Last Assignment – What I’ve Learned

Coming in to this class late, I had been hearing from a few of my peers about a class on patents and the patent industry.  As an economics major, it sounded a little foreign to me but I thought I would give it a chance and take the class.  Right away, we started moving into the role of NPE’s and patent trolls and their effect on the patent industry as well as the economy as a whole.  In a prior class I had taken at Cal, we focused on the legal proceedings regarding a plaintiff seeking damages from a defendant.  Many of the examples we discussed surrounded damages paid for patent infringement.  Even though I was learning the legal side of settlements, I did not fully understand the patent system as well as what can be termed “infringement”. 

With the help of this course, I was able to understand all the inner working of a patent infringement lawsuit.  Due to the ambiguous assignments where we were free to do our own research to put into our blogs, I found myself constantly looking up and analyzing more and more cases while becoming more informed and knowledgeable in the process.  Going back to my last blog post, this was a big learning moment for me outside the topic of patents.   Instead of being forced to study a specific topic or article that would be common in other courses, Tal let us be free in what we were to study.  By being able to read the articles I enjoyed and report on them, I found myself doing more and more research than I would have done if I didn’t enjoy the topic.  Further, I found myself more and more intrigued by the subject of patent litigation and now constantly check the latest headlines in infringement cases. 

Besides what Tal taught in class and the work I did on my own, I learned so much from all of my classmates.  Whether it was looking into an issue they had posted in their blogs or hearing their feedback on my posts, the discussions we had truly helped my understanding of the patent industry.  Once again, thank you to Tal as well as everyone else involved in this course.  I really appreciated all your contributions in my learning.

Thanks!!!

Last Assignment – The Use of Social Media in for Class

First off, I have to admit that I was a little skeptical about taking a class that was anything but conventional.  With no midterms or finals, I thought that taking this class with Tal would be completely boring and full of meaningless work.  However, I could not have been more incorrect with my assumptions.

Looking at all of the other classes I’ve taken at Cal, they pretty much followed the same rigorous syllabus and grading format.  Weekly readings and assignments followed by a few midterms, then an end of the year final.  Until taking this class, I thought this was the best way to learn.  Though that may be true for some other subjects such as math and science, the subjects of patents couldn’t be summed up the same.  Looking back at the semester as a whole and all the work we did in class, I can’t believe how much information I’ve retained on the subject.  Patents used to be a completely foreign concept to me, but now I feel that I can speak confidently when discussing the subject.

My favorite part of the class was the fact that we were consistently interacting with our classmates through social media.  Before college, I never even had a Facebook let alone a twitter, YouTube channel, and my own blog so communicating with others online was completely new to me.  I loved the idea of all the comments on the blog posts and video posts.  By hearing each other’s opinions and criticisms, I was able to focus on what I did right as well as the things I could improve on.  Whether it be the structure of my arguments or my understanding of a topic, it was very useful to hear comments from others that may or may not have the same understanding that I did.  Social media, in that way, greatly improved my understanding of learning about the topics discussed in class, as well as learning in general.  Thank you to Tal for forcing me to use these social platforms as well as to all the other students for your feedback on my work.  It has truly been a great semester and I look forward to potentially furthering my knowledge of patents with Tal in the future. 

Thanks!!

Assignment #12: Intangible Assets in the S&P 500

In this post, I will be discussing an article that touches on one of Efrat’s points regarding intangible assets in the S&P 500.  Below is the link to the article that I will be touching on.

http://www.equities.com/editors-desk/investing-strategies/alternative-investments/finding-the-84-of-stock-market-value-that-most-investors-ignore

 As Efrat showed in her presentation, as well as the chart I’ve included below, the amount of intangible assets in the US market has dramatically increased over time.

From 1975 til the present day, intangible assets have increase from 17% to 84%.  That’s almost a 500% increase over a 40 year period.  In this context, I use the term “intangible assets” as a way to describe things that will bring a future economic value that do not exist in physical space.  A perfect example to this is the value of intellectual property, such as copyrights and patents.  However, this article touches on different aspects than intellectual property, but that of human capital.

Milton Friedman, one of the most renowned economists in history, claimed that “total wealth includes all sources of ‘income’. One such source is the productive capacity of human beings.”  Instead of focusing on the actual values of patents themselves, I want to focus on the aspect of human capital.  Patents don’t just become filed and granted out of thin air, it takes brilliant minds to think of and develop some of the ideas that eventually become patented.  Aside from the large costs of R&D, the compensation paid to personnel such as developers, lawyers, etc. far exceed the tangible costs of developing a product. 

The article goes further in depth on human capital but I prefer to end my discussion where I have.  The rise of the value intangible assets in the market shows the level of innovation we are arising to.  With more and more innovators and developers attempting to patent their ideas, I would not be surprised to see the 84% rise even further over the next few years.  What do you think?

Thanks!

Assignment #12: Eastern Texas Cities in Patent Litigation

So for this post, I will be analyzing an article related to a topic well discussed in Monday’s class: The role of Eastern Texas in patent litigation.  Below is a link to the article.

http://www.chron.com/business/technology/article/Apple-sued-84-times-in-Texas-patent-courts-in-6-ye-6145522.php#photo-7681181

Dylan Baddour, the author of the article, begins by stating that Apple has both won and lost patent cases over the years, but six of their cases took place in the Eastern Texas cities such as Marshall and Tyler.  Historically, the towns have been seen as uneducated would therefore not fully understand the terms discussed in the cases.  Juries as well as judges have been criticized for being overly sympathetic to patent trolls and opposed by large corporations such as Apple or Samsung.  However, the pro-plaintiff sentiment from an uneducated jury is not the only reasoning for patent litigation being brought to the Lone Star State.

Michael Smith, an IP lawyer for many years, claims that patent cases are just easier to hold in the small cities of Texas. In a previous case he worked on with Texas Instruments,  he filed a case in Dallas only to being delayed and delayed due to the high criminal rate of the metropolitan town.  Marshall on the other hand, is not home to a prison nor a US attorney’s office.  With few criminal cases taking precedence over patent suits, cases were able to be heard much quicker and therefore at a cheaper cost.  After a successful first case, TI then ran its whole portfolio through Marshall courts. 

With more and more patent suits being filed in Marshall, the town court became one of the first members of the patent pilot program.  And with it, more and more cases found their way to Marshall and the town court became more and more experienced in patent law and litigation.  With more and more cases being brought to Marshall courts, the city began to reap the economic benefits with it.  More cases meant more lawyers in the town, who then spent money in bars, restaurants, and hotels.  Soon, major law firms decided to build large offices in the city and create jobs and boost city tax revenue.  So even though Marshall may be thought of as a plaintiff-pity town, the economic benefits brought into the market are more than enough to make up for it.

Thanks!

Assignment #11: Drew Curtis on How to Beat a Patent Troll

Curtis and his company Fark.com have been one of the many victims of NPEs trolling patents.  The company fighting his firm held a ridiculous patent that held the rights to the ”creation and distribution of news released via email”.  It’s hard to believe that such an idea can be patentable, but erroneous patents slip through the system and give trolls fuel to target others. 

As he continues his talk, Curtis talks about the worst part about patent litigation.  For example, when a patent trolls sues a corporation such as Amazon or Apple, the burden of the work falls on the defendant.  Simply put, the defendant must find significant proof to show that their company did not infringe on the plaintiff’s patent.  To me, I take this to be the complete opposite of the legal system such that the train of thought is guilty until proven innocent.  It is for this reason that patent trolls can become successful in their witch hunts of litigation.

Not only can these cases be an annoying burden on a defendant, it can also be very costly.  The average case takes around 18 months and a near $2 million to finance even in the case of a defendant victory.  Due to this, many infringement cases result in settlements that are protected by a non-disclosure agreement.  This gives trolls the ability to say that they had won the case regardless of the terms of the settlement. 

After successfully fighting off the troll, Curtis claims to have learned three things about fighting trolls: 1) Fight the infringement, not the patent. 2) Make it known that you either have no money to settle with or that you are willing to spend the money you do have on fighting the case.  3) Lastly, make the troll know that you and your company are willing to be as annoying and difficult as possible in fighting the charges.  Though this is not a fool proof plan, it is a way to prevent trolls from trying to take advantage of you or your firm. 

Thanks!

Assignment #11: Johanna Blakely on Fashion

Hey Everyone!

So for this blog post (as well as the next) I will be talking about one of the TED Talks we watched in class.  In this post, I will be focusing on Johanna Blakely’s talk at USC: Lessons from Fashion’s Free Culture. 

The main point that Johanna points out in her lecture is the differences between the fashion industry and copyrighted industries such as film or music.  To begin, she touches on some key issues facing the fashion world.  First of which, is the role of patents in fashion.  Simply, there aren’t any and the US Patent and Trademark Office’s reasoning is that designs and clothes are too utilitarian of item to be patentable.  Therefore, there is basically no way for designers to protect their design from being copied. 

Knock-off clothing is a huge market for those who want to wear the best styles without emptying their pockets.  By contrasting some pictures of brand name designs next to their cheap knock-offs, Blakely is able to demonstrate the small differences between the expensive designs and their respective copy.  The reason that Gucci and Prada brands sells for so much more than their replicas are due to the use of higher quality fabrics and materials.  Each type of clothing has a market which is why the fashion industry is still able to operate.

The way Blakely compares the fashion industry to markets such as film and music is based on the aspect of copyrights.  Films, music, literature, are all eligible to be protected by intellectual property rights so it should follow that those industries are more successful right?  Blakely speaks to the opposite and demonstrates that industries not protected by property rights such as fashion and culinary soar past copyrightable industries in regards to sales.  So even though the fashion industry is not eligible to be a copyrightable industry, it still brings in billions of dollars in revenue and is constantly progressing in terms of creativity and innovation.  This talk was a great example as to how intellectual property is not always necessary to promote innovation.

Assignment #10: The Pedal Operated Mower

So for this post, I will talking about anther wacky invention: The Pedal Operated Mower.

The patent combines all the fun of mowing your lawn with riding a bike.  Simply, this patent outlines a device that rides just like a bike, but has a rear-mounted grass clipper system that operates as you ride.   It sounds like a great idea until you let your children ride the contraption and they end up injuring themselves or another person. 

Anyway, this invention is a direct derivative of the previously patented Exercycle Mower Apparatus.  That device, as I will refer to as the EMA hereafter, is basically the same idea except that the grass cutting blades are located beneath the rider instead of behind them.  However, in their patent application, the Pedal Operated Mower state its differences such that “None of these [previous] patents discloses all of the specific details of the present invention in such a way as to bear upon the patentability of any claims of the present invention.”  Basically, my understanding is that this invention, though slightly modified from the prior arts, capitalized on the lack of specifications of the previous patents and therefore allowed it to be patentable. 

This seems like a fun, although dangerous way, to mow a lawn but I still don’t understand why anyone would see a need for this invention.  Either way, the patent office accepted the innovators request and thus it has now made it on to my blog.

Thanks!

Assignment #10: Beerbrella

So for this patent, I imagine the inventor loved to be out at the beach, relaxing, and drinking a beer.  But while he was sun tanning, he didn’t want his beer to do the same.  So instead of having his ice cold bottle of beer sitting in direct sunlight causing its temperature to rise, he came up with the idea to invent a shade for this bottle of beer. 

As you can see by the diagram shown, the idea of the invention is pretty straightforward.  There is an umbrella type shade attached to a pole that has a C-shaped clamp to it.  The clamp goes around the bottle and causes the shade to be over the beer.  With that, your beer is now in the shade and staying out of the way of the sun’s warmth. 

For this patent, I want to take a closer look at how the inventor developed the idea.  In the patent document, the inventors reference 16 other patents to distinguish just how novel their idea is.   The one that comes closes to denying this patent for similarity to a prior art is to the beverage shader.  Looking further into that patent, there is only a slight difference that the inventors of the beerbrella made.  The beverage shader was only the use of an umbrella to shade a drink whereas the beerbrella uses a coozie or other beverage insulating materials to keep the beer cold as well.  The beerbrella not only keeps the warm away, but also keeps the coolness in the beer container.  It’s not the most obvious or most needed invention in the world, but it’s still a patent.  I’m more than positive there is someone using this as we speak. 

Check back for my next post about another wacky invention.  Thanks!

Assignment #9: The Role of a Troll

Similar to my last post, I will touch on a case involving Apple and another NPE suing them for patent infringement.  However, this case will serve as an example as to how NPE can operate as trolls and damage the patent industry.   The link to the article summarizing the case can be found below. 

http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-defeats-gpnes-94m-patent-infringement-claim/

In this 2011 case, GPNE filed charges against tech giant Apple for infringing on four cellular patents that Apple supposedly used to create many versions of their iPhone’s and ipad’s.  GPNE, at the time of the trial, held patents that surrounded cellular communication between devices.  These patents, however, were filed under the assumption that they would be used in the production of pagers.  GPNE’s whole case asserted that Apple took this technology and willfully implemented it within their products and GPNE was out to seek damages.  Unfortunately, in the fight against Apple in patent litigation, GPNE was not as fortunate as Smartflash in being awarded compensation.

In a federal district court located in San Jose, Apple successfully defended itself and was not ordered to pay any damages to GPNE.  Apple’s core argument was that the patents listed in the litigation were specifically in pagers and therefore did not claim any rights to be used in tablets or smartphones.  The jury sided with Apple, and just hours after Apple had won the case, they released a critical statement attacking GPNE.  Apple claimed that GPNE was simply a patent troll trying to extort millions out of them for 20 year old pager patents that ultimately resulted in a waste of time and money. 

GPNE had also issued letters to over 300 other companies, Apple claimed, from “truckers to farmers…threatening costly legal entanglements if these small businesses didn't pay them off.”  This is what many fear when talks of patent trolls arise.  NPEs such as GNPE simply mean to use their intellectual property rights as a basis for extorting a payoff from hundreds of companies.  Though they were unsuccessful in the fight against Apple, I’m sure that GPNE and its legal team will out to fight another fight in hopes of earning a hefty compensation ruling. 

Assignment #8: Smartflash LLC, The Benefits of NPEs

For this blog post, please refer to the article listed below.  It is an article in Fortune magazine explaining how Apple’s bullish behavior lost the company over half a billion dollars.  The reason I have chosen this case is that it shows how NPEs operate for the good of the patent industry and how the big companies (Apple in this instance) fight to do whatever they want simply because they are a juggernaut of the tech world. 

http://fortune.com/2015/02/27/how-apple-lost-533-million-to-an-8th-grade-dropout-patent-troll/

Smartflash LLC is a small technology developing and licensing company in Tyler, Texas, started by a man who grew up on a farm with only an 8^th grade education.  Patrick Racz, the founder of Smartflash, LLC, and his background were of large attention to the legal team of Apple in a recent patent infringement court case originally filed in 2013.  The case Smartflash brought up against Apple was infringement on three specific patents relating to data storage.  The patents in question were all valid and filed by Racz himself, a fact that he later pointed out as to not make Smartflash come across as a patent troll, but merely a non-practicing entity.  This did not matter to Apple’s legal team, as they sought out to fight the charges and pay a little as possible in damages. 

When the court proceedings took place, Smartflash had all the proper questions ready to address and focused on the specifics on the case.  Apple, on the other hand, called several witnesses to speak in their favor and to prove they did not willfully infringe on any prior arts.  When they called Racz, they simply intended to show that with his educational background, he was not qualified to hold such patents and targeted him as a troll fishing for licensing fees.  They attacked him with ridiculous questions and according to Brad Caldwell, Smartflash’s legal counsel, “They acted like we’re Apple and have no need to respect other people’s intellectual property.” 

But as we all know, all intellectual property is to be respected or else to face the consequences.  In this case, Apple’s consequences amounted up to over half a billion dollars in damages payable to Racz and his company.  This case showed NPEs in a positive light, fighting for their IP rights against large companies that simply aim to dominate the industry through means of their huge reputation and market share. 

In my next post, I will outline an example in which an NPE are detrimental to the patent industry.

Assignment #8: Trolls – What are they?

In this post, I will touch on what exactly a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) is as well as the arguments from both sides on their significance.

Also called a patent troll, an NPE is simply an entity that holds patents with the intent on pursuing licensing fees, or other monetary compensation, from other corporations due to patent infringement.  Usually, these people or companies simply hold the rights to certain patents and therefore to not produce or sell products.  An example of an NPE that I will touch on in my next blog post is called Smartflash LLC.

The name troll carries with it a negative connotation, suggesting that the work these NPEs do is somewhat malicious or detrimental to the patent industry.  However, there are two sides to every story.  Starting off in a positive light, NPEs are essential when it comes to protecting intellectual property.  They give small innovators and entrepreneurs a chance to protect their patent rights in a fight against a large corporation.  A single person may not have the capital to fight a lengthy legal battle against a fortune 500 tech company, but an NPE can hold their own in such a legal battle.  By protecting the patents rights of its owners, NPEs succeed in achieving the main goal of the patent system.

Opponents of patent trolls cling to the argument that NPEs are simply out to fish for compensation and licensing fees.  Winning or losing the court battles, though very important, is not the main reason for the tech industry’s dislike of trolls.   Many claim that by NPEs enforcing their property rights are doing more harm than good.  By continually suing large, innovating companies, many are afraid to innovate further for fear of being taken to court by a later troll.  For this reason, the interaction of NPEs and large tech companies are threatening the pursuit of innovation.  Furthermore, this is the reason that legislature restricting NPEs are coming in the near future.

Check back to my blog for an example of this type of litigation involving Smartflash LLC and Apple.

Going Further into Obviousness

In my next post about obviousness, I went to YouTube to find a video that would help me better understand obviousness in patents.  The video I came across (included below) is by a man named Robert Greene Sterne, editor-in-chief of Patent Office Litigation. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4PbnA99ev4&list=PLINMwSSyG1ALKRMBTS0myhzr3QP-8L3Ze

In his video, Sterne claims that obviousness is king when applying for and maintaining patent rights.  With recent laws and legislation coming out in past years, Sterne gives some advice to existing and potential patent owners.  He advises that the proper research must be done on every patent as to prove nonobviousness in patents.  Specifically, he addresses that an appeals board requires a mere 12 months for owners to prove nonobviousness and therefore keep or attain a new patent.

Overall, this video is a great example of how important obviousness is in keeping patent rights.  Sterne is a highly qualified speaker on the subject and I highly suggest watching the video several times to understand everything he touches on.  Hopefully you found it as informative as I did!

Intro to Obviousness in Patents

So far, the meaning of obviousness as it relates to patents is anything but obvious.  It is one of the essential requirements that need to be met by a patent application.  Simply, obviousness and anticipation are key elements that can lead to the declination of a patent application.  In this post, I would like to specifically touch on what exactly obviousness is and how it is applied every day to potential patented inventions. 

The easy way to think about obviousness is to understand that obvious “inventions” should not be granted patent rights.  An obvious invention is something that would not be hard to invent given a prior art.  Using the example from class, the invention of the chair made of metal would be an obvious derivative invention of a chair made of wood.  The important thing to note when assessing the obviousness of a patent is to think of how easy was the processing of conceiving the new invention. 

Putting the ambiguous definition of obviousness in context, it is what drives people to invent and innovate.  If a person is given a patent and a new, insignificant improvement is made on it and is granted a patent, the first patent is essentially useless.  When this happens, individuals are less likely to want to invent things given that they can soon be found obsolete.  I hope you found this post beneficial and keep visiting my blog for newer posts on obviousness.  Thanks!

Patent Discussion #2

In this post, I will be returning to my discussion earlier regarding the listed patents associated with beverage sleeves and insulation.  However, here, I will be discussing my personal view on the anticipation and obviousness factor of each patent.

First, I want to lay out what exactly I mean when saying “anticipation” and “obviousness” of a patent.  Both terms are aspects that can result in the decline of a patent application in several ways.  Anticipation refers to what is listed in a previous patent, so as not to grant a second patent for an idea already claimed.  When an application for a patent is requested, it must not replicate any of the specs listed in a previous patent either explicitly or inherently.  Therefore, an anticipated patent is not really a patent at all.  It is simply a design that has already been listed under a previously granted patent.

Next, an obvious patent is simply another version of a previous patent.  When a patent is requested, it must substantially differentiate itself from a pre-existing patent.  It doesn’t make concrete sense to issue a patent for a general design of something that has already been granted patent rights.  By doing so, the patent system would be meaningless such that the whole goal of a patent is to protect intellectual property.  Based from these two types of patents, we can summarize that a patent is only granted if and only if the application is in fact original, and not identical to any previously issued patents. 

Applying these concepts to the patents listed in my previous discussion, we can follow the chronological trail that continuously improves the use of beverage sleeves.  First, the thermal coffee cup was the basic framework designed in 1948.  From that, in 1999, we can see its evolution to adding heat activated glue-dots to improve insulation.  Once the cup itself had been properly insulated, we moved on to the theme of beverage sleeves with the “Insulating Sleeve.”   This sleeve provided air gaps between the cup and the sleeve to allow heat to escape from exterior of the cup.  Better sleeves were then developed that provided grip, different layers for several different purposes, to finally a sleeve that can inform the consumer as to the temperature of the beverage inside the container. 

As time progressed, better and better designs and techniques began to be developed and expand on its predecessor.  These patents and applications, though improving on each other, are neither obvious nor anticipated and were thus granted patent rights.  From the basic “Thermal Coffee Cup” to the “Temperature Indicating Sleeve and Related Container”, each patent has achieved the ability to better insulate beverages and provide convenience to consumers in the forms of better grips and temperature gauges. 

Patent Discussion #1

The following are a list of patents and applications that I will be discussing in depth.  I will focus my summary and analysis based on the each patent and application’s background, priority date, technology, ideas, specs, and diagrams.

1.      The Insulating Sleeve (US 6343735)

·        Priority date: May 4, 2000

·        The basic use of this device is that it is a sleeve, designed to fit around a beverage container so the user is able to handle hot drinks without feeling the heat transfer to their hand. 

·        The technology involved in this patent includes strategic gaps between the sleeve and the container.  The air gaps provide an outlet for the heat to escape, rather than to be transferred to the user’s hand.                                                       

2.      The Thermal Coffee Cup (US 2661889)

·        Priority date: July 20, 1948

·        This patent describes a paper cup used for holding hot coffee and a lid that allows for easy consumption.

·        The lid has a tab which the user can tear back, as to allow coffee to flow through the cap.  The tab can be torn at a variety of lengths, according to the consumer’s preference

·        The diagram given in the patent illustrates the ease of using the product.  It also implies its cheap production costs and simplicity

3.      Thermal Sleeve, Method for Manufacturing a Thermal Sleeve, and Combination Cup and Thermal Sleeve (US 8,251,277 B1)

·        Priority date: August 28, 2012

·        The cup associated with this patent is closely associated with not only providing cup insulation, but also to have a strong “gripper”

·        It is a sleeve such that you can slide a whole coffee cup into and keep warm

4.      Insulator Sleeve for a Beverage Container (US 7922031 B1)

·        Priority date: March 1, 2006

·        The sleeve includes two sleeves: an outer frusto-conical sleeve and a frusto-conical inner sleeve

·        The inner sleeve acts as an insulating mechanism whereas the outer sleeve provides grip to the user

·        The special aspect for this device includes its ability to be reused

5.      Temperature Indicating Sleeve (US 8118189)

·        Priority date: December 15, 2006

·        The core idea to this device is that it has the ability to tell the consumer the temperature of the beverage inside

·        With cups already insulated, it’s hard for the consumer to accurately tell the temperature of the drink inside based solely of the touch of the cup.   This sleeve is able to relay to the consumer a temperature of the actual beverage, instead of the warmth of the cup

6.      Sleeve Construction for Improved Paperboard Cup Insulation (US 6152363)

·        Priority date: May 3, 1999

·        This invention is designed to work in conjunction with paperboard cups.  It requires a paperboard sleeve with hot-melt glue dots in order to improve the insulation of the cup as compared to competing insulated cups

7.      Beverage Cup Sleeving System and Method (US 20080078824 A1)

·        Priority date: Aug 23, 2006

·        This patent involves an insulating cup system that is built with a layer of elastomer onto a seamless conical sleeve. 

·        The exterior surface is used for gripping purposes whereas the inner surface has an upper and lower opening.  The upper opening provides a space to receive the beverage container

8.      Protective Sleeve (US 20100019023)

·        Priority date July 25, 2008

·        This patent and its arc shape provided for easy and efficient production

·        It was patented in response to lowering cost as well as its environmental impact

·        The arc shape is the product of peaks and troughs that create air gaps to allow heat to escape

9.      Hot and Cold Cup Sleeve (US 20140151385)

·        Priority date: February 6, 2014

·        This sleeve is designed for both hot and cold temperature cups

·        The design involves three layers: an inner layer designed to absorb water and improve grip, an outer layer to keep hands dry from the absorbing inner layer, and central polyethylene film

·        This design is not only cost efficient, but is also thin, disposable and lighter than most other models

Slide to Unlock Technology - Claim 1

Welcome back! So for this post, I will be summarizing claim 1 from Apple's patent on Slide to Unlock Technology.  Enjoy!

In order to understand Apple’s first claim in its patent regarding the ‘slide to unlock’ technology, simply picture a device with a touch enabled screen that is currently “locked” or disabled.  The patent states that if one were to make continuous contact with the touch screen while following a pattern or pathway on the device, the system will “unlock” and will therefore be able to be useable.  However, the pathway on the device is very specific and won’t respond unless contacted in the proper starting location.  Apple has incorporated this technology into many of their devices such as the iPod Touch and more popularly, the iPhone.  This is just one of the many features Apple brings to the market that has made the popularity of the touch screen skyrocket in the last few years.

My Top Five Bad Predictions

After ranking the top 5 worst predictions based from the lecture slides from class, I took to the internet to research 5 other awful predictions.  Below are the quotes I found to be just as incorrect as listed in my previous assignment, enjoy:

1.      “If anything remains more or less unchanged, it will be the role of women,” given by an American social scientist, David Riesman to Time Magazine in 1967.

·        Following the civil rights movement of the early 1960’s, it is naïve to say that women could not rally together for equality like the African Americans had previously done

·        This assumption could not have been any more poorly timed due to the fact that in 1967, the same year as the quote, the modern women’s movement began to traverse the country

·        The fact that Riesman was a social scientists suggests that he, over any other professional occupation, should be able to recognize social change in an population.  Fast forwarding to the present day, we can see that the role of women is nearly identical to the role of a man.

2.      "I see no good reasons why the views given in this volume should shock the religious sensibilities of anyone." -- Charles Darwin, The Origin Of Species, 1869

·        Knowing that the debate between creation and evolution still exists and continues to thrive, I think this may have been a way, though unsuccessful, for Darwin to avoid the dichotomy.

·        Looking at the core principles, that humans are a descendant from primates, directly contradicts the story told in the bible.  Claiming that his theories don’t contradict scripture is completely false

3.      “That virus is a pussycat.” -– Dr. Peter Duesberg, molecular-biology professor at U.C. Berkeley, on HIV, 1988

·        What is now one of the most widespread virus in the world, Dr. Duesberg greatly underestimated that effect that HIV could have on a person’s life

·        The “Human Immunodeficiency Virus”, as the name suggests, should have never been taken lightly.  The condition associated with HIV is anything but a ‘pussycat’

·        Over 35 million people now contract the virus and the number grows with every passing year

4.      “What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches?” - The Quarterly Review, March edition, 1825.

·        Whoever authored this quote did not understand the steam engine.  The ability of turning steam into motor activity provided way more power than any fleet of horses could muster up

·        Also, by having preset tracks for a locomotive, you would not have to worry about the uncomfortable terrain you would be traversing in a stagecoach.  Not only would a  train be more time efficient in travel, it would also be a much smoother ride

5.      “Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value” - Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, 1904. 

·        In regards to military value, a plane is essential in almost every facet of war.  Whether it be dropping bombs, transporting soldiers overseas, or shipping supplies to the front lines, planes helped to win several battles across history

·        Most of the battles of WWII involved battling via the assistance of planes.  The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor brought Americans into the war, and the atomic bombings of the US on Japan brought the war to an end.  Both of these attacks were made possible only by having access to the use of planes

·        Though this assumption preceded the plane industry, it is wrong to assume that the act of a flying machine has no potential in warfare.  Nearly everything can be used in a battle, and an air force should be the first defense created

Top 5 Bad Predictions

Here is my list of the top 5 wrong predictions based from the slides presented in class.  My train of thought in analyzing these quotes is to not only evaluate their content based on their appropriate time period, but also on those that gave each individual quote.

1.      "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to  be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." – Western Union internal memo, 1876

·        First off, saying that the phone has no value to Western Union is just completely false.  It’s hard to imagine a context where the ability to communicate over long distance at a second’s delay would be of no value.

·        Also in looking at this quote, I am curious as to what shortcomings he is referring to here.  The only thing that I can think of is that of building the infrastructure associated with a telephone.  However, if the railroads could have been built that surely telephone wires could be as well. 

·        Bringing this quote into a present sense, Western Union would be completely wrong in the context of mobile phones as well.  While that landline phone may be obsolete in many households, nearly every American over the age of twelve knows how to operate a mobile phone.   All in all, I don’t think that this prediction could have ever been a popular thought

2.      "Reagan doesn't have that presidential look." – United Artists executive after rejecting Reagan as lead in the 1964 film The Best Man

·        Looking at the picture posted on the lecture slide, I don’t think that there was ever a more prominent presidential figure than Ronald Reagan.  With his couth, dark hair, perfect white smile, and the fact that he was a Hollywood actor just screams the face of America – which in fact what a president represents

·        Another issue I have with this statement is that topic of a ‘presidential look’ in general.  A presidential look, in my opinion, is something that can only be witnessed after a person takes office.  When a random person addresses the nation, he could take on any number of impressions.  However, when you say that a man such as Reagan takes the mic as president, he is sure to command the respect that an American president deserves

3.      "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." – Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

·        Looking at this sentiment in a current setting, this quote could not be any more far from the truth.  Walking around my house, I have witnessed over 15 computers in the hands of my housemates.  To say that 5 for a world market would be sufficient is absurd.  There are few things in general that would only have a world demand of 5 and I am having difficulty coming up with an example anyway.

·        Also, Watson was the Chairman of IBM at the time of this quote.  As the head of a technology firm, you would think that he would want to promote the use of computers and therefore find a segment to where he could profit in conjunction with the computer.  Everything about this quote seems off to me

4.      "The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty—a fad." – -The president of the Michigan Savings Bank advising Henry Ford's lawyer not to invest in the Ford Motor Co., 1903

·        This doesn’t make sense to me, simply because the amount of time and labor is much less in taking care of a car then a horse. 

·        Also, the rate of transportation is much faster with an automobile than a horse.  A car can carry more people as well as more cargo than the saddlebags on the side of a steed

5.      “ Television won't last because people will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night." – -Darryl Zanuck, movie producer, 20th Century Fox, 1946

·        First off, I think that Mr. Zanuck greatly underestimated the potential of the television.  From this quote, it seems as though he only addresses the entertainment value of the television.  He fails to recognize the potential of the news media, sports industry, and even the possibility of broadcasting movies on TV

·        I think this quote was in direct fear of the television.  Zanuck possibly feared that if people had a television in their household, they would be discouraged in going out to the cinema.  That would, in turn, hurt his business and his whole industry in general.  Either way, this prediction was more than incorrect