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/