TED Talk Discussion #2

In this post I will be discussing another TED Talk titled “Kirby Ferguson: Embrace the remix.”

I will be discussing the 5 main points that Charles places emphasis on, so I would love to hear your comments!

1. Infringement can be mistaken for a Remix: Copy, Transform, and Combine are the basic elements
2. Ferguson believes that everything is a remix, and uses multiple examples of similar sounding songs to depict this phenomenon.  He uses the example of Bob Dylan, who was said to have very similar music to previous works. 
3. Patent Law often times goes against what it was originally intended for as stated by the Patent Act of 1790: “An Act to promote the progress of useful Arts”
4. “Great Artists Steal, But not From Me”- He gives an example of Steve Jobs publicly saying in 1996 that stealing ideas was shameless, but later condemns Android in 2010 for using a “stolen product.”
5. Ferguson concludes with the final thought that creativity comes does not come from within, but is dependent on one another.  

TED Talk Discussion #1

Hello! Today I will be discussing the TED Talk titled “Drew Curtis: How I beat a patent troll.”

I will be discussing the 5 main points to take from this video, so let me know what you think!

1. One of the major problems with Patent Law is that the defendant must prove that they did not infringe on the patent.
2. When getting sued by a patent troll, you are likely to spend about $2 million dollars, and will have a settlement in an average time of 18 months.
3. Don’t Fight the Patent, Fight the Infringement- You should then decide what you want to pursue. i.e. (settlement, lawsuit, scare tactics) **DON’T NEGOTIATE WITH Patent trolls.
4. Patent Trolls place $25 Billion dollars more damage to overall wealth than Terrorist acts since 9/11.
5. A decent amount of the time, patent trolls with settle out of the case to gain funds to pursue other patents to troll.  

Silly Patent #2

DOG NOSE ART

United States Patent Application 20090188617

The kit and method of converting dog nose smudges deposited on a first surface into a form of dog nose art on a second surface.  In practical terms, the dog nose powder is applied to a dog’s nose then collected on a surface for artistic purposes.  Some people use the art as memories of beloved dogs that pass away.  

Validity: I tend to think that this patent is less silly for those who are huge dog enthusiasts. It is a valid idea as the art could possibly have buyers out there.

Anticipation:  I believe there was little anticipation for this art because it is fairly weird and obscure in my opinion, but there may be other views on this. 

Prior Art:  Prior Art would not apply as much in this case, as it is a fairly unique and specific invention. 

Obviousness: This patent is not obvious in my opinion.

Potential Infringement:  Infringement would include another practicing entity selling dog nose art; however, most of the infringement would most likely occur at the household level. 

Silly Patent #1

“Linear Putter Device of a Golf Club” US Patent Number 6659880

This putter involves a connecting rod that fits to person’s chin in order help move the putter in a linear fashion. This patent in the golf industry would definitely be considered silly and very much a gimmick.

Validity:  This patent is valid because it is novel and it is not obvious when it comes to golfers.  There could be some use for someone out there; however, most serious or even occasional golfers would find it to be silly.  

Anticipation: I believe there was little anticipation besides the fact there have been anchored putters to the belly and chest. 

Prior Art: Elongated putters and as listed above, anchored putters to the chest and abdomen are among the prior art. 

Obviousness: This putter that anchors to the chin would not be an obvious tool in golf. 

Potential Infringement: I do not believe that infringement on this product would be probable; however, if infringement were to occur, I doubt revenues from this product would make litigation worth it. 

Patent Trolls Protection Strategies

As discussed in my previous posts, patent trolls are non-practicing entities that seek to gain monetary value by asserting patents on practicing entities.  There are several things that companies do in order to deal with patent trolls, and this post will outline a few of these strategies.

1. When confronted with a patent troll, practicing entities will make sure to require detailed information about exactly is being infringed upon.    

2. Practicing entities will also employ resources to try to find any contradictions with the patent troll and the practice in question.  

3. Practicing entities will try to invalidate the patent altogether by finding a flaw in the patent's claims, reference to prior art, and any other discrepancy.  

4. Larger corporations will more money will draw out litigation and expenses in order to possibly deter the patent troll from continuing the lawsuit.  

5. Companies will often times try to make a lump-sum or other compensation deal out of the courtroom in order to save hassle and expenses. 

As you can see, there are several things that companies and practicing entities can do in order to combat and deal with patent trolls.  In addition, media coverage and exposure to patent trolls and their negative effects can also help curb some of the attacks.  It is necessary to understand that there are ways to effectively combat patent trolls!

Patent Trolls Examples

As discussed in the previous post, patent trolls attempt to profit by exercising their patents on practicing entities.  In this post, I will be displaying a few examples of patent trolls, as well as some interesting facts about companies who have been affected by patent trolls.

Patent Troll                   Company/Affected Entity                        Patent(s) in Question
1. Intellect Wireless         11 different Mobile Companies              "Wireless Messaging Patent"

2. Blackboard Inc.           Desire2Learn                                "System and Method of online learning"

3. Digitude Innovations   Multiple Software Companies        Several purchased patents from Apple

4. Lodsys                         Multiple Software Developers        "Customer-based product design module"

Patent trolls often target very large businesses, and occur more frequently than one might think.  These companies spend countless dollars during these lawsuits and must employ many resources in developing prevention techniques.  The figures below reflect the amount of times each company was sued in 2013 due to patent trolls.

1. AT&T- 54 times
2. Google- 43 times
3. Verizon- 42 times
4. Apple- 41 times

As you can see, these companies are dealing with patent litigation almost nonstop, which is startling in my opinion.  These figures display the absolute need to reform patent litigation and possibly the patent system as a whole.  Let me know what you guys think!

Patent Litigation by Non Practicing Entities

Patent litigation by non practicing entities are also referred to as patent trolls.  Patent trolls are entities, individuals, or companies whose main business focus is to assert their patents on practicing entities in order to acquire monetary gain.  There are a variety of reasons why patent trolls are prevalent, among which are people who do not have the funds to carry out their invention, people who invent purely to sue larger entities, and people who choose to pursue other endeavors aside from their patents.  There are several key aspects to these patent trolls that make them a nuisance for many large corporations. Among these are the fact that:

1. Patent Trolls can sue anyone, even customers, because they have no customer base that could be affected.
2. Patent Trolls also don't worry about countersuits because they usually do not make enough to be worth the lawsuit.

In addition, patent trolls slow down economic process.  When a patent troll does not exercise the right to use the patent, it creates an environment where no one can benefit from the patent; unless of course the practicing entity pays or comes to an agreement with the patent troll.  Often times the price is too high to make it worth it for the practicing entity, which prohibits the practice of the patent altogether.  There have been several suggestions for combatting patent trolls, among these are:

1. Have stricter guidelines for approving patents.
2. Force patent holders to pay a substantial fee to retain patents
3. Create a system where patent trolls must pay practicing entities' litigation fees should they lose the lawsuit.

I hope this gave you a good idea of patent trolls and I look forward to your comments!