Hey everyone! This is my eighteenth IEOR 190G Blog Post.

This time I will be discussing some research I did following our guest lecturer's talk last Monday.

Something that I wanted to look a little deeper into was the "white space analysis" that Ms. Kasznik spoke of when suggesting a few strategies for IP growth.

Following some research, I found that not everyone agrees with whitespace analysis helping being the right way to guide innovation attempts, even if it should be a necessary part of the process.

First of all, when applied to the patent world, the term “whitespace” means an analysis method that identifies the lack of patents in a particular technology area as a leader for innovation decision-making.

There is no doubt that Patent "whitespace analysis" is important aspect of any innovation assessment. This is due to the fact that if a company is introducing a new product or technology, it needs to know at an early stage whether it can own the fruits of its innovation efforts, and whether it might be sued for infringement.

However this should not drive the innovation process! Relying on patent whitespace analysis to determine innovation strategy is akin to making a decision on buying an investment property decision primarily on basis of the absence of other investors in the area.

In other words, "whitespace analysis" should only be used to validate, not to drive, innovation pathways.

That's all for now from me and I look forward to seeing you all in class on Monday.
As always feel free to watch the video below for a discussion on the above!

Hey everyone this is my seventeenth IEOR 190G Blog Post.

This time I will be discussing this week's guest speaker, Efrat Kasznik of Foresight Valuation Group's lecture.

She touched on three main points:

•  First she gave a n IP Marketplace Overview. The main points were the following:
• there is a change from 17% in 1975 to 80% of the S&P 500 Market Value being intangible assets in 2010.
• now 250k patents go into the design and making of a smartphone
• there are multi-billion dollar deals involving IP
• however the USPTO has a huge Backlog and pendency increase
• Sharp increase in troll litigation since 2010 -- mostly litigate against startups which has changed the whole dynamic of the marketplace.
• Next she suggested a few IP Strategies for Growth 
• entities can now use this marketplace to their advantage by building an IP Portfolio to increase their valuation.
• this takes advantage of the later stages of IP's life cycle: i.e. the portfolio's monetization and its liquidation.
• nowadays in emerging markets less patents are being granted even if we have the highest number of applications ever
• mature markets are filing less patents and more patents are filed and granted in a bubble market
• this is due to "white space" analysis or looking at how much of an industry's space of intellectual property 
• Lastly she provided some recommendations motivated by a few IP Case Studies. A few were as follows:
• Support future products: failure to patent innovative research can mean huge prospective losses.
• "Design around" existing patents to avoid damages.

That's all from me for this blog post and stay tuned for my next post presenting some relevant research. As always feel free to watch the video below for a discussion on the above!

Hey everyone!! This is my sixteenth IEOR 190G Blog Post and this time I will be continuing to talk about the TED Talks video we watched, specifically choosing one for analysis.

The TED Talk I chose is Kirby Ferguson's titled Embrace the Remix. In this video he is voicing his opinion on why the modern interpretation of patent law is actually going against its own principles.

His argument is one that human creativity cannot infinitely come from within, but rather comes from "with-out". He illustrates examples like Bob Dylan, the voice of a generation, who some say copied 2/3 of the material in his songs. Danger Mouse, the DJ that remixed the Beatles and Jay-Z to make the Grey Album. Henry Ford who admits to never inventing ANYTHING, but simply rearranging prior inventions!

The way to conceive of creativity is by understanding the remix and how the remix process actually ends up with a totally new creative entity.

Nowadays patent laws use the award analogy of property and this is where a lot of issues stem out from. For example Steve Jobs was first quoted saying that great artists STEAL in the 90s but later in 2008 was willing to go "thermonuclear war" on Android for "copying" his idea the iPhone. So basically -- copying is ok, as long as its not from me!

Patent Laws were made to promote progress, however oftentimes they do the opposite. It is our job to keep a level head and remember the whole purpose being our patent system and perhaps most importantly rethink how we think about creativity!

Well that's all for this post. Watch the video below for a discussion on the above!
Cheers!

Hi everyone! This is my fifteenth IEOR 190G Blog Post. And this time I will be discussing one of the TED talks videos we viewed in class.

The first video I chose to analyze is Drew Curtis'.

He's TED Talk is about his personal story of enduring a Patent Troll infringement case and he has a lot of great insight to give!

He indicated that nowadays it is too easy to get a new patent and this can be achieved by taking something already being done and patenting it for an emerging technology for eg. telephoning on internet.

However due to new technologies this makes the mechanism obscure and oftentimes these lawsuits end in settlements. Unfortunately the avg cost for a defendant if you WIN is $2million and 18 months of your time. This is ludicrous! For this reason it is cheaper to settle than to fight a lawsuit!

However he does have a suggestion: fight the infringement of the patent, not the patent itself as it makes the case much easier and more manageable. By doing this himself he was able to settle his case for ZERO dollars.

His ending recommendations are the following:

• fight the infringement NOT the patent
• make it clear that you have no money and would prefer to give it to a lawyer
• make it as annoying and painful as possible!

He ends on a funny line with DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS! but in all honesty, these trolls have become the terrorists of the Intellectual Property World!

That's all for this blog post and stay tuned for another video commentary!

Cheers!

Hey Everyone!

This is my fourteenth IEOR 190G Blog Post. In this post I will be continuing my discussion on Silly Patents.

This selection of patents are pretty out there, so I hope you enjoy the read!

The first patent I would like to talk about is: Banana Suitcase

This invention is made along the line of "no-one likes a bruised banana!' however making a banana a suitcase as if it were a professional photo camera is pretty silly. Apart from the fact that a banana is one of the fruits with complete natural packaging that already features a wall a half of an inch thick, it is a novel, and non-obvious invention as I doubt anyone would normally think of putting their bananas in Samsonites!

The next patent I would like to discuss is: Gas Factory

                                                         

This patent is a contraption to capture the methane gas that a cow emanates when farting. Now as silly this device is, the main reason for how absurd this device is that the methane produced by a single cow is close to absolutely nothing. To be able to actually do anything with the gas collected, this contraption would have to be harnessed to hundreds and thousands of cows. It doesn't seem very practical and even if it is novel and non-obvious, it is absolutely not useful!

The third patent I want to show you is: Pedal operated mower

This patent is for a lawnmower that is operated by pedals attached to a tricycle! The apparatus is actually novel, but also non-obvious as we are talking about the early 1980s. As nowadays such an invention would be obvious due to the amount of motorized lawnmowers we have, this patent's date is what makes it legitimate (even if it has expired by now). 

I hope you enjoyed these hand-selected patents and feel free to watch the video below for a discussion on the above!

                                 

Hey Everyone!

This is my thirteenth IEOR 190G Blog Post.

This time I will be talking about Silly Patents. Following some research, it is amazing to see how many crazy patents have been awarded! In this first post I would like to show you some Patents which are completely legitimate but are pretty silly in terms of what their uses may be.

The first patent is titled:Patent Acquisition and Assertion by a (Non-Inventor) First Party Against a Second Party

This patent basically outlines how to be a Patent Troll. Even as legitimate this patent may be due to lack of prior art, in 2008 it seems to me that any Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) dealing with patent law would be well aware of how to conduct this practice! Aside from the fact that trying to patent a method to assert patent infringement as a non-inventor seems quite ludicrous to me.

The second patent is titled:Light bulb changer

How many engineers does it take to change a lightbulb?
Jokes aside this is a very novel machine and there is no prior art making it un-patentable. However, I would like to call the practicality of this invention into cause. Is this machine really useful? How is having a huge contraption permanently taking up significant space on the floor that changes light-bulbs for you when they run out once every couple of MONTHS? Seems pretty silly to me!

The third patent is:Frameless glasses attaching to body piercing studs

This patent is for eyeglasses that attach to a body-piercing either on your nose or eyebrows. This invention is novel and not by any means obvious! however, at the same time who would ever use them? The weight of the glasses seem to be a safety issue as there is a risk of ripping a piercing off of your face! Quite silly!

That's all for this first blog post and as always, feel free to watch the video below for a discussion on the above!