Here is what I want to bring about the history of patent war: the Wright brothers patent war. This case just shows the central argument of whether patents really fortified its main purpose: to reward inventors and to encourage more inventions. As we all know, the Wright brothers had invented and built the world's first flyable airplane and making the first controlled, powered and sustained heavier-than-air human flight on December 17, 1903. This revolutionary and world-changing invention, of course, was granted as one of the most valuable patent. In fact, their patent - the 3-axes flight control of pitch, roll and yaw are still being use as even in the most advance aircraft nowadays.
This U.S. Patent 821393 specified their flight control system . Since this invention was so fundamental, other foreign and domestic aviators and companies, especially another U.S. aviation pioneer, Glenn Curtiss, adopted a very similar flight control system in their airplane designs. The first sign of the patent war started in 1908, when the Wrights brothers warned Glenn Curtiss not to infringe their patent by profiting from flying or selling aircraft. But Curtiss refused to pay license fees to the Wrights and sold an airplane to the Aeronautic Society of New York in the next year after Wrights warning. The Wright brothers filed lawsuits to multiple aviators including Curtiss, beginning a years-long legal conflict. While Wright brothers got their full victory in US courts, they were only partly successful in European courts. Legal maneuvering dragged in France until the patent expired in 1917. Meanwhile, German court ruled the patent not valid due to prior disclosure in speeches by Wright (thus the content of the invention was no longer new/latest). Still, the Wright brother patent war suppressed aviation development in the U.S. to such an extent that when the country entered World War I, no acceptable American-designed aircraft were available, and U.S. forces were compelled to use French machines.
Ultimately, US government, which desperately needed more aircraft for its entering of WWI, proposed a patent pool solution between the Wright Company and the Curtiss Company. A committee formed by president Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Assistant Secretary of the Navy pressured the industry to form a cross-licensing organization, the Manufacturer's Aircraft Association. This arrangement was designed to last only for the duration of the war, but in 1918, the litigation was never renewed. And the patent war ended as the death of Wright brothers.
The lawsuits damaged the public image of the Wright brothers, who previously had been generally regarded as heroes. This patent war also led to a government-enforced patent pool. Despite the wireless device industry today is a totally different situation from the aviation industry in the early 20th century, I think the industry should learn from the mistake and avoid falling into the same path as the patent war started by the Wright brothers, where lawsuits ultimately hurts the industry.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Post 8 History of Patent Law (and War) Part 2
The industrial revolution accelerated the system of patents. It was widely adopted by various countries. The United States introduced its first Patent laws in 1790 and France in 1791. The signing of the Paris Convention internationalized the patent system in 1883. Under the Paris Convention, an applicant can file a patent application for the invention in any of the Paris Convention ember countries within one year of the filing of the first filed patent application.
Once there were patent laws, there would be patent wars. In 1834, Walter Hunt built America's first sewing machine. He later lost interest in patenting because he believed his invention would cause unemployment. Hunt never patented and in 1846, the first American patent was issued to Elias Howe for "a process that used thread from two different sources." However, sewing machines did not go into mass production until the 1850's, until later Isaac Singer built the first commercially successful machine. Singer built the first sewing machine where the needle moved up and down rather than the side-to-side and the needle was powered by a foot treadle. Previous machines were all hand-cranked. However, Isaac Singer's machine used the same lockstitch that Howe had patented.That led to extensive patent litigation between Howe and Singer.
A series of court battles in the 1850s conclusively gave Elias Howe the patent rights for his sewing machine because of the lockstitch patent. If Walter Hunt had patented his invention, Elias Howe would have lost his case and Isaac Singer would have won. Since he lost, Isaac Singer had to pay Elias Howe patent royalties. This was one of the first "patent war" that result in success of the patent holder.
Post 7 History of Patent Law (and War) Part 1
Since we don't have class yesterday and thus we don't have a specific topic to talk about, I am thinking why not dig in to the history of patent. So according to the wiki page of History of Patent Law, patent laws are considered to have started in Italy with a Venetian Statute of 1474 which was issued by the Republic of Venice. This Statute, regarding the quality of clothing and related apparel (Well, I guess that's why fashion brands like Gucci, Prada and Armani are Italian), also included the law that "anyone who invented a new machine that processes the threads and materials into quality garments more productively or efficiently must disclose their invention to the proper authorities in order to obtain protection from possible infringements for a given period of time."
But interestingly, patents did exist before the first establishment of patent law. John of Utynam was granted the first recorded patent in 1449 and was awarded a 20-year monopoly for a stained glass-making process previously unknown in England. Although this might be the first recorded patent, there was no documents left recording how successful is the patented process, or whether it had been enforced to prevent infringement.
But interestingly, patents did exist before the first establishment of patent law. John of Utynam was granted the first recorded patent in 1449 and was awarded a 20-year monopoly for a stained glass-making process previously unknown in England. Although this might be the first recorded patent, there was no documents left recording how successful is the patented process, or whether it had been enforced to prevent infringement.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Post 6 Rethink the definition of Patentability
This is actually from the powerpoint slides Professor Lavian provided. It's about the fact that Apple gets design patent on virtual page turning, but doesn't own the page turn. That makes me rethink what is patent, and how it may affect the development of something we thought to be very natural.
So what is this US patent D670,713 that claimed by Apple as a patent for virtual page turning? The patent specify that the bottom-right corner is being pulled to lead the way and that the paper is folding over at a fairly consistent angle along its length. The animation ends at the flipped bottom-right corner reaches the bottom-left.
Obviously Apple cannot extend the patent to the page turn animations, so it is a non-factor to potential patent war. But I question the innovations behind this patent since page turning seems to be the most natural physical form that humans do since the invention of printing press in 1450. Since when animations of real life motions can be registered as a patent?
If simple animations of daily life motions can be patented, that may lead to the end of animated media industry. Just imagine the animated motions of loading ammo to the gun in those first-personal shooter games, or the motions of the car racing on the street leaving traces on the road are being patented. That means the most accurate, natural motion physics cannot be reproduced and appeared in other media/products. It makes me wonder, while patents are about innovations and ideas, are the patenting of virtual animations adapting "idea/motion" of real life legit? Sure it takes time and dedications to make the animations looks like objects/motions in real life, but with the fact that the functions of patents are to protect inventors and promote innovations, I think my answer is no.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Post 5 Blackberry Z10 - Next trigger for a new patent war?
As you may know, two of the most dominating smartphone before the emerge of iPhone and Android-platformed smartphones are produced by Nokia and Blackberry. Now both companies found themselves struggling to gain back the market share of the smartphone industries. Nokia, well, is launching its Lumia series loaded with Microsoft mobile platform, hoping to fight back from at most 5.4% of the market share since Feb 2012 (as shown in the image below).
Meanwhile, Blackberry loaded with RIM OS is still holding its ground, and is still quite popular among business users. However, it's been a while since its had a growth in the smartphone market. The latest product of Blackberry, Z10, bears the hope to win back its users. Note that this product has already suffers from endless series of delays from an April 2012 release all the way to Jan 2013. So what's the spec of this new phone from Blackberry?
The BlackBerry Z10 is the first BlackBerry smartphone to feature a dual-core processor. There will be 2 GB of internal RAM. The Z10 also claims to feature a display of higher resolution than Apple’s “Retina” technology while also incorporating an 8-megapixel auto-focus camera with backside illumination (BSI) and a 2-megapixel camera for use in video conferencing. However, many engineers and tech analysts agree that Z10 "seems to incorporate many of the component selections of the Samsung Galaxy S3 LTE." In fact, from this detailed breakdown, many of the components used by Z10, is in fact, manufactured by Samsung. I am very curious about the reaction of Samsung about the resemble of Galaxy S3's IC designs and the applications of 4G LTE chips from Qualcomm. Will there be another series of lawsuit coming?
The story does not end here, Z10 has a rectangular shape with rounded corners, a black box, and an icon with a telephone, three of the design patents infringed in the Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit. Although undeniably Blackberry finally makes a step to make a more conventional smartphone for general market, I am not certain about how Blackberry will handle waves of potential lawsuits as the product releases. What do you think? Please comment :)
 |
| Nokia and Blackberry are struggling, obviously |
Meanwhile, Blackberry loaded with RIM OS is still holding its ground, and is still quite popular among business users. However, it's been a while since its had a growth in the smartphone market. The latest product of Blackberry, Z10, bears the hope to win back its users. Note that this product has already suffers from endless series of delays from an April 2012 release all the way to Jan 2013. So what's the spec of this new phone from Blackberry?
The BlackBerry Z10 is the first BlackBerry smartphone to feature a dual-core processor. There will be 2 GB of internal RAM. The Z10 also claims to feature a display of higher resolution than Apple’s “Retina” technology while also incorporating an 8-megapixel auto-focus camera with backside illumination (BSI) and a 2-megapixel camera for use in video conferencing. However, many engineers and tech analysts agree that Z10 "seems to incorporate many of the component selections of the Samsung Galaxy S3 LTE." In fact, from this detailed breakdown, many of the components used by Z10, is in fact, manufactured by Samsung. I am very curious about the reaction of Samsung about the resemble of Galaxy S3's IC designs and the applications of 4G LTE chips from Qualcomm. Will there be another series of lawsuit coming?
The story does not end here, Z10 has a rectangular shape with rounded corners, a black box, and an icon with a telephone, three of the design patents infringed in the Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit. Although undeniably Blackberry finally makes a step to make a more conventional smartphone for general market, I am not certain about how Blackberry will handle waves of potential lawsuits as the product releases. What do you think? Please comment :)
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Post 4 Trade Secrets? Or no secret?
Happy Chinese New Year! Today I am going to share some thoughts about trade secrets. First, let's define trade secrets. From the TRIPS agreement, trade secret is defined as information that:
For small/medium-size companies, trades secrets are particularly important since their resources are no match to large corporations. However, trade secrets also weight heavy in the eyes of large corporations. It is a common sense that tech companies, like Intel, Apple or Google will classify their product R&D information as their trade secrets. But trade secrets are actually beyond that. For instance, Intel treats their fabrication yield (how many chips are function per wafer) as their top secret. By knowing the fabrication yield, people can predict how much Intel profit from these chips. Also the information on fabrication yield may reveal possible methodologies of Intel chip manufacturing. Leakage of these trade secrets will directly harm companies by letting their opponents to gain unfair advantages.
But as professor Lavian mentioned in the class, some companies, like Apple, always appear to have information leak that considered as "trade secret." Whether it is intentional for advertising effect or not, the fact that trade secrets are hardly to be kept in secret, makes me wonder how companies actually "value" their trade secrets. In my opinion, legal actions on violating trade secrets are much less effective than those on patent infringement. Don't get me wrong, law enforcement of violating trade secrets are very effective individually. But the targets of the legal actions on trade secret violations are never on the companies which gather these trade secrets, since that are incredibly hard to provide strong and clear evidence that the information/data is, in fact, not original. That means the companies that have their trade secrets leaked, usually cannot cover up their losses. And that really makes me rethink the importance of patent, with the truth that, you can't guarantee today's trade secrets of yours, are still your trade secrets of tomorrow.
- is not generally known to the public;
- confers some sort of economic benefit on its holder (where this benefit must derive specifically from its not being generally known, not just from the value of the information itself);
- is the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.
For small/medium-size companies, trades secrets are particularly important since their resources are no match to large corporations. However, trade secrets also weight heavy in the eyes of large corporations. It is a common sense that tech companies, like Intel, Apple or Google will classify their product R&D information as their trade secrets. But trade secrets are actually beyond that. For instance, Intel treats their fabrication yield (how many chips are function per wafer) as their top secret. By knowing the fabrication yield, people can predict how much Intel profit from these chips. Also the information on fabrication yield may reveal possible methodologies of Intel chip manufacturing. Leakage of these trade secrets will directly harm companies by letting their opponents to gain unfair advantages.
But as professor Lavian mentioned in the class, some companies, like Apple, always appear to have information leak that considered as "trade secret." Whether it is intentional for advertising effect or not, the fact that trade secrets are hardly to be kept in secret, makes me wonder how companies actually "value" their trade secrets. In my opinion, legal actions on violating trade secrets are much less effective than those on patent infringement. Don't get me wrong, law enforcement of violating trade secrets are very effective individually. But the targets of the legal actions on trade secret violations are never on the companies which gather these trade secrets, since that are incredibly hard to provide strong and clear evidence that the information/data is, in fact, not original. That means the companies that have their trade secrets leaked, usually cannot cover up their losses. And that really makes me rethink the importance of patent, with the truth that, you can't guarantee today's trade secrets of yours, are still your trade secrets of tomorrow.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Post 3 Power of Patent - Qualcomm
Hi everyone, sorry for not updating anything for a few days. Seriously, I am still developing the habit to blog... Today I am going to discuss how patents help tech companies to have their edge in their industries. Since this class, IEOR190G, is about wireless devices, so let me start with a company which provide chips for smartphones and mobile devices - Qualcomm.
For those who don't know Qualcomm, it is a fabless chip design company founded in 1985 by Irwin Jacobs and Andrew Viterbi. The company is famous for Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) chips, which in fact, is still the dominant technology for telecommunications nowadays. The current CEO of the company, Paul Jacobs is our fellow alumnus graduating in 1989 with a Ph.D. in EECS. Qualcomm has been doing really well recently, with the global trend of the increasing sales of smartphones and wireless communication devices. Qualcomm (San Diego) reported record quarterly sales of $6.02 billion, up 24 percent from the previous quarter and up 29 percent compared with the year ago quarter. The company reported a net income for the quarter of $2.2 billion, up 42 percent from the previous quarter. Why it has such an awesome performance?
From the news that Qualcomm has lifts sales target after record quarter, Paul Jacobs, the CEO of Qualcomm, said Qualcomm now has more than 225 CDMA licensees. “We continue to invest and innovate across a broad set of technologies and believe that our patent portfolio applicable to 3G and 4G products is the most widely licensed in the industry,” Jacobs said.
This shows the importance of patents for tech companies to sustain their competitiveness. It would be interesting to see if it can maintain its aggressive expansion in patent development, and how would it further affect the company sales.
For those who don't know Qualcomm, it is a fabless chip design company founded in 1985 by Irwin Jacobs and Andrew Viterbi. The company is famous for Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) chips, which in fact, is still the dominant technology for telecommunications nowadays. The current CEO of the company, Paul Jacobs is our fellow alumnus graduating in 1989 with a Ph.D. in EECS. Qualcomm has been doing really well recently, with the global trend of the increasing sales of smartphones and wireless communication devices. Qualcomm (San Diego) reported record quarterly sales of $6.02 billion, up 24 percent from the previous quarter and up 29 percent compared with the year ago quarter. The company reported a net income for the quarter of $2.2 billion, up 42 percent from the previous quarter. Why it has such an awesome performance?
From the news that Qualcomm has lifts sales target after record quarter, Paul Jacobs, the CEO of Qualcomm, said Qualcomm now has more than 225 CDMA licensees. “We continue to invest and innovate across a broad set of technologies and believe that our patent portfolio applicable to 3G and 4G products is the most widely licensed in the industry,” Jacobs said.
This shows the importance of patents for tech companies to sustain their competitiveness. It would be interesting to see if it can maintain its aggressive expansion in patent development, and how would it further affect the company sales.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Post 2 My little thought about IEOR190G and patents in general
Greetings everyone, I got sick for a while during the weekends (and being lazy too) -.- Anyway, I am going to share some quick thoughts on this patent engineering course. First, I am absolutely curious how far we will go into the tech side of patent engineering. I mean, there is a engineering specialized path as referred as the patent engineer, so theoretically the class can become pretty technical. The main goal of this course, I believe, is to get some introductory insight to the technical aspect of patent prosecution. I agree that the rapid evolving wireless/mobile industry is the right topic to study patent engineering. There are lots to cover, from the IC design up to the UI design would be very interesting topics to discuss about patents.
As for my personal goal in this course, I hope I can know about patentability of inventions/designs. To my understanding, patents are applicable to the new designs/inventions if and only if there are engineering applications. Obviously there are many cases that inventions have been put into categories of either "physics/science" (physically), or "protocol" (virtually). So there is why patents are very special to engineers, since it is a unique system that most engineers would be dealing with.
In fact, my main motivation to take the IEOR 190G is to understand how to incorporate engineering patents into research/product designs. I can imagine the following situation:
Two ambitious intern engineers in the middle of night...
Intern Engineer A: "B, we stuck here for 3 hours. I can't think of anything to solve this."
Intern Engineer B, get so used to the college style of solving problems, said, "Let's google it!"
Well, all they find are patents of competitor companies...
Intern Engineer A&B: "%*&^#@!"
So hopefully I can learn some technique how use patents in engineering application too, like avoiding infringement of a competitor’s patent, or using your own patents as business assets to negotiate with other patent holders. Well, that's about it :)
As for my personal goal in this course, I hope I can know about patentability of inventions/designs. To my understanding, patents are applicable to the new designs/inventions if and only if there are engineering applications. Obviously there are many cases that inventions have been put into categories of either "physics/science" (physically), or "protocol" (virtually). So there is why patents are very special to engineers, since it is a unique system that most engineers would be dealing with.
In fact, my main motivation to take the IEOR 190G is to understand how to incorporate engineering patents into research/product designs. I can imagine the following situation:
Two ambitious intern engineers in the middle of night...
Intern Engineer A: "B, we stuck here for 3 hours. I can't think of anything to solve this."
Intern Engineer B, get so used to the college style of solving problems, said, "Let's google it!"
Well, all they find are patents of competitor companies...
Intern Engineer A&B: "%*&^#@!"
So hopefully I can learn some technique how use patents in engineering application too, like avoiding infringement of a competitor’s patent, or using your own patents as business assets to negotiate with other patent holders. Well, that's about it :)
Friday, February 1, 2013
Post 1 Introduction - Operation "Hello World"
Ok, let me confess two things first: one, I am not entirely a social media guy and two, as you will inevitably find out in my following posts, that I am definitely not a good writer. So please forgive my bad English. Of course, I would be greatly appreciate if you buy my excuses as a "English as a secondary language" student.
Now you know two things about me, but I guess you are not giving up yet. I will try to make it short. I was born in Hong Kong. I lived in this lovely city for 17 years until my family decided to immigrate to the United States. Despite all the unknowns, I was actually pretty excited at that time. The path of pursing a career as an engineer became clear once I was no longer bounded by the narrow engineering/science career opportunities in Hong Kong. Instead of finishing my high school education as a 12th grade student, I studied in a local community college for 3 years. In my three years of studying in community college, I developed a diverse, yet solid foundation in the preparation for engineering careers. And the next turning point of my life: going to UC Berkeley. I had to admit that UC Berkeley was on my "impossible list" when I first came and study in community college as a high school student that still taking ESL classes. But fate still rewarded my hard work over the course of 3 year community college life (in a total of 109 units!) to let me have the chance to study in the best public university in the world as a junior transfer. Of course none of my classes took in community college would be as in-depth and competitive as the classes offered in UC Berkeley, but I guess the office of undergrad admission was pretty impressed with the diversity and completeness of the courses that I had taken. I admitted as a junior, joint majoring in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science/Material Science and Engineering. As my major indicates, my main focuses will be on circuit design, device physics and material science aspects of electronic designs.
I took this class because I am working towards the CET Concentration in Engineering Leadership curriculum. However, I am also very interested in knowing more about patents in electronic technologies. I believe that a good knowledge of patents helps individually as an engineer/researcher, but it also helps in the aspects of product designs. I am looking forward to learn more and apply what I learned in my future career.
Now you know two things about me, but I guess you are not giving up yet. I will try to make it short. I was born in Hong Kong. I lived in this lovely city for 17 years until my family decided to immigrate to the United States. Despite all the unknowns, I was actually pretty excited at that time. The path of pursing a career as an engineer became clear once I was no longer bounded by the narrow engineering/science career opportunities in Hong Kong. Instead of finishing my high school education as a 12th grade student, I studied in a local community college for 3 years. In my three years of studying in community college, I developed a diverse, yet solid foundation in the preparation for engineering careers. And the next turning point of my life: going to UC Berkeley. I had to admit that UC Berkeley was on my "impossible list" when I first came and study in community college as a high school student that still taking ESL classes. But fate still rewarded my hard work over the course of 3 year community college life (in a total of 109 units!) to let me have the chance to study in the best public university in the world as a junior transfer. Of course none of my classes took in community college would be as in-depth and competitive as the classes offered in UC Berkeley, but I guess the office of undergrad admission was pretty impressed with the diversity and completeness of the courses that I had taken. I admitted as a junior, joint majoring in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science/Material Science and Engineering. As my major indicates, my main focuses will be on circuit design, device physics and material science aspects of electronic designs.
I took this class because I am working towards the CET Concentration in Engineering Leadership curriculum. However, I am also very interested in knowing more about patents in electronic technologies. I believe that a good knowledge of patents helps individually as an engineer/researcher, but it also helps in the aspects of product designs. I am looking forward to learn more and apply what I learned in my future career.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)