Blog 28: Halloween Mask with Flash Device

Another interesting/silly patent is US 6035447, which is a Halloween mask with a flash device. The patent is for a mask with a flash device that can both enhance the effect of the a frightening Halloween mask as well as act as a safety device for the user by making the user more visible to drivers at night.



Assuming that a Halloween mask with an LED light had not already been previously established, I believe that this patent would be fairly legitimate--it would combine two pieces of prior art, a scary Halloween mask and an light source. These two items are in very different fields--one is a cosmetic figure that allows for a frightening effect and the other is a nearly universal product with industrial and residential applications. However, the patent is somewhat obvious, especially when considering that such a mask would be used primarily at night, and a light source would be required for the mask to take full effect--therefore an ordinary person with an ordinary level of imagination would probably figure out a way to keep the mask illuminated in darkness.

The second function of the mask, to improve driver visibility to seems to be a trivial improvement, but still contributes to the legitimacy of the patent.

http://www.google.com/patents/US6035447?pg=PA2&dq=6035447&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mXODUeSEJ4SLiAKw5IFw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA

Blog 27: Method for Swinging on a Swing

Filed in November 17, 2000, US 6368227 is a patent for a method of swinging on a swing. The method of swinging on a swing is different because it emphasizes a sideways, lateral motion on the swing, rather than the traditional forward-and-backward motion.



I don't believe that there has been any prior art for this specific method of swinging sideways on a swing, but I believe this patent should fail the obviousness threshold. Any ordinary adolescent (with an ordinary imagination) who has been on a swing set has used the swing in both a traditional forward-backward motion as well as in a non-directional, side-to-side way. The patent calls for pulling on each side of the swing's chain, although I do not understand how an ordinary person would be able to replicate what the patent calls for, given that it is very difficult to pull on a taut chain and create lateral movement. This seems like a silly patent that should not have been granted based on sheer obviousness of the method alone.

http://www.google.com/patents/US6368227?dq=6368227&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bHODUfTFH8KqiQKdwIHwDQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA

Blog 26: Apple v. Samsung 2.0 Ordered to be Narrowed; Interpreting Legalese

Judge Koh of the North District of California issued an order for Apple and Samsung to slim down the already-bloated case:
"By February 6, 2014, the parties will be required to limit their asserted claims to 5 per side and limit their accused products to 10 per side. In addition, the parties will be required to reduce their invalidity references/systems/combinations to 15 per side."

This ruling will likely lead to Apple and Samsung citing five claims at trial time that pertain to five different patents in order to maximize the breadth of the slimmed down case. Notably, Judge Koh's ruling seems to benefit Samsung, based on the fat that Koh's statement calls for a maximum of five asserted claims for each company. This hurts Apple because Apple wanted to assert 12 claims from five different patents, which reduces the redundancy in the case and increases the risk that Apple may suffer a loss based on a limited amount of patents.

Samsung also called for the limit of 5 accused products for each side, although Koh allowed both companies to have 10 products. Samsung likely called for five products to limit Apple's potential damage against Samsung, which does not really work against Apple, because Apple has only one flagship phone, which also serves as the entirety of the product line. This order for litigation simplicity seems like a reasonable request that FossPatents calls "fair and balanced".

Blog 25: Google Goes (2-7)

April 2013 was a month that continued the trend of Google's patent woes. Business sites are also now beginning to discover that Google has been struggling tremendously in patent court, although this is a fact that has been long known by followers of the patent law scene.

As a recap, here is a summary of Google's record in court for the month of April.

Win:

1. Apple's Slide-To-Unlock Patent Invalidated in Germany
1. Samsung (Android platform) had been cleared of any potential infringement on the home screen unlock feature ubiquitous to smartphones.
2. Nokia Lawsuit Dismissed Against HTC/Google Play (not actually a win, soon to be a loss)
1. Google temporarily delayed what FossPatents believes to be inevitable--dozens of strong Nokia patents that will eventually force HTC to pay Nokia for using its intellectual property

Loss:

1. Android's Text Selection Infringes Apple Patent
1. As the title suggests, the ITC ruled that Android's text selection feature (holding down on the screen to create a translucent box around a field of text) infringed on Apple patents
2. Florida Court Slows down Apple v. Google Case
1. I discussed this in an earlier blog, but essentially non-SEP Motorola patents are under review in this case. The delay hurts Google because Google needs to have some sort of defense against Apple's patent assertions, and will not have any help from Motorola patents (as usual) because of the delay
3. Apple Defeats Samsung in Claim Construction on All But One SEP
1. Apple's victories in claim construction imply that Google/Samsung will likely be forced to pay Apple for the Android system's violations of intellectual property
4. Hon Hai Signs Royalty Deal with Microsoft
1. I also discussed this in an earlier blog--basically Google will be indirectly paying Microsoft for Android's violation of Microsoft Intellectual Property
5. ZTE Signs Deal with Microsoft
1. Microsoft signs deal with ZTE to receive royalty payments based on Android infringement.
6. Microsoft Licensed to Motorola's (for Push Notifications)
1. Under a former patent license, Motorola has already been paying Microsoft for the "push notification" technology, so Google/Motorola's lawsuit holds no water.
7. Court Rules that Google Will Receive Cents on the Dollar for Motorola Allegation
1. In this recent case, the a court determined that Motorola's FRAND demands for Microsoft would be pushed down from a $4Bn royalty fee to $1.8 MM
1. Google will probably never realize any gain in the smartphone war based on its acquisition of Motorola Mobility 

Blog 24: Samsung Asks for Delay in Ericsson Case

Samsung recently asked the ITC for a two month expansion of the discovery phase in an investigation with Ericsoon, citing Ericsson's lack of interest in narrowing the scope of the investigation as a primary reason for gaining the additional 60 days of discovery. Ericsson appears to have only nominally decreased the total scope of the investigation from 11 patents, 134 claims, and 190 infringing Samsung products to 10 patents, 123 claims, and 190 Samsung infringing products.

Given that 7/10 of Ericsson's patents are fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) pledged standard essential patents is a major factor in the complexity of the investigation. Over 40 U.S. companies have been subpoeaned and many major third parties have also been subpoened in the investigation (ASUSTek, Hon Hai, HTC, Nokia, Sharp...). If Samsung's request for expanded discovery is successful, then the trial will also be delayed for two months, and Samsung will also have more time to prepare its retaliatory compliant.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/samsung-asks-itc-for-two-month-delay-of.html

Blog 23: Microsoft Takes Cut Out of Android in China

Taiwan-based Hon Hai, the contract manufacturer of 40% of the world's consumer electronics, signed a deal with Microsoft on Wednesday, April 17. This deal ensures that any Android or Chrome devices made by Hon Hai will lead to a royalty stream to Microsoft. Although FossPatents does not provide a clear cut answer on whether or not Hon Hai will be passing on this cost to Google (likely), the significance of the deal underscores the strength of Microsoft's intellectual property and the simultaneous weakness of Google's patents, especially the lack of value-add that the Motorola Mobility patent portfolio has.

This deal will likely embolden companies such as Apple, Nokia, or even British Telecom to enhance their lawsuits against Google's patent portfolio. Microsoft has minted more than 20 new royalty streams based on their intellectual property since April 27, 2010. Given that the Motorola patents are essentially useless against  Microsoft, and that their patents are openly known to have infringed Microsoft patents, Microsoft will likely receive a royalty stream from Google in the near future.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/foxconn-parent-hon-hai-signs-with.html

Blog 22: Nokia Slims Down HTC Case

Nokia refined its case against HTC and cut out three patents from its suit. Generally, most companies narrow their lawsuits  as trials proceed, given that different patent claims are thrown out or are removed for arbitration. Originally, Nokia had nine patents. Of the three that were dropped, each were related to a loss of a claim construction battle (claim construction provides guidance for which patents will be viable in a lawsuit).

As of now, Nokia has obtained one German injunction against HTC, which HTC claimed was meaningless and would not affect its business. In Germany, HTC and S3 Graphics are suing Nokia over an infringement based on Qualcomm's'Snapdragon chip.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/nokia-streamlines-itc-case-against-htc.html

Blog 21: Florida Ruling Sets Back Google

Google suffered two additional setbacks in its attempt to create value from its Motorola patent portfolio. A German court notified Google that it plans to lift the only existing Google injunction against Apple in existence--a ban on iCloud push notifications. (Push notifications send information directly to a user's phone.)

Additionally, Judge Robert Scola from the Southern District of Florida pushed back the claim construction process for a new case by four months. Google and Motorola previously started the litigation in Florida over six patents, which led Apple also counter sue on basis of their own patents. This case became significant because while Google's acquisition of Motorola was under antitrust review, Motorola filed an additional suit against Apple targeting Apple's (as of then) new iPhone 4S and iCloud platform.

The delay is particularly bad for Google because it hinders Google's ability to extract value from it's $12.5Bn acquisition of Motorola. Furthermore, Google is unable to stop Apple from continuing to assert patents against Android. Additionally, because Apple cannot afford to lose any lawsuit against an Android OEM or any company affiliated with Android (because the precedent will strengthen the Android OS as a whole),  the delay is a welcome news update. 

As this case is still in the early stages, there are over 180 claims jammed into this singular lawsuit--Judge Scola noted that currently the case is far too big to effectively manage. If Scolar orders that the lawsuit be slimmed down, Apple will likely benefit because it would  have to fight off fewer patents.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/florida-judge-slows-down-multi-patent.html

Blog 20: Google Struggles Against Microsoft XBox

Administrative Law Judge David P. Shaw recently issued a preliminary ruling recommending that Google cut its losses in a lawsuit against Microsoft's Xbox. Shaw's remand initial determination provided two reasons for  Microsoft's side of the case, one procedural and one technical.

1. The advent of a landmark ruling on S3 Graphics' complaint against Apple led to the conclusion that the ITC can only order exclusion when the importation of goods violates U.S. patent law, NOT when the post-importation use of the goods violates patent law. Because Motorola lawyers argued for a ban based on direct infringement and not on indirect infringement, Judge Shaw ruled that Motorola failed to develop an indirect-infringement at the appropriate stage in the lawsuit.
2. Furthermore, Shaw ruled that Motorola failed to show essential elements of infringement--the Xbox's Kinect accessory is a wired XBox accessory that bypasses the game pad controller. Microsoft's wide marketing of the Kinect accessory reveals that Microsoft did not intend to induce users to infringe upon Motorola's patent.

This preliminary ruling represents another failure on behalf of Google/Motorola's patent portfolio.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/google-faces-double-hurdle-in-whats.html

Blog 19: Apple's Slide-to-Unlock Invalidated

Google experienced a rare win in the smartphone patent war. Germany's Federal Patent Court invalidated Apple's EP1964022 and struck down Apple's 14 proposed amendments to the patent. Apple has the ability to appeal the decision. Apple's EP1964022 protects the ubiquitous "slide-to-unlock" feature on all commercial smartphones.

This patent was found to fail to meet the requirement of European patent law of requiring a software innovation to "solve a technical problem with technical means." Because the slide-to-unlock feature is largely cosmetic, it was not deemed to be a technical innovation. However, U.S. patent law would likely enable the existence of the slide-to-unlock patent, because U.S. law is more lax and lacks the technicity requirement. In February of 2012, the Munich I Regional Court previously granted an injunction against two of Motorola Mobility's slide-to-unlock implementations. 

Additionally, Apple's attempt at asserting a slide-to-unlock utility model is also expected to fail.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/apples-slide-to-unlock-patent.html

Blog 18: Much In the Air Re: Apple v. Samsung

Administrative Law Judge Thomas Pender submitted his initial determination on remand in the investigation of Apple's complaint against Samsung. Previously, Pender asserted that Samsung had violated four patents, but allowed Samsung workarounds for three utility patents. The last patent was a design patent, which can easily be designed around. The ITC supported Pender's decision.

Pender's decision will go under review and then Apple/Samsung will likely petition for a review of this ruling, leading to further court and ITC deliberations. The decision of this court will have a significant impact on the litigated issues and may potentially result in an injunction against Samsung's products. Previously, a federal judge denied Apple's injunction despite finding that Samsung had violated several patents. Apple's next opportunity to gain a dramatic win against Samsung is for Pender's ruling to support an injunction against Samsung.

To date, Samsung has not disclosed the number of devices that have incorporated the new workarounds mandated by Judge Pender in previous decisions. The ruling will also determine how much Samsung will be forced to modify their products: ideally, Samsung will be able to make changes "under the hood" of their devices that users will not be able to detect, although the possibility exists that the quality of the phones will degrade as changes are mandated by the ITC.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/itc-judge-issues-preliminary-ruling-on.html

Blog 17: Nokia Blocks Google's Video Standard

In a surprisingly confrontational move, Nokia supported the H.264 codec and refused to license out or otherwise share patents that would likely be necessary for Google's VP8 standard. Nokia criticized Google for attempting to force its new codec down the throats of Internet users and cited the excellence of the collaborative effort involved in creating the H.264 codec. Nokia's refusal to cooperate with Google is intended to kill the VP8 codec--the combination of legal and technical fees associated with bringing VP8 to market should make it cost-prohibitive for Google to use anything but H.264.

The article on Foss Patents from which this post is derived suggested that Google's "Do No Evil" motto may not be as innocent and benevolent as it seems: Google does not want to pay royalties to individuals and companies that have heavily invested to develop video technology and wants to gain control of the Internet to best benefit their own products and services, while leaving competitors by the wayside. Within this context, it is no surprise that Google (over)paid for Motorola Mobility in an attempt to gain access to thousands of patents to bully around competitors. However, Google has failed to achieve a meaningful return on the $12.5 billion dollar acquisition and has lost many of its recent patent lawsuits.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/nokia-comments-on-vp8-patent.html

Blog 15: Nokia Tethers Itself to Android

In another patent setback for the software giant, Google appears to be violating a decade-old Nokia patent on tethering, more specifically the ability to make "a data transmission connection from a computer to a mobile communication network for transmission of analog and/or digital signals. " Nokia's victory in a recent court battle against Google/HTC will give it with a tremendous opportunity to collect new licensing and settlement fees from Android smartphone companies.


This tethering patent has the potential to allow Nokia to collect royalties from Android-based OEMs and may even allow for import bans on certain devices (without agreed-upon royalty structures). What is particularly interesting about this case is that Nokia filed for this tethering patent in 1995 and only bothered to file this patent in the United States and in Finland. Apple and Blackberry (rest in peace) have already settled their patent disputes with Nokia, but Android-based smartphone makers have not made these agreements. Nokia's legacy as a company that pioneered the mobile phone industry is still providing it with dividends today, even as the company struggles to survive in modern smartphone marketplace.

Blog 16: Google Lacks Mobility in Patent War

In continuation of Google's flagging attempts to defend itself through Motorola Mobility's patent portfolio, a judge at the ITC ruled that the Xbox controller does not violate Motorola's patent on a "sensor controlled user interface for portable communication device[s]". This will be the fifth patent that will be withdrawn from consideration from the legal battles between Google and Microsoft. Four other patents in this trial have been withdrawn because Google has agreed to either settle or has dropped the suits outright. It is interesting that Google decided to use this Motorola patent to sue Microsoft on a patent  unrelated to the smartphone industry.

Foss Patents notes that this lawsuit is a continued example of how Google's $12.5 bn acquisition of Motorola Mobility has not given Google the ability to freely cross-license its Android platform. Instead, Google's $12.5 bn acquisition appears to only providing Google with a trickle of licensing fees (far below t he $4 bn that Google initially envisioned), while Microsoft has gained import-bans and injunctions against Google.

Blog 14: Patent Claim Drops in Nokia v. HTC

In its lawsuit against HTC, Nokia has dropped approximately 40% of its claims associated with a patent that protects Nokia's method for transmitting and receiving radio signals through various radio interfaces of communication systems. Two other patents have already been dropped in this lawsuit. The first was a voluntary withdrawal of a calendar app patent; the other patent was dropped because of HTC's successful dismissal of a app-supporting communication network.

Although Google has not been directly named as a participant in the suit, the tech giant has pressed for Nokia to drop more of their claims on their patents. Google's Android platform runs on HTC phones and is likely interested in protecting their market share from Nokia. I would be interested to see if Microsoft, Nokia's sponsor, will step into this lawsuit to protect Nokia's claims.



http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/nokia-drops-several-claims-of-one.html

Blog 13: Ericsson Oversteps with Samsung

In a growing trend of simplifying patent lawsuits, judge David Shaw denied Ericsson's introduction of 15 new patent claims. Ericsson's lawsuit already has more than 130 claims, and the ITC and Judge Shaw want to decrease the scope of the investigation by narrowing the amount of claims. The fifteen claims were based off of U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE43,931.

The rejection of the motion to introduce new patent allegation is a clear win for Samsung, and this case helps shed more light on the role of the ITC. The ITC did not directly oppose Ericsson's motion to introduce more claims, but claimed that it was concerned that the introduction of this motion would delay the process of the trial and would cause the investigation to balloon out of the tight 15-month schedule set for the case. I think it would be more beneficial for an efficient legal system if the ITC took a more active role in helping resolve legal cases and actively setting precedents for other legal cases to follow. This help to simplify the legal system and might decrease the lag between the resolution of lawsuits and the impact of precedence ramifications.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/samsung-succeeds-in-blocking-ericssons.html

Blog 12: Nokia Complains about Dismissal of Wholly Groundless Patent

In February, Nokia alleged that HTC infringed on nine of its patents. However, Judge Thomas Pender ordered a termination of the ITC investigation. Nokia complained that the dismissal of its suit on the grounds of it being "wholly groundless" was unfair and has appealed the dismissal.

Nokia complained that:

1. HTC is attempting to protect a patent features that Nokia is not challenging as infringement. Nokia claims that HTC could, at best, obtain a delay on devices with a protocol that sends data to apps on the phone
2. HTC does not have an industry standard to which it has tied the 529 patent

This case is important because the ITC has the opportunity to step in and set up a precedent of the "wholly groundless" terminology. Without establishing clear ground rules on what is "wholly groundless", the ITC will lose its power in arbitrating frivolous lawsuits, which will open the door for multitudes of frivolous lawsuits.

Blog 11: 25th Time's the Charm

Samsung suffered another setback today in court, as its attempt to seek damages and injunctions against Apple was put down by British Justice Floyd. Samsung has only succeeded on three of its standard-essential patent assertions against Apple out of 25: two of these assertions were declared in South Korea, the location of Samsung's headquarters, and one in the Netherlands.

Samsung's suit was about three patents. Here is a brief outline of the patent's claim and Apple's successful counter suit argument:

1. EP1714404 - protocols for reducing power consumption when transmitting data on WDCMA platforms
1. This patent was rejected because of the existence of prior art and was seen as "obvious"
2. EP1005726 - protocol for pressing data and encoding/decoding in an efficient manner
1. This patent was rejected because it was entitled to the priority claimed and was also an "obvious" patent
3. EP1357675 - channel coding in CDMA systems
1. This patent was rejected on the grounds of not being entitled to the priority claimed and was also obvious

The seemingly-pointless nature of some of these patent suits is also backed up with Samsung's demands for 2.4% royalties on Apple devices.

Blog 10: VirnetX Joins Apple Royalty Queue

One of the pioneers of secure Internet communications protocols was awarded a hefty settlement in court earlier this week. The firm VirnetX obtained a sweeping victory against Apple on the grounds that Apple had infringed upon its wireless communication patents through the networking technology used in its FaceTime technology. The success of VirnetX's lawsuit is attributable to its status as a legitimate technology company and its diligence in pursuing lawsuits against major tech companies.

The terms of the settlement will require Apple to negotiate a royalty with VirnetX while paying more than $330,000 per day until an agreement is reached. This is not the first time that Apple has suffered a major legal defeat within the smartphone field--in 2011, Nokia allegedly won over a billion dollars in damages and collected a royalty estimated to be at around $10 per iPhone. The success of VirnetX's suit against Apple will likely embolden it to pursue legal action against other major tech companies. VirnetX's stock price is up more than 15% this year.

Sources: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57571521-94/virnetx-v-apple-judge-upholds-$368m-patent-suit-verdict/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/14/apple-nokia-patent-case

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130227-707982.html?mod=WSJ_qtoverview_wsjlatest

Blog 9: Judge Takes a Bite out of Apple Settlement

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323478304578334540541100744.html?mod=djemalertNEWS

Judge Lucy Koh altered the terms of the $1 billion in damages that Samsung was initially ordered to pay, and changed Apple's patent award to around $600 million. The decision stemmed from a belief that Apple had not produced enough evidence of Samsung's theft of profit. Ironically, neither Samsung nor Apple had produced enough precedent cases to support their assertion of damages, despite the massive legal fees that both companies have provided to their lawyers.

The unfavorable decision for the Cupertino tech company may encourage Apple's rivals to step up litigation measures in light of the change in favorable legal winds. Additionally, the judge's settlement will lead to further appeals by Samsung and will extend enable the inanity of patent lawsuits.

Blog 8: Companies Fighting Against Patent Trolls

Cisco, Motorola, and NETGEAR recently banded together to fight an NPE that attempted to sue thousands of small businesses for infringing on a wireless internet ("wifi") patent. (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=132803542). Cisco, Motorola, and Netgear attempted to prove that Innovatio was purchasing patents for the purpose of racketeering. The three tech companies attempted to slap Innovatio with a RICO, a legal provision that allows the U.S. government to sue for criminal penalties. RICOs have traditionally been reserved for criminal organizations such as the mafia and for extreme cases of insider trading (Michael Milken). However, courts eventually struck down the allegation that Innovatio was attempting to racketeer.

Hopefully, this case will establish a precedent for large tech companies to aggressively fight patent trolls. It remains to be seen if additional legislation will be introduced by the Obama Administration to potentially decrease the amount of patent-related lawsuits. However, if a legal precedent was established that suggested that patent trolls could be pursued as racketeers, it would greatly reduce the prevalence of such patent trolls and would likely be the longest-lasting and most attainable solution.

Blog 7: Samsung's Disability Lawsuit Crippled in German Court

The highly publicized smartphone patent war between Samsung and Apple swung further to Apple's side today. A German court struck down a Samsung injunction request to block the production of iOS devices with a text-to-speech function. Samsung alleged that Apple's VoiceOver infringes upon Samsung's patent on a text-to-speech-to-loudspeaker technology. This marks another setback for Samsung, which was ordered to pay over $1 billion in damages in Apple last year.

This legal battle indicates that the patent war over mobile devices has no boundaries. The patent war may remind people of the age-old adage--there are no rules in love and war. Samsung and Apple have proven their willingness to damage their ethical reputations in order to gain ground in the war for market share. However, it is unlikely that Samsung will suffer from its attempt to block sales of Apple's disabled-friendly iPhone, despite Samsung's snub of the blind and disabled. Consumers will likely chalk up the lawsuit as another desperate attempt for Samsung to gain increased sales from its Silicon Valley rival.

Source: http://allthingsd.com/20130222/samsungs-ill-conceived-apple-voiceover-suit-stayed-in-germany/?KEYWORDS=patents

Blog 6: NFC Patent Trolling

One of the exciting new technologies in many Android phones is the existence of near field communication chips. These chips allow for smartphones to establish brief communications with another NFC enabled device. Google Wallet is a payment application loaded on Android phones that allows users to pay for physical purchases by swiping their phone near a register. There has been some adoption of this model in stores such as Macy's, Toys "R" Us, and American Eagle.

The development of this new market also promises that a new crop of non-practicing entities will be formed to litigate against Google and other patent holders. However, an article from TechCrunch (http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/06/do-we-even-need-nfc-for-mobile-payments-paypal-google-weigh-in-video/) estimates that NFC will not become a widespread technology and will not be integrated into modern infrastructure for another five to ten years. Additionally, Apple's resistance to adopt NFC in their iPhone 5 also reveals an ideological contrast in viewpoints. Apple appears to be short NFC and has resisted paying for additional chips and technologies to be placed into its devices, while Google has gone long on NFC and introduced it into its Android operating system. This reduces the potential targets of non-practicing entities, or patent trolls,  as there will be less major corporations utilizing NFC in their devices.

It remains to be seen if NFC will prosper and die out, and both situations have significant implications for patent lawsuits.

Blog 5: Insider Supplying: Apple and Samsung

Samsung and Apple have a complicated love-hate relationship. Samsung is a supplier of critical flash memory to Apple, yet both spend billions of dollars litigating over the very product that the flash memory becomes a part of. Samsung's unique position as a critical supplier to Apple gave it valuable, non-public insights into how large Apple projected the smartphone/tablet market to be. This inside information has spurred Samsung to spend massive amounts of money on capital expenditures and acquiring assets for its manufacturing business ($21 billion in 2012)

After a handful of generations of failed hardware and outspending Apple 2:1 on capex, Samsung finally developed a viable competitor to the iPhone in the Galaxy S3. However, Apple's lean and efficient product development team and limited product line has managed to maintain dominance of the domestic U.S. smartphone market, while Samsung's 37 diversified and affordable products have seized control over emerging markets. Is there any legal recourse for Apple, given that Samsung appears to have taken advantage of non public information in its rapid development of the iPhone competitors?

Blog 4: Qualcomm and Snapdragon

Qualcomm has long dominated its particular sector of semiconductor and wireless communications. Qualcomm's development of the CDMA network used by major U.S. carriers such as Verizon and Sprint, and collect significant royalties from licensing their products. However, Qualcomm has also entered the smartphone processor market with Snapdragon platform. Snapdragon is potentially an extremely disruptive platform to the mobile platform, given its close unity with the Qualcomm communications technology and its integrated graphics processing technology.

Qualcomm's calculated acquisition of graphics and multimedia patents from the struggling computer chip company AMD has enabled it to create sophisticated and powerful chips that are quickly seizing market share away from traditional mobile chip powerhouses like Nvidia and Samsung (who manufactured chips for Apple).

I would be interested to learn if Moore's Law applies to mobile chips as well--with the additional caveat that mobile chips also become twice as power-efficient while continuing to be become faster and smaller every 24 months.

Relevant Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uz0VdsBDEh0

Blog 3: Patent Marketplace

Would it be possible to securitize patents? Financiers in the bellies of investment banks have securitized almost every conceivable modern good, from car loans to home mortgages to pork futures. I believe that it would be very interesting to have a patent marketplace where small companies would be able to raise capital  in the public markets. Additionally, a patent marketplace or a derivative-based patent marketplace would allow investors to speculate on the future value of a patent in the design of a future device. Additionally, companies issuing these patents might be able to structure a patent fixed-income security where the interest payments and the principal of the bond would be backed by the future cash-generating ability of the patent, whether it is licensed out or used for internal development.

Challenges to the idea of a patent marketplace are largely legal. Traditional initial public offerings are extremely complex in structuring and size and often require spending a significant amount of money to pay for  financial and legal advisers. Small private start-ups looking to securitize their patents would be similarly forced to pay fees to have their patents listed on the open market and would likely have to disclose financial and operational information about themselves. Such a glut of information about a start-up whose patent may be highly innovative and yet susceptible to being copied would discourage small companies from listing patents. Large, established tech companies would likely not require additional funding for their patents (Amazon, Google, Apple already have enough cash as is), so the patent marketplace would likely be limited to middle-market sized tech companies between Series funding looking to generate publicity about its patent portfolio.

Blog 2: Week of January 28: Why IEOR 190G?

I am taking IEOR 190G because I am interested in learning more about technology, specifically about wireless mobile device patents. While my technical background is not as strong as some of my peers who are majoring in computer science or electrical engineering, I hope to learn more the infrastructure that allows consumers to use wireless devices, the different patents that grant companies such as Apple, Samsung, or Amazon competitive advantages over one another, and how litigation plays a role in giving companies inorganic advantages.

One of my goals for this class is to leverage my interest in business with the information I gain in IEOR 190G to gain a holistic perspective on wireless mobile devices, an industry that has defined consumer technology ever since the introduction of the iPhone in 2007.

Blog 1: Week of January 28

My name is Christopher Chen, and I am a student at UC Berkeley. I was born and raised in San Diego, but spent a few years on the East Coast in New Jersey and North Carolina. I grew up playing piano and tennis competitively, and I decided to come to Berkeley to get a change of scenery from Southern California. I am constantly amused by reading about patent legal battles between Apple and the rest of the world, hedge fund managers taking massive positions against each other (Herbalife), and watching a company's stock price go into free-fall once David Einhorn gets quoted in the WSJ. I am involved with the Undergraduate Finance Association on campus and enjoy playing board games and solving Rubik's Cubes in my spare time.