Post 10- Clarification on Definition of Patent Troll

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5IlhYHdQjr0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Today, we reviewed the definition of a patent troll and Uzi Aloush, our guest lecturer, clarified that a patent troll was somebody or some company that goes after other companies seeking damages for intellectual property infringement when they have no products of their own and, most importantly, when the plaintiff knows that there has in fact been no infringement and most often they are just seeking a settlement, which the defendants would often pay to avoid the hefty costs of litigation; hence they are trolls.
I'm glad we got this clarification because before I thought the term was more broad and applied to more NPE's.

Post 9- Uzi Aloush Guest Lecture

I really enjoyed Uzi Aloush's guest lecture today and it was really interesting getting a close look at these two different patents. I hadn't really ever looked at a patent before and I had no idea there were so many claims and that each claim had multiple elements. In particular, we looked closely at Claim 1 for each patent, and we spent a lot of time examining them and getting sense out of them. It was really cool getting a close look at the structure of a patent and I'm excited that we're learning about them--we'll probably be encountering a lot more of these so today's lecture was good exposure.

Post 8- One Patent Case is Enough

Professor Lavian sent us this article <http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/apple-samsung-judge-says-she-may-put-second-patent-case-on-hold/2013/02/15/7bc0f8b2-7730-11e2-b102-948929030e64_print.html> about Apple and Samsung's patent litigation cases. The article discussed how Apple and Samsung's current patent case may be put on hold in order to finish the appeal process for an August verdict that awarded Apple over 1.05 billion dollars. It's interesting that these two companies have multiple patent litigation suits with each other, especially given the intimacy of their supplier-buyer relationship. I wonder at what point they will be allowed to resume discussion over the case. I'll elaborate on this in my Youtube video this week.

Post 7- Apple losing smartphone war?

I just read an interesting article about Apple potentially losing the smartphone war. The article discussed Apple's lack of innovating changes made to the original iPhone that was released in 2007, citing a slightly lighter phone, bigger screen, and Siri as the most revolutionizing updates, which, according to the author, are very limited advances, and he claims that Samsung with the Galaxy S III has shot right past Apple. Among other reasons, bigger screens are an important priority for smartphone users and according to the author, the iPhone 5 doesn't quite cut it, and unless they make bigger screens, he thinks Apple will lose the smartphone war. Article is right here: http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/beerfiles/58739-apple-has-already-lost-the-smartphone-war

Post 6-Apple vs. Samsung

I read this article (http://news.msn.com/science-technology/stalemate-between-apple-samsung-in-smartphone-wars) about Apple and Samsung competing in the consumer electronics industries and it stood out to me that the article hinted that "smartphone patent wars are now grinding toward a stalemate" because it still seems to me that this is a multi-billion dollar industry and the fact that Apple may not have been able to prove without a doubt that Samsung's infringements hurt Apple sales should not signify the stalemate of the smartphone patent war.

It stood out to me when we went over the different areas that someone can make patent for, including operating systems and software, semiconductors and electronics, data and speech coding, QWERTY keyboard, etc. As we learned in class, pretty much anything under the sun can be patented. I look forward to learning more about the different varieties of patents including design, plant, and utility patents.

Post 4- Vringo Suing Microsoft for IP Infringement

I just read an article about how a company called Vringo is now suing Microsoft for intellectual property infringement for 2 patents that relate to the ad placements on search results. Last year, Vringo was awarded $30 million in damages by Google, AOL, Gannett, IAC and Target, but they had originally sued for damages stacking up as high as $700 million. The CTO/President created one of the patents and it really struck me how much value he is bringing to his organization. I’ll expand more on this on my Youtube channel by the end of the week, at http://www.youtube.com/user/MrNoahHandel/

Post 3- Week 2's Lecture

I thought this week's lecture was very fascinating, particularly when we discussed recognizing different types of intellectual property and how it can vary in form, e.g. trademarks, logos, copyrights, trade secrets, etc. It was interesting learning how these patents can sometimes even be the reason for mergers and acquisitions, like with Google buying Motorola. I will expand on this in my Youtube video blog by the end of this week, at http://www.youtube.com/user/MrNoahHandel/