Social Media and Learning

As mentioned previously, it has been almost 4 months since I started this blog. It was a really fun experience for me, and also the first time I had to record a video of myself talking to a screen. While I knew it wasn't going to be easy in the beginning, recordings got easier as the weeks progressed. Having watched so many webcasts on YouTube previously, it was nice to experience firsthand how it felt.

Honestly, I spend hours watching YouTube on daily basis. With so much content online and many talking about technology, there is a lot to learn. Sometimes, I see comments on mistakes made in the recording, which are promptly corrected by the uploader. It is a win-win solution as we get more accurate information. However, I learnt that we need to show prudence in taking in what we read. Apart from satirical posts which are purposely inaccurate, many posts contain mistakes or presents a skewed view. It is up to us to judge what is correct for even those backed by experiments could be inaccurate.

Because I am interested in learning as much as possible, this easy availability of resources online is sometimes a detriment for me. I am still contented with in class learning, as it is goes more in depth than what we can learn online. There are too many topics to choose and I tend to avoid topics as they go more in depth, which also becomes more boring. Materials online are sometimes difficult to delve deep into because it takes experience working with problems to assimilate the knowledge. Thus, I firmly believe social media aids in keeping us well informed with the world's progress, and could get us excited enough to learn more. However, it is meant to complement institutional learning and not override it completely.

Finally, I would like to thank everyone for reading my blog, and posting all the comments. I do appreciate all of them, even though they are part of our homework requirement! =)

Semester Reflections

It's reaching the end of the semester, and also brings my overseas exchange experience close to an end (I'll be flying back to Singapore immediately after my exams). While patents are not often discussed in Singapore, if any at all, it was really interesting to learn about the US patent system. The pace of the class was slow, but we had to spend a lot of time out of class scouring through the content that is available online to find out more. It is actually pretty nice in this aspect, as we can better relate the seemingly simple concepts (which is really complicated sometimes) to past and current issues which shape the world. Patents did make or break companies, and helped push innovation to the next level, retiring those who fail to catch up. Some companies unfortunately fall prey to trolls but I guess that's part and parcel of life. Nevertheless, the future seems optimistic with actions being taking to mitigate these issues.

I also believe the experience from taking this class will change how I view technology firms in future. I understood how companies sue one another to protect themselves or to profiteer, but I did not previously know on what basis were they suing one another with. The way lawsuit proceedings are usually published on papers make it seem simply that it is either a bad or a good case but there are more than meets the eye which make some cases so long drawn.

Also, to add on, I find it really difficult to read about ongoing patent cases (especially in the beginning) because of the numerous technical terms involved. It required a lot of effort researching to decipher articles and then blog about them, which I did nonetheless as the articles were interesting. And, it was actually a self-satisfying when I got towards understanding the articles better, despite making mistakes every now and then. Thankfully, technology is so advanced now that everything can be done just in front of my laptop!

Silly Patents: Predicting your Death

I mentioned earlier that I would like to focus on silly food related patents. However, I found this patent so silly that I have to blog about it - the "Life Expectancy Timepiece". US Patent #5,031,161, in simple terms, is a watch which estimates when you will die.

Personally, I think the watch may end up further reducing your remaining lifetime. It is depressing. Instead of focusing on living your life to the fullest, you get reminded of every second of life you have remaining - if it is even accurate in the first place. Moreover, there have been cases where terminally ill patients recover, at least slightly, when they live life positively. Positive thinking leads to a stronger immune system whereas negative thinking does the opposite, even culminating into depression.

Back to the invention, the inventor supports his timepiece by stating that insurance companies routinely updates the actuarial table of average lifespan based on factors such as smoking, alcohol consumption and family (genetic) history. His invention thus includes the ability to program these factors and other habits and events in the user's life to predict his remaining time. Although I understand the need for insurance companies to know the average life expectancy in order to price their products appropriately, but would any single individual have a need for such knowledge? Sure, we go find fortune tellers to predict it, among other things, but I believe it is mostly to find peace and assurance.

Sources:
http://www.funnypatentsandinventions.com/great-invention-idea-watch-that-predicts-your-death
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US5031161.pdf

Silly Patents: Control-Freak Fork

One other patent which caught my attention was US Patent #5,421,089 - "Fork with Timer". Basically, the fork has some circuitry on itself which cues the user when to take another bite. It even has a replaceable power source.

Personally, I find it being a useless invention, and hopefully you  guys agree with me. I do not see any way a fork would be able to dictate when we should it, as we can easily choose to ignore it. In the patent, it states that "getting a person to slow down is difficult, as it takes conscious thought to eat slowly when hungry". However, supposing someone did purchase this fork, there is no punishment mechanism to stop the person from eating too fast as well.

It is also pretty funny that in the patent's summary, it mentions the invention "has all the advantages of the prior art, and none of the disadvantages", when comparing with prior fork related inventions. Certainly, I can think of some disadvantages already - the need to replace the power source and the annoyance when the fork sounds its alarm, to name a few - and that is considering if somebody actually purchased it in the first place. It probably would not come at an attractive pricing given its numerous parts over a simple fork made of just one material. Do let me know what you think about this invention! I would certainly be interested to hear your thoughts.

EDIT: I did another search on the fork, and found out that there is actually another fork (HAPIfork) which vibrates and flashes, and even comes with a corresponding app to track your eating habits! There is also a fondue fork with timer (US Patent #8,503,268). I am at a lost for words right now, so I'll just let you decide whether it is actually a good idea.

Sources:
http://www.funnypatentsandinventions.com/a-fork-that-tells-you-when-to-eat-great-idea
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US5421089.pdf
http://www.shape.com/blogs/shape-your-life/put-fork-eating-too-quickly
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US8503268.pdf

Silly Patents: Edible Garments?

This week, we saw some examples of absurd patents in class. After doing a search online, I chanced upon even more silly patents. Since I enjoy food, I decided to blog about some patents related to eating.

First off is US Patent #6,872,119 - "Garments having Edible Components and Methods for Making Same". The invention claims candies with a hole in the center which can be strung by portions of the clothes, such as by the laces of a bikini or hoodie, bag strap, and even the ankle strap of a stiletto! Although I have seen things like chocolate clothes on the runway and even Lady Gaga's meat dress, I would have thought of these being limited to artistic pleasure instead of being patented. It is highly unlikely anyone would infringe on the patent.

In addition, the candy would become sticky when exposed to moisture, and be pretty gross to even consider eating. What's worse are those that have direct contact with the skin, such as the bikini and shoes!

It is also interesting that there are many prior art cited and after doing a quick search, I found that most are largely unrelated to the invention. Some of them are even cited by the examiner himself. It is likely they were mentioned to supposedly add more "credibility" to the invention and justify its approval.

Sources:

http://www.funnypatentsandinventions.com/edible-garments-great-idea

http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=06872119&IDKey=F6501A0DFC1A%0D%0A&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPALL%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D2FPTO%25252Fsrchnum.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3D6872119.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2F6872119%2526RS%3DPN%2F6872119

Definitions Part II

Remember I had a post explaining some of the legal terminologies used in legal cases? I read through an article on Patently-O and it left me more puzzled than ever. Thus, I will be explaining some of the legal terms used. Hopefully, upon reading my post then the article, you can make more sense out of it too! Do correct me if I am wrong in explaining some of the points.

Declaratory Judgment
It is simply a judgment that resolves legal uncertainty. Also known as a declaration or declaratory relief, a declaratory judgment is usually sought in situations involving contracts, deeds, leases, and wills, as well as determining rights of individuals or parties under specific laws. It is a legally binding and future similar issues will following the existing judgment. However, it does not require any actions to be taken, i.e. damages and injunction. Thus, the declaratory judgment updates and improves on existing law to address different scenarios, and sometimes also cover possible loopholes.

Jurisdiction
Although this term is pretty well understood and common used even in normal English ("Sorry, this is not within my jurisdiction"), its use in the article did confuse me ("found jurisdiction", "triggering declaratory judgment jurisdiction", "creating jurisdiction"). You can basically replace the word with 'power', and things begin to make sense, or does it always? You could also try replacing it with "power of the court" or "(an) area of control" and it should become clear.

Induced and Contributory Infringement
Induced infringement and contributory infringement are actually two different types of infringement although they both fall under the category of indirect infringement. If someone is involved in some conduct leading to direct infringement (the usual infringement), he could be indirectly infringing a patent. If someone "actively and knowingly" cause someone else to infringe on a patent, he is said to have induced infringement. If no active steps such as by requesting or even forcing was taken and the direct infringer made the decision himself leading to the infringement, there is no induced infringement.

Contributory infringement, on the other hand, happens when something less than the whole invention is sold. If that something has no other substantial purpose apart from for the invention, then the seller is a contributory infringer. For example, if someone makes and sells an aircraft engine which when combined with other parts infringe a plane invention, he is a contributory infringer since there is no other substantial purpose for the engine (its use in reality or comedy shows as part of an obstacle course obviously does not count).

Sources:
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/04/microsoft-declaratory-jurisdiction.html
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/declaratory+judgment
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jurisdiction
http://www.quizlaw.com/patents/what_is_the_difference_between_1.php

Opinions on the News

Recently, we have seen a lot of satirical posts online. Some, despite being so ridiculous, are believed to be true by some readers. Nevertheless, they are satirical and most take them as jokes. However, what about articles on legitimate papers which paint the wrong picture? (Truth be told, it actually happens pretty frequently) Recently, two opinion articles, "Slowing the Patent Trolls" and "Abusive and Frivolous Patent Suits", were published on The New York Times Opinion Pages and their inaccuracies were disputed by Michael Borella and Dennis Crouch respectively. I'll briefly summarise about the points that were inaccurate in the former here.

With the current ongoing debate over software patents' patentability, instead of being granted easily, "computer-implemented inventions are held to a higher standard than most other types of inventions due to these additional requirements". While we might tend to agree that software patents should not be granted, the complexity of some software patents, or how the claims actually are, may make them patentable. This complexity is one of the reasons the topic is still debated, and simple examples may not help to paint the full picture.

Another interesting point Borella noted is that the US's patent system "purposely encourages the existence of non-practicing entities by making patent property rights freely assignable and eschewing a "working" requirement". This does highlight the point that patent trolls buy patents from numerous individuals and then use some of them to sue those who "infringe", regardless whether the patent is good or bad. Although addressing this issue could mitigate the problem, it also makes it difficult for proper and legitimate businesses from acquiring patents from others especially as a form of defense, when they do not actually use the patents except in litigation.

Certainly, the topic of patents is broad and complicated, as well as constantly evolving. Although the posts were inaccurate and posted at the wrong places, it does show the rising awareness about patents which could still buy the news some grace.

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/opinion/slowing-the-patent-trolls.html
http://www.patentdocs.org/2014/03/new-york-times-op-ed-argues-law-takes-misguided-approach-to-software-patents.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/opinion/abusive-and-frivolous-patent-suits.html?ref=opinion
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/04/fee-shifting.html