Android vs Apple always interested me. It is fascinating to see how different companies have royalties, settlements, and the strategies they pursue. 

Fits Needs and Future

Particularly, I am interested in entrepreneurship and this class is within the list for Certificate in Entrepreneurship and Technology (CET) at Berkeley. I picked this class because of my interest in smartphones. Learning about patents will go along way because it seems that many start-ups overlook this when they are developing. This includes patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. As a result, I am confident this will help me somewhere down the line in the future. Although I will be working starting July, I am sure that this will help me have a more solid understanding of the legal/patent aspect of start-ups. 

Recommendation

I would totally recommend this class. The use of social media was fun and effective. Although it is sometimes difficult to do the homework on Friday/Saturday night because of other social commitments, the results are worth the effort. For future semesters, the homework should be due a bit earlier, and we should get extra time to do the blog/youtube comments. This way, we will be able to see the perspective of all students in due time.

Overall, it was a great semester working with all my classmates on this course. It feels that our interactions were more through social media than in class! Some group activities/ice breakers would be good as well. 

About myself

Hi,

My name is Jaskirat Bhatia. I am currently a 4th year undergraduate in at UC Berkeley with a double major in Economics and Integrative Biology. After graduation, I will be working in healthcare consulting in San Francisco.

I am taking IEOR 190G in order to learn more about the patent process. It would be cool to file a patent someday!

Apple vs Nokia: Verdict Reached

This is a case that dates back to 2011...when Nokia was *slightly* relevant in the smartphone industry. Now the deal is expiring at the end of 2016. 

Background

Apple and Nokia reached a settlement and royalty agreement in order to end their patent disputes.
This was after Nokia filed a suit in 2009 against Apple for 10 patent infringements. 
Likely, Apple decided this would be the best outcome to avoid future litigation. Moreover, Nokia would benefit because it's products were not doing well and this would guarantee some sort of revenue stream. 

Terms of Agreement (note: these are estimates due to terms not being released)

1. Lump-sum payment from $500 million to $1 Billion (estimates)

2. Royalty per iPhone: $8 (~1% estimated)

3. 5 Year Deal

Interesting facts:

Nokia has said it invested more than 43 billion euros ($62 billion) to develop its patent archive.

Nokia wants to focus on litigation with Android manufacturers and Google

Quotes from 2011:

Independent Patent Specialist, Floiran Mueller commented: "Maybe Nokia could have continued to play hardball and got an even better deal if it didn't face the challenges it undoubtedly has. But this looks like a fairly important victory"

Ramon Llamas from IDC: "Nokia has just provided the overall smartphone market with a gift: it's exposed itself and its vulnerabilities to everyone else. Lots of vendors are going to be able to turn up the heat"

Hence, the debate rages on whether this was a good or bad deal for Nokia. It's important to remember that Nokia was later sold to Microsoft. Presumably, Microsoft is receiving the royalties from Apple now. Moreover, both their Google and this deal is helping their bottomline. 

Where is the deal now?

It will be expiring in December 2016. It's uncertain right now if it will be going back to litigation. Likely, some of the patents have expired in the past few years and others are not being violated by Apple. Hence, it will be interesting to see how this patent war plays out. It was thought to be over, but clearly it is not. 
My Estimate of the revenues from this deal: 820 million total - 320 (before 2012) ~ 500 million * 10 = $5 billion

Source:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jun/14/apple-nokia-patent-case

http://www.idownloadblog.com/2014/01/13/apple-nokia-patent-deal-expires-dec-31-2016/http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/14/apples-royalty-payments-to-nokia-estimated/

Samsung vs Apple: Supreme Court Battle

Once again, these two companies are back in court..but this time...the Supreme Court

Why is this important?

First time in 120 years the Supreme Court will hear a patent case related to design patents
As a result, a decision will set a precedent for companies and future cases

How did we get here?

Long story, Apple sued Samsung for design infringement on iPhone. Samsung appealed the costly verdict ($548 million) and it is headed to the Supreme Court.
Case DetailsDesign Patents - Addresses what products look like - included things like spoons, fireplaces, etc
Samsung opinion: That these patents are "poorly suited to complex devices with many features, adding that they can give rise to disproportionate penalties"
Apple opinion: Declined to Comment

Legal Issue at Hand

David Opderbeck (Law Professor): “The key question is whether damages relating to a design patent should be apportioned in relation to the value added by the patented design or can cover the infringer’s entire profit on the infringing product,” he said.
Samsung: "even if the patented features contributed 1 percent of the value of Samsung’s phones, Apple gets 100 percent of Samsung’s profits.”
Apple: Declined to Comment
Google and Facebook: Legal framework is “out of step with modern technology.”

Analysis: 

Interesting case because it is going to Supreme Court. As opposed to other technical patents, this is a design patent, and not a utility patent. Therefore, it won't solve many of the other mobile patent issues that are related to networking, operating system, and touchscreen technology. Regardless, it is a major issue because if Apple wins it may set the tone for Android design in the upcoming years. This would require Google and the Android manufacturers to rethink design that is different than Apple's design.

If Samsung wins, it would be another penalty and redefine the value/purpose of design patents in mobile space.

Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/technology/supreme-court-to-hear-samsung-appeal-on-apple-patent-award.html?_r=0

Motorized Ice Cream Cone!

Looking at silly patents, I never expected to find this.
What is it?

Motorized Ice Cream Cone!

How does it work?

Essentially, one licks the top of the cone, while the motor automatically spins it. Unlike normal ice cream comes, the cone is not edible.

Claims (only showing a few, rest are in the sources)

1. A novelty amusement eating device for supporting, containing, rotating and sculpting a food portion of malleable consistency during consumption comprising:

....a drive mechanism supported by said housing, said drive mechanism including rotating means for imparting a rotary motion upon said cup, said rotary motion providing feeding means for rotationally feeding the contents of said common edible pastry cone against a person's outstretched tongue.

Discussion

It's a bit silly that someone would come up this, so a person would have an easier time licking an ice cream cone. Furthermore, what makes this patent questionable is how it incorporates prior art and obviousness. It is likely that a child could conceive on this mechanized way to eat ice cream. I even recall having fanciful thinking that there should be a way so the lollipop, ice cream, etc moves, while I hold my tongue. Hence, I find it interesting how this went through the patent process. Perhaps, what  makes it non-silly is how the patent was filed in 1998. This is before technology was rapidly in the household and it was difficult to imagine a handheld motor, battery, and miniaturized components for everyday things, like an ice cream cone.

Why is it silly?

It's silly because it is not a feasible or practical invention. People want to eat the ice cream cone, at their own pace. Although technology is good, sometimes it it is not pragmatic. This is one of those examples.

Source:

http://www.treehugger.com/culture/just-what-we-needed-dept-the-motorized-ice-cream-cone.html
http://www.google.com/patents/US5971829

Abdominal Support

I guess the inventors saw the rise in obesity coming all the way back in 2001!

What is it?

This is essentially an adjustable-length shoulder and back strap that helps hold the load on the abdomen for people. Interestingly, the patent application cites previous patents similar to this. They were designed for pregnant women who required a similar harness for increased back support.

Details

Although it is a good idea - to provide women support - this patent could technically be used for obese patients. Moreover, because it is a very simple solution in terms of the biomechanics (supporting the stomach with the shoulder, to ease pressure on the back), it should not be patent-worthy. It is likely, that any health professional could conceive of such an idea. Moreover, because there are many patents similar to this through the course of history and newer patents that cite this one, it doesn't make sense to have patents within this category.

Why is it silly?

There is nothing novel about this! It is simply a back-belt.

Sources:

http://www.google.com/patents/US6846220

http://www.funnypatentsandinventions.com

1966: Graham vs John Deere Company

This case goes all the way back to 1966 and to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Background:

Graham invented a new shock-absorber doo-dad for tractors --> 1st Patent

Years later he improved the doo-dad --> 2nd Patent

John Deere improved their doo-dad, but Graham sues for infringement. 

Court Case:

John Deere argued that Graham's 2nd Patent was invalid --> failed test for non-obviousness 

Trial Court --> sided with Deere, Appellate Court --> reversed 

Goes to Supreme Court --> Invalidates Graham's patent

• The US Supreme Court looked to the Intellectual Property Clause and found that patents were only intended for those inventions which were new, useful, and furthered human knowledge, rather than for small details and obvious improvements.
• The Court looked to 35 U.S.C. §103, which codifies the nonobvious requirement, and found that the factors for determining nonobiousness include:
• The scope and content of the prior art;
• The differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; 
• The level of ordinary skill in the prior art;
• Secondary considerations:
• Commercial success;
• Long felt but unsolved needs; and
• Failure of others.
• These factors are now known as the Graham Factors

Court Decision: Graham's invention was prior art, obvious (to anyone who read the first patent)

Source:

http://www.invispress.com/law/patents/graham.html

Case #1: Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, I

In this case, Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, courts decided that Prometheus' patent claim was invalid.

Background:

Prometheus’ Lotronex is a pharmaceutical product to treat Irritable Bowl Syndrome in women (Year 2000, then later relaunched in 2002)

Roxane Laboratories wants to make generic version of this drug (2009 FDA filing).

Patent- (Source: PharmaPatents)

The ’770 patent is directed to “[m]edicaments for the treatment of non-constipated female irritable bowel syndrome,” and includes claims that correspond to the approved use of Lotronex®. The patent issued in 2001, and Prometheus sought reexamination of the patent in 2009. A reexamination certificate issued on October 19, 2010, with the following claims amended or added during reexamination:

5. A method for treating a diarrhea-predominant female IBS patient, while excluding those with predominant constipation, said method comprising: assessing whether said diarrhea-predominant female IBS patient has experienced symptoms for least six months; and administering an effective amount of alosetron or a pharmaceutically acceptable derivative thereof to said patient who has experienced symptoms for at least six months, wherein said effective amount is dependent on the condition of the patient and is at the discretion of the attendant physician.

10. The method for treating according to claim 5, further comprising assessing whether said female IBS patient has experienced at least moderate pain prior to administration of alosetron.

13. A method for treating a diarrhea-predominant female IBS patient, while excluding those with predominant constipation, said method comprising:
assessing whether said diarrhea-predominant female IBS patient has experienced symptoms for at least six months; assessing whether said nonconstipated female IBS patient experiences at least moderate baseline pain from IBS; and administering an effective amount of alosetron or a pharmaceutically acceptable derivative thereof to said patient who has experienced symptoms for at least six months and who experiences at least moderate baseline pain from IBS, wherein said effective amount is dependent on the condition of the patient and is at the discretion of the attendant physician.

Case Results (Source: PharmaPatents)

Roxane challenged the validity of the claims as obvious or invalid for obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) over a now-expired Prometheus patent—U.S. Patent No. 5,360,800. The ’800 patent included claims directed to treating IBS generally, the claims were directed to a genus of the claims in the ’770 patent. 

Federal Circuit agreed that Prometheus had not meet its burden of producing sufficient evidence to show a nexus between the claimed methods and commercial success. 

“We affirm the district court’s holding that the challenged claims of the ’770 patent would have been obvious over the ’800 patent and other prior art.”

Analysis:

Essentially, because the company claimed many things in the '800 patent, the information and claims within the '770 were deemed prior art and constituted obviousness. While many of scientific and medical claims are not obvious for laypeople, the '770 patent claims were deemed obvious for normal people after  reading the '800 patent. Thus, it is a bit of crafty perspective on Roxane Laboratories part to convince the courts. 

Source:

https://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2015/11/24/obviousness-versus-obviousness-type-double-patenting/

Unicorn Analysis #2: Snapchat

Background:

Current Estimated Valuation: $10+ Billion
# of Patents Owned: 2 + many pending/active
Competition: Facebook/Instagram, Vine, Mojo, Twitter, Periscope, etc

Patent Detail #1

This is Snapchat's first patent that they filed in August 2012 and was published April 2013. 

Title: "Single mode visual media capture" Essentially this is for the camera function that allows it to snap very quickly- the tap and hold feature. 
Issues: A company named Mojo Media filed a near-identical patent a few weeks after Snapchat. They are currently in litigation with Snapchat due for a "patent interference proceeding". As of late 2015, they are still in litigation sorting this patent.

Patent Detail #2

Snapchat filed for this patent in November 2014. 

Patent Details "could let users unlock photos and messages from friends if they're standing in just the right spot". This is currently being filed and has not been issued as of yet. 

Competition/Other Issues:

Clearly, other companies within social media want to get into Snapchat's area. Particularly, Facebook which has a large user base, high revenue, and wants to better monetize on social media.

Sources:

http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/21/snapchat-has-a-patent-that-could-help-it-become-the-defacto-camera-app/

http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/14/snapchat-patent/

http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=09015285&IDKey=9F45B35AA8E0&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect2%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526d%3DPALL%2526S1%3D9015285.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2F9015285%2526RS%3DPN%2F9015285

http://www.google.com/patents/US8428453

Unicorn Analysis: Lyft

Ridesharing Unicorn: Lyft

Background

Current Estimated Valuation: Bloomberg said this latest financing could value Lyft between $3.9 billion and $4.5 billion (The Verge)
# of Patents Owned: 0*
Competition: Uber + various other competitors in other countries.

*Details

Interestingly, Lyft only has XYZ patents. However, recently General Motors invested in Lyft and decided to buy Sidecar's patents. Essentially, Sidecar had a 2002 patent on ridesharing. This makes it particularity interesting against Uber, which as 34 patents, because General Motors is ready to defend Lyft.

What does this particular GM/Sidecar patent cover?

The patent details a system in which a passenger uses a wireless device to request a ride, which is then sent to a server, which finds an appropriate driver.
Wired describes it as "In other words, it covers the core of any modern ride sharing service" .

Hence, this presents a major challenge for a company like Uber which is competing directly against Lyft. Moreover, Uber's latest valuation by Bloomberg is $60+ Billion. This is more than 10x that of Lyft, which could present a greater challenge. It would be in Uber's best interest to litigate Lyft or pursue a buyout in order to better monopolize ride sharing.

Sources:
http://www.wired.com/2016/01/gms-newly-acquired-patent-could-be-a-problem-for-uber/
http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/21/10635868/lyft-billions-valuation-uber-rideshare-war

Marvell vs CMU: Claim Analysis

Case Summary

The case involves Marvell, a large semiconductor company versus Carnegie Mellon University, a large research university in Pittsburgh.

The verdict: 

CMU wins $750 million from Marvell. However The university expects to receive about $250 million from the settlement after legal fees and related costs. A significantly less amount than the headlines state.

Patents in Litigation

1. No. 6,201,839: “Method and Apparatus for Correlation-Sensitive Adaptive Sequence Detection”
2. No. 6,438,180: "Soft and Hard Sequence Detection in ISI Memory Channels.”

Claim #1 of Patent #1

Patent link:http://www.google.com/patents/US6201839 

1. A method of determining branch metric values for branches of a trellis for a Virterbi-like detector, comprising:

1. selecting a branch metric function for each of the branches at a certain time index; and 
2. applying each of said selected functions to a plurality of signal samples to determine the metric value corresponding to the branch for which the applied branch metric function was selected, wherein each sample corresponds to a different sampling time instant

Analysis

This patent includes a method of determining branch metric values, specifically for a trellis of a Viterbi-like detector. This means the patent only applies to a "Viterbi-like director" 

• The fist application means that the function is related a "certain time index". Essentially, if there is not a time index, the patent doesn't apply to this method of determining branch metric values.
• The functions have to be for a plurality of signal samples used in determination for method 1. Moreover, each signal sample is for a different sampling time insert of the determination for method 1. This means that if the same signal is used each time, the patent is applied. 

• 
  

Amgen vs Sandoz Case: Claim Analysis

Case Summary:

Current case revolving around Amgen's drug Enbrel. Sandoz is currently creating a biosimilar for Enbrel, and is in Phase 3 of drug trials. Next step is launch, but Amgen is utilizing its Enbrel patents and method/manufacturing process to prevent Sandoz's biosimilar from launching in market.

Summary of Patents (only 3/5 are related to case)

1. The ’182 patent is said to cover the etanercept fusion protein --> main protein in Enbrel
2. The ’522 patent is said to cover constructs and methods of making the fusion protein.
3. The other patents are said to “claim methods of using etanercept to treat psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis.”

Claim Analysis for Patent: 8,063,182

Link: http://www.google.com/patents/US8063182

1. A protein comprising

(a) a human tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-binding soluble fragment of an insoluble human TNF receptor, wherein the insoluble human TNF receptor (i) specifically binds human TNF, (ii) has an apparent molecular weight of about 75 kilodaltons on a non-reducing SDS-polyacrylamide gel, and (iii) comprises the amino acid sequence LPAQVAFXPYAPEPGSTC (SEQ ID NO: 10); and

(b) all of the domains of the constant region of a human immunoglobulin IgG heavy chain other than the first domain of said constant region;

Within the patent application, one sees how there are a lot of DNA sequences and Amino Acid sequences - essentially what make up a protein. When looking at claim #1, part a is divided into 3 sections.

• The insoluble human TNF receptor --> specifically binds to human TNF
• the patent isn't valid for the receptor binding to something else
• the insoluble human TNF receptor --> weighs about 75 kilodaltons
• the patent is only for this specific receptor when it weights about this much
• the insoluble human TNF receptor --> amino acid sequence LPAQVAFXPYAPEPGSTC 
• thus if this specific receptor, has this sequence, the patent holds. In biological terms, it would be near impossible to create the same receptor with a diff AA Sequence. However, it is possible to create a receptor that may do a similar function.
• b) The patent only applies if the  protein binds to IgG heavy chain regions, except first. Hence, patent is only valid for this specific antibody. 

Marvell vs Carnegie Mellon

Marvell vs Carnegie Mellon

The case involves Marvell, a large semiconductor company versus Carnegie Mellon University, a large research university in Pittsburgh.

The verdict: 

CMU wins $750 million from Marvell. However The university expects to receive about $250 million from the settlement after legal fees and related costs. A significantly less amount than the headlines state.

Patents in Litigation

1. No. 6,201,839: “Method and Apparatus for Correlation-Sensitive Adaptive Sequence Detection”
2. No. 6,438,180: "Soft and Hard Sequence Detection in ISI Memory Channels.”

These are complicated titles, but to put it simply. they are related to "methods to improve accuracy in the detection of recorded data when certain types of errors are likely due to the recording medium and reading mechanism" 

In conclusion, Marvell owes CMU a significant chunk of money. This would be a windfall for the university, which would help boost student services according to school officials. Interestingly, the case went to the District Court of Pennsylvania and the Federal Circuit Appeals court, until finally reaching an amount. 

Source:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3034719/marvell-carnegie-mellon-settle-patent-dispute-over-hard-drive-chips.html

Amgen vs Sandoz

Amgen vs Sandoz

This is an interesting and upcoming case revolving around Amgen's drug Enbrel. Sandoz is currently creating a biosimilar for Enbrel, and is in Phase 3 of drug trials. Next step is launch, but Amgen is utilizing its patent-protected Enbrel and method/manufacturing process to prevent Sandoz's biosimilar from launching in market.

Summary of Patents

1. The ’182 patent is said to cover the etanercept fusion protein --> main protein in Enbrel
2. The ’522 patent is said to cover constructs and methods of making the fusion protein.
3. The other patents are said to “claim methods of using etanercept to treat psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis.”

Essentially, the case revolves around these patents owned by Immunex, which is a subsidiary of Amgen. 

Why is this important?

Within the next 2-3 years, many large molecule drugs, will be coming off patent. As a result, many pharmaceutical companies are creating biosimilars (the equivalent of generics). These will provide patients with more options and end the monopoly some companies have due to their patents. Amgen is trying to block Sandoz from creating a biosimilar, by arguing that it has multiple patents on the drug and its manufacturing process. This is pertinent, because if it can show how Sandoz utilizes one of these patents, then it can have an injunction on Sandoz and prevent it from selling the biosimilar. 

Source:
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/amgen-launches-enbrel-biosimilar-patent-37046/

Lexmark vs Impression Products

Lexmark vs Impression Products: A case with bigger implications than printing

Overview:

Originally the case began about laser ink cartridges. However, the implications and precedent set by the court, in favor of Lexmark, drew in corporate giants from biotechnology and high tech.

Background:

Lexmark is a large manufacturer of printers and ink. Most of their revenue stems from selling toner to consumers for their specific printers. The company has both reusable cartridges and one-time use cartridges. Consumers are able to return their cartridges back to Lexmark for a refilled or recycled cartridge through their authorized distribution channel. 

However, Impression Products decided to get into their cartridges and refill them for consumers. Essentially, stealing from Lexmark's business stream of redistributing cartridges for proprietary printers. 

The Verdict:

The Federal Appeals court ruled that Impression Products infringed on Lexmark's patent on ink because it did not have authorization to bypass Lexmark and provide ink for consumers. 

Why is this important?

Corporations sighed relief and see more money on the horizon with this verdict. Essentially, they have control of their products and how consumers are able to utilize their products after the sale. This can be similar to how Apple does not allow "Jail-breaking" of devices, which voids the warranty. 

Sources:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-lexmark-intl-impression-products-idUSKCN0VL1MZ

http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/04/lexmark-impression-facts.html

Apple vs Samsung

Here we go again: Apple vs Samsung.

US Federal Appeals Court overturns Apple's victory

This time it is Samsung who has won the appeal against Apple.  Originally, the courts ordered a jury-issued verdict that Samsung owed Apple $119.6 million.

For what?

The original suit included 2 Samsung patents and 3 Apple patents. The case dates back to May 2014 when Apple won the verdict. Apple's patent includes features such as auto-correct, slide-to-unlock, and quick-links. Meanwhile, Samsung's two patents led them to a small victory of $158,000.

For team Apple this news comes as a blow. Rutgers Professor Michael Carrier said Apple "rolled the dice" on these patents. The courts agreed with Samsung. These patents were prior inventions and not worth of being labeled patents.

For team Samsung, this case demonstrates how "Apple is not invincible and that alternative operating systems are here to stay". Specifically, referring to how Android, which Samsung utilizes,  is not copying Apple.

In the grand scheme of things, it seems that neither company loses or wins financially in this scenario. Rather, Apple decided to pursue Samsung and ended up getting two patents tossed out and the third neglected. Meanwhile, Samsung rebuffed Apple's claim and the notion that it copied Apple's technology.

Unfortunately, this is not the first or the last of the Apple vs Samsung patent wars. Rather, it is only one battle that Samsung emerged victorious. Previously, Apple won a case for $547.2 million, which will head to the US Supreme Court. It is up to Apple if it will further appeal this case, or settle with a no financial loss/benefit to either corporation on this issue.

Sources:
http://phys.org/news/2016-02-samsung-appeal-apple-patent-case.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/apple-samsung-elec-appeal-idUSKCN0VZ27R

Detailed VirnetX vs Apple

Detailed Analysis of Virnetx vs Apple

Virnetx wins $626 million in damages against Apple

The case between Virnetx and Apple has come to a close in a classic Texas showdown, precisely East Texas. Specifically, the case involved 4 patents that VirnetX sued Apple for infringement. A description and link to each patent is located below. Keep in mind, they are very technical.  

1. Patent US 7921211 – Agile network protocol for secure communications using secure domain names

1. Patent US 7418504 – Agile network protocol for secure communications using secure domain names 
2. Patent US 7490151 – Establishment of a secure communication link based on a domain name service (DNS) request 
3. Patent US 6502135 – Agile network protocol for secure communications with assured system availability 

Where did the company get these patents?

Earlier,  VirnetX bought these patents from Science Applications International Corporation. Likely, they paid a significantly smaller amount for the patents than what it won in the Apple lawsuit. 

What is the value breakdown of the $626 million?

VPN on Demand feature: ~ 335 million

Facetime, iMessage infrigements ~ 291 million

What's next?

Perhaps Apple will try appeal this verdict or reduce the damages. Although it can afford to pay this without rattling investors or its long-term strategy, it would prefer not to pay anything. 

VirnetX will likely continue attacking other clients. It previously attacked Microsoft for a Skype application patent. Foreseeably, Google Voice and other messaging/communication companies might want to be careful against VirnetX exercising patents in this space. 

Patent-troll?

This is the crux of this debate: VirnetX does not apply these patents, but rather sues companies that utilize applications that infringe on VirnetX's technology. In some essence, it acts as a patent-troll because it attacks major corporations and tries to take some of their margins. While these companies do appeal and fight back, a patent has power. That power turns into value, which VirnetX extracts. 

This leads to the the flip-side, whether these companies are truly making valuable. One can argue that the inventors and people who find value in these ideas (whether they buy or create them) clearly have a visionary goal. However, it is hard to classify VirnetX in this category, because it purposefully buys these patents for the goal of suing companies. 

Source: Plaintiff Settlement from the US Court. 

Link to Plantiff Settlement from US Court

High Level: VirnetX vs Apple

Overall Summary: Virnetx vs Apple

The case between Virnetx and Apple has come to a close in a classic Texas showdown, precisely East Texas.

Essentially, Apple's heavily utilized services: FaceTime, iMessage, and Apple VPN were under scrutiny by VirnetX. The patent-troll claims Apple infringed on their patents. Specifically, the case involved 4 patents that VirnetX sued Apple for infringement on networking applications.
Who is VirnetX?

VirnetX is "an Internet security software and technology company with patented technology for 4G LTE security” (CNN).  Apple, with its speedy services, became a victim of this "patent-troll". Specifically, VirnetX acquired these 4 patents from a science company for a nominal price and utilized them to attack Apple. 

The damages of $626 million against Apple come as a huge jackpot to Virnetx. The company only has 14 employees and relies on major wins like this to continue profiteering. On the stock market side, its stock is currently floating around $7 dollars for a market capitalization of $300 million. 
Meanwhile, Apple has thousands of employees globally, produces new products annually, and has a stock price around $93, with a market capitalization above $500 billion. 

VirnetX reiterated their victory, “We are thankful for the jurors’ hard work and attention in this case, and for reaching a just verdict,” said their lawyer Jason Cassidy. “The jury saw what we have been saying all along: Apple has been infringing VirnetX’s patented technology for years.” (Are Technica).

After a failed appeal by Apple, a few years in court, the company is going to be up $626 million!

Link to Plantiff Settlement from US Court

IEOR Revised List

Revised Top 10 Inventions

Revised the list to include more inventions that were broader, as opposed to specific!
Note: Only two of the things changed!

1. Electricity: without this, most other things would not be possible, such as light-bulbs, kitchen appliances, dishwashers, and A/C. 
2. Penicillin: first antibiotic that helped pave the way for fighting plague, TB, E.coli
3. Vaccines: anti-viral for things such as Hepatitis, influenza, and polio
4. Clean Tap Water: Although not everyone has this yet, it allows billions to consume water and live healthier. 
5. Computer: Without this, would not be possible to write this blog!
6. Internet: Allowed computers and mobile phones to communicate and share information globally within seconds.
7. Mobile Phones: providing internet connectivity to billions of people, including those of low income countries who did not previously have any form of communication (ex. India)
8. Combustion Engine - This helped pave the way for the manufacturing, automobile, and airplane inventions. As a result, it greatly improved efficiency and transportation. 
9. Ships: Earliest form of trade between ancient civilizations, founding of New World, and mass transport
10. Paper - this is very important because it helped spread knowledge, ideas, and religion! Moreover, it preserved history, so we have a better idea of the past. 

Elaboration on the Light-bulb

Elaboration on the Light-Bulb 

Although electricity existed before the  late 19th century, it was Thomas Edison who invented the commercial light-bulb. It is important to note how the key here was the ability to put light-bulbs in homes and buildings! This significantly changed human patterns of behavior. For example, the work-day was no longer limited based on the sun and season. Secondly, people could read, study, and utilize their homes to the full extent. 

Imagine cooking in the dark? 

Imagine using the bathroom in the dark? 

Imagine sleeping at 9PM?

The list goes on..

This invention changed the way humans perceive their day. Clearly, we have seen improvements in the usage of electricity over the past 100 years. Specifically, with the light-bulb we have seen many variations - LED, white, colored, etc. Moreover, the technology likely shaped the development of TVs!

I picked this invention because it is hard to imagine a world without light-bulbs. For example, when there is a black-out, it seems that the world stops working and our life is at a standstill.