Evaluation of Social Media Learning

Evaluation of Social Media Learning

Social media learning refers to using various forms of social media – whether it is YouTube, Twitter, or Facebook, to learn the material of a class. In our class IEOR 190g, we were instructed to post YouTube videos every week, and discuss various topics from guest lecturer speeches to finding news articles on patents that interested us.

This class is very different than the other classes that I have taken at Haas in a very nice way. Some of the advantages of taking IEOR 190g and learning through social media are outlined below:

Benefits of Social Media Learning

-          Easier to remember the lessons – At the end of the day, I am going to remember an interesting video I watched about the patent on making a cat move with a laser pointer, probably not an obscure date from history like the birthday of a famous inventor.

-          Improvement in Speaking – Talking in Youtube blogs made me more comfortable with recording myself talking. This might come in handy if ever I get video interviews for companies or business schools.

-          Updated on new technology – This class allowed me to start using social media that I don’t have and social media that I have in a different way. I never had a twitter account and made one for this class.

Overall, I thought that our Professor’s way of teaching was very unique and creative. It is not often that you get to post Youtube videos or even use social media for classes.

Value of What I learned in this class

Value of What I learned in this class

This class, IEOR 190G, patent engineering, has been very valuable to me. Some of the key concepts and lessons that I learned are outlined below

-          Knowing how to file for a patent and how the criteria for patents work: I think knowing the criteria for patents such as non-obviousness and novelty really helps me understand what it takes to be able to file for a patent.

-          Value of repetition in discussions and homework: Even though making the blogs and commenting on videos can be very tiring, I do appreciate what it teaches us. We can see what other people did well and see where we can improve on for our future blogs. Hearing a lot of people say the same thing also really drills concepts into your head and hopefully I can remember them 10 years from now.

-          Understanding different perspectives: Different people have different opinions on the topics we discussed. For example some people think patent trolls can be good while others do not. Some people think software should be patented bit others do not. Just hearing about the diversity of opinions was very eye opening.

Other than what I learned above, I also enjoyed how there were guest lecturers, who gave us insight on the patent landscape in the US, and the businesses opportunities that arise in the technology sector.

Given the opportunity, I would have taken more classes like this because it is very interactive and very focused in terms of subject matter. Looking back on my 4 years at Cal this has been one of the most memorable classes that i have taken.

Efrat Kaznik’s Lecture – Summary and Highlights

Efrat Kaznik’s Lecture – Summary and Highlights

In class, I really enjoyed the guest lecturer Efrat Kaznik’s lecture on IP strategy because I think that IP is definitely playing a bigger part in company’s valuation

Efrat mentioned that intangible assets account for more and more of a company’s core competitive advantage – this can be in the form of goodwill, great company morale, etc.

My favorite part was when she talked about about the white space analysis. It makes a lot of sense that you have to identify the areas that are already saturated with a lot of competitors before jumping in to value a company’s intangible assets and IP. It was a great visual to see which technological areas are saturated and which ones are not.

I also really appreciated how she talked about the various deals that went on concerning acquisition of patent portfolios. For example, Microsoft paid 1.06 billion for AOL patents and 125 apps. Acquiring patent portfolios has become very strategic for large companies to stay on top of litigation and to avoid lawsuits. Patents can also increase revenue stream. The XEROX PARC center lost about half a billion potential revenue from not filing the patent for GUI (graphical user interface) which was later copied by Mac and Windows.

Finally, I really appreciated how the guest speaker is the head of Foresight Valuation Group. I will be a valuation analyst after I graduate, and I don’t know a lot of people going into valuation. It was nice to hear about a leading expert in the field that I am about to go into, although I am not doing so much IP valuation but more mainstream valuation.

Intellectual Property Valuation Techniques

Intellectual Property Valuation Techniques

For this week’s blog, I read up on the valuation techniques for intellectual property from IP metrics, an intellectual property consulting firm.

http://ipmetrics.net/IPVT.pdf

Some of the methods they have are summarized below.

1.     The cost approach – this cost approach just refers to valuing an intellectual property based on how much it cost to develop. It is very simple and intuitive to understand. There are 2 methods here – one is the cost of reproducing the technology and the second way is the cost of replacing the technology in the event that it is lost.

2.     Market approach – this valuation style is used in a way that is similar to value tangible assets. So the way to find out the value of an IP from the market approach is through looking at comparable transactions that have occurred before. Obviously no technology is exactly similar, so this is one key flaw of this method.

3.     Income approach – This approach is similar to the DCF (discounted cash flow method) in basic finance. This is where an IP is valued based on the future cash flows that it is expected to generate, discounted back to the present year to account for the time value of money.

4.     Relief from Royalty – this method involves valuing an IP based on the royalty fees that you would get from the IP that you have. IT is complex and takes into several factors including licensing agreements, exclusivity, geography, etc.

This reading on the different valuation techniques is relevant to the class because this is what Foresight does as a business in IP valuation. The company finds out through various methodologies how much intellectual property is worth and how to use these IP for the advantage of their clients.

Summary of TEDxUSC – Fashion Industry and Patents

The TED talk Lessons from Fashion’s Free culture, sheds light on the role intellectual property and patens play in the fashion industry – “not that much.” The speakers says that “apparel design is too utilitarian to quality for patents / IP.” The only type of protection fashion houses have is their logos and trademarks, but designs on shirts and different button layouts are not patented, meaning there is a lot of room for fast fashion houses like Zara, H and M, and Top Shop, to follow and copy the lead of higher end luxury designers.

While one may think that copying trends may be harmful, there are actually certain virtues of copying. Trends can be set faster. In today’s global world, fashion designers will want to have their trends set faster so that they can appeal to new customers faster too.

It is interesting to note that there are other industries where inventions cannot be copyrighted as well – for example magic tricks, food recipes, and car designs. I think in the larger context, this video shows how patents and copyrights have different roles in different industries, and the fashion industry is one in which copyrights do not play a role that seems very significant.

So the next time Burberry tries to sue one of the lower end companies for stealing its Burberry check, I (which I see has been copied or replicated in many instances by other fashion labels that are lower end like Kenneth Cole Reaction for example), it should remember that copycats might actually help set trends that are beneficial to Burberry.

Everything is a Remix

Everything is a Remix

The video by Kirby Ferguson really stuck with me because I really agreed on his main point – which is that “everything is a remix.”

In patent discussions, it is easy to accuse people of copying bits and pieces of your idea, and in the TED talk, this was extended to music – where Bob Dylan was accused of copying music in different ways. Bob supposedly copied the melodies, song structure, and lyrics of other artists. However, when I was listening to the songs, they all still sounded unique and I think what made Bob Dylan’s music great was that he was able to draw on different influences to produce his own authentic music. He took bits and pieces from songs and artists/role models he liked and pieced together his own.

I thought it was also interesting how the TED talk cited Steve jobs on his quote that great inventors steal. This reminds me of how ultimately all our inventions build on prior inventions and that we owe it to those who were there before us because they paved the path for us to be able to make breakthroughs using the material that they provided. I thought that it was funny too how Steve Jobs hated it when other people stole from him and it shows his “double standard.”

Halloween Backpack for dispensing candy

Silly Patents: Halloween Backpack for dispensing candy

We recently learned in class that not all patents have to be breakthroughs or extremely innovative solutions to problems that exist today. Patents can actually be very random. The patent I want to discuss today is called the Halloween backpack, and it seems quite useful for use in that specific holiday.

The container is innovative because it is a backpack that has a candy dispenser. Halloween is known for “trick or treating” and using this backpack can be an easy way to accept and give away candy. This patent is pretty creative and even though it does not have the same transformative power as let’s say, a semiconductor, I definitely see its potential to be sold in the market.

The Halloween backpack is a niche product that will likely appeal to kids and their parents. Reading this patent made me realize how patents can be fun and creative in a way that one would not expect. A patent just has to fit the criteria of being novel and non-obvious, even if the patent is not practically feasible like the method for birthing using the centrifuge. I know if I was a kid, this would have would have been something I would have wanted to purchase or at least brought to “show and tell.”

Analyzing the patent, I think this patent is novel in that it is new – I have never seen this type of backpack being sold in stores, and it is nonobvious in that one would not expect the strategic combination of a container / dispenser with a stuffed animal design into a backpack that allows faster candy receiving in Halloween.

Pillow with Retractable Umbrella

Pillow with Retractable Umbrella

This post will talk about a “silly patent” called the pillow with a retractable umbrella. So, have you ever found yourself in a beach or beside a pool under the hot sun, but without a nice spot with a shade? This niche patent – a pillow that is attached to an umbrella, meets your need in such occasions. This umbrella pillow, is described as having an umbrella that can rotate and has a swivel so that it is easy to position the umbrella in a comfortable position. Further, the invention “may be stored in a carrying case” which makes this pillow ideal for travelling.

This invention is patentable because it is non obvious and novel. However, I wonder how obvious it is, because there are umbrellas that are attached to chairs and tables around restaurants and cafes, so the pillow umbrella may not be as weird as it initially seems. It is possible this pillow is used in beach resorts or other similar venues, although I have never seen one.

In terms of the potential for profitability upon the launch of this umbrella pillow, I think the product can only appeal to a narrow customer base, so this product if launched in the free market would not do so well. I think some people would buy it for the laughs, and sometimes some person might find it useful to bring to camping/beach trips.

Overall, I think this patent is creative but may not be practical. Looking at the diagram, I wonder that this pillow while providing shade, may hinder your neck movements and limit your ability to roll your head. You may also encounter some problems when you move your head and bump it into the umbrella stand. Personally, I would not buy this invention.

Patent Trolls in the News

Patent Trolls in the News

This blog post will outline the relationship between corporations and patents, specifically how they are being challenged and how they are overcoming issues with patents.

Patent infringement lawsuits filed by non-practicing entities, also known as patent trolls, continue to rise in the U.S. For example, in 2013, AT&T was sued for patent infringement by so-called patent trolls a startling 54 times -- more than once a week, according to recent statistics.

Fortune recently published the 2013 list of top 10 patent troll targets, writes that the top patent litigation related companies include “AT&T, fighting 70 active cases as of the publication date. Next in line is Google, which was hit with 43 suits last year; Verizon, 42; Apple, 41; Samsung and Amazon, which were hit with 39 each; Dell and Sony, hit with 34 each; Huawei, hit with 32; Blackberry, hit with 31.”

The article in Howstuffworks writes that “In response to the patent troll threat, large companies have purchased their own patent portfolios. For example, Apple, Microsoft, Nokia and others paid $4.5 billion for the patents of the bankrupt company Nortel. The patents help them to fight suits and can be used to threaten other companies to ward off litigation. However, this defensive strategy does little to promote new ideas. It might even tempt these corporations to engage in troll-like behavior themselves.” I agree that this can be a good defensive strategy but do not necessarily agree with the prediction on how it can reduce innovation.

My opinion is that when companies aquire their own patent portfolios, it will not hinder innovation because now, the company has access to many patents that it can use to build and improve upon on. Further, many technology companies need to always innovate and make new products and patents because that is one of the primary drivers of their success. Tech companies need to come up with new breakthroughs if they want to reach the top of the market or remain at the top of the market.

Sources

http://www.insidecounsel.com/2014/03/03/the-top-10-businesses-targeted-by-patent-trolls

http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/everyday-innovations/patent-trolls4.htm

Complexities and Example of NPEs

Complexities and Example of NPEs 

This blog post will outline the complexities and some examples of NPEs.

To start things off, I just want to highlight the current trend that involves NPEs. Patent lawsuits involving NPEs have increased dramatically over the last decade, by an average of 22% per year since 2004. 

IPwatchdog.com writes that it can be hard to define a patent troll and sometimes – “No one really knows what a patent troll is. The website writes that the anti-patent people do not want it defined too precisely because if it were defined, it would include “all major U.S. universities (that manufacture no products), most individual inventors (who have not yet gotten their inventions funded), most startup companies (that have not yet gone to market), and most bankrupt companies.”

This suggests that patent trolls can refer to any entity that wants to earn revenue primarily through the enforcement of its patents or any company or entity who may be planning on developing a produce but have not amassed the required resources to do so. So, defining what a patent troll is can be problematic because it encompasses a lot of possible entities, some of which are likely to have positive benefits.

NPEs have been acquiring patents and asserting infringement for more than a decade. Today, there are more than 900 active NPEs and as their numbers have grown so has the pool of operating companies being targeted for patent litigation. In 2008, 1,600 operating companies were embroiled in NPE lawsuits. By 2011, the number of defendants had grown more than two-fold to nearly 2,400. Many of these defendants are facing repeated assertions; some operating companies were named in more than 50 suits in 2012 alone.

It seems like the number of NPEs will continue to grow because in today’s knowledge based economy, where most companies benefit from intellectual property advantages, will create an environment in which more and more patents are filed, some of which will come from NPEs.

Sources:

http://www.rpxcorp.com/patent-risk/npe-impact/

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/non-practicing-entity-NPE

Introduction and Commentary on NPE or Patent Trolls

Introduction and Commentary on NPE or Patent Trolls

This blog is going to introduce the concept of Non practicing entities (NPEs) also known as Patent trolls.

Patent trolls or non-practicing entities refers to certain companies or people that create patents with the main goal of earning the majority of their revenue from the licensing or enforcement of their patents. This is important because typically one would think that patents are made so that one can use the product to generate revenue but NPEs instead use the enforcement of the product, not the product itself to gain revenue.

NPEs are also called patent trolls because they can be controversial in several ways. Techtarget.com defines an NPE as “someone who holds a patent for a product or process but has no intentions of developing it” - doing so can actually be harmful to society if what is being patented can provide many benefits. The website also adds that “Patent trolls amass large numbers of patents with the intention of launching patent infringement suits against companies and individuals that they maintain have illegally used some element of something for which they hold the patent,” so it seems like NPEs have found a way to use the government patent regulation system to create their own business. Other types of non-practicing entities include universities and other research organizations and individual inventors lacking the resources to further develop something they have designed or created. 

My opinion on the NPE is that it is a creative way to seek an alternative source of revenue, and it makes logical sense that someone with a patent would maximize the possible avenues of revenue, not only for the patent, but the enforcement of it.

Youtube Clips on Obviousness

This blog post will review some of the Youtube videos I watched to get a better understanding of patent obviousness.

Clip 1: Novelty and Non-Obviousness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Cv6DbegPxY

This video is about novelty and non-obviousness. It is narrated by a patent lawyer so I think it is credible. Novelty means the product or method is unique and nothing out there is exactly the same. An invention has to be non-obvious – there needs to be some difference that someone in the field will not have thought of. The example that the patent lawyer makes - of making the size of the cloth hanger a smaller one - is a great example and sheds light on obviousness. Hangers of different sizes are too obvious so cannot be patented. A kid size hanger and an adult size hanger are very similar in the manufacturing process required to make them. However, obviousness is complex and can be vague at times, different patent examiners may have different views on whether something is obvious or not.

Clip 2: Finding the Best Prior Art

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQbO3aIWdGA

This clip is about finding prior art that can help determine whether an invention is obvious or not. Looking for prior art can be complicated because prior art can exist in many different forms – can be curried patents or products that are already in the marketplace. One thing I loved from the patent searching process explanation is that it is hard to find the closet prior art to your intended invention because it is easy to have different word phrasings for similar products. The classification search – which he suggested – seems to be more logical and effective. This way, the classification search can get around the problem of different wording and go to the root of where the patent should be found – its use and its industry.

Conclusion: I think these 2 videos are really great at explaining the concepts outlined above, especially because the videos are being explained by an actual patent attorney who knows the “ins and outs” of the patent process. 

Research on Patent Obviousness

Research on Patent Obviousness

Article 1: Patent Law 103: When Is An Invention Obvious And When Is It Patentable?

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/231900/Patent/Patent+Law+103+When+Is+An+Invention+Obvious+And+When+Is+It+Patentable

This article talks about the steps needed to determine if a patent is obvious. It writes that “The Supreme Court described the factual inquiries necessary to determine whether an invention is obvious. First, the scope and content of the prior art must be assessed. Second, the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art must be identified. Third, the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art must be resolved.” So in the discussion of whether something can be patent, one has to analyze whether the patent makes use of existing inventions, if the patent adds any unique value to the inventions it perhaps builds on, and whether or not combining the prior inventions is easy – if someone skilled in the field can make it or not.

Article 2: When is an Invention Obvious?

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/02/01/when-is-an-invention-obvious/id=47709/

This article discusses the definition of obviousness in US patent law. Obviousness, according to the writer is “whether there is any combination of prior art references that when put together would be the invention in question.” So for example, remembering the cup patents, it seems like the cup that has a thermometer is obvious in that it builds from 2 different patents – the thermometer and the cup. Yet, it was accepted as a patent because the integration of the thermometer to the cup moved beyond just dipping a thermometer into the cup, and actually integrating the thermometer to the design of the cup. This means that one has to do thorough research before establishing whether or not one can patent his or her idea.

Conclusion: I think the definition of obvious is becoming clearer to me but I still wonder what breaks the line between obvious and non-obvious combinations of prior art. It is highly subjective and seems open to debate.

Personal View on the Patents, discussion of anticipation and obviousness

Blog: Personal View on the Patents, discussion of anticipation and obviousness

Google defines patent anticipation as “In patent law, anticipation refers to the prior invention or disclosure of the claimed invention by another, or the inventor's own disclosure of the claimed invention by publication, sale, or offer to sell prior to the inventor's application for a patent.” Essentially this means that anticipation just means that the invention being patented hasn’t been part of a prior invention or study.

Obviousness means someone skilled in the industry would be able to know what the patent is about before reading it. So I like to think of obviousness as whether something is common knowledge or not.

US 6343735 B1 Insulating sleeve 

Obviousness: I think while the idea of the insulating case is pretty obvious, the design is not. It actually takes some planning to come up with a design to maximize insulation. The date of this patent is in 1948, so that is a long time ago.

US 2661889 A Thermal coffee cup

Summary: Obviousness: I think this patent that involves having multiple walls is pretty smart. However, I know many companies manufacture these types of mugs or bottles, so it seems like this patent does not really grant any bottle maker a competitive advantage.

 US 8,251,277 B1 Thermal Sleeve, Method for manufacturing a thermal sleeve, and combination cup and thermal sleeve

Obviousness: I think this worth patenting because the design is unique.

  US 7,922,031 B1 Insulator Sleeve for a Beverage Container, Filing date March 1, 2006

Obviousness: I don’t think this patent is too unique, its contents are too similar to the other patents I have seen before.

US 8118189 B1 Temperature-indicating sleeve and related container

Obviousness:  The device with a cup combined with a thermometer is pretty smart, not so obvious. This reinforces the idea that many patents are just improvements or combinations of prior technologies.

US 6152363 Sleeve construction for improved paperboard cup insulation

Obviousness:  The insulating sleeve created by glue dots is pretty smart, not so obvious as well.

Patent Applications:

US 20080078824 A1 Beverage cup sleeving system and method 

Summary: This patent illustrates different kinds of insulation holders that can be fitted into cups and other modifications that can come in handy. It talks about the various mechanisms and shapes that can be used to fit the cover with the cups, and goes into details about the options for the cups (e.g. can add a hole to put keys, or can put ads on the cup).

US 20100019023 A1: Hand held medical device, protective sleeve, filed Aug 15, 2009 (Priority date)

Summary: This patent refers to creating a device that helps you hold medical devices without getting diseases, since many medical diseases are used in context that are likely to gather unwanted germs. It is supposedly a clear, sealable isolation sleeve, which when applied, still allows you to manipulate the keypads well. It should enclose the medical device.

US 20140151385 A1 Hot and Cold Cup Sleeve 

Summary: This patent seems to want to patent the normal cup sleeve that we have in Starbucks. It seems really basic now that it is common.

Obviousness of the Applications: I think the only patent that is very obvious is the hot and cup sleeve that is very plain. The hand held device sleeve for the medical device is very similar to the protection for coffee cups but the protection is for diseases rather than protection from burns.

Comments and Summaries on the Cup Holding Insulator Patents

Blog: Comments and Summaries on the Cup Holding Insulator Patents

US 6343735 B1 Insulating sleeve 

Summary: This patent is very similar to the other patents that I will be discussing, but the main difference is that the design involves a protruding “blank” structure that apparently makes it easier to hold hot beverages without feeling the hotness. The foldable blank supposedly will make insulation more effective.

US 2661889 A Thermal coffee cup

Summary: One of those bottles that can store really hot beverages but you cannot feel the warmth because there is an insulation mechanism that is created by having an inner wall and outer wall, where the warmth is protected from the outer wall from the inner wall.

 US 8,251,277 B1 Thermal Sleeve, Method for manufacturing a thermal sleeve, and combination cup and thermal sleeve

 Summary: This patent talks about how to create one of the sleeves for coffee that is used for insulation for hot coffee drinks. It talks about manufacturing a sleeve that looks like a mesh of cardboard. The patent draws where you should fold the paper or cardboard so as to maximize the insulation properties of the device.

  US 7,922,031 B1 Insulator Sleeve for a Beverage Container

Summary: This patent features an invention that helps people hold hot coffee cups in a cylindrical container. It is very similar to the other insulator sleeve patents that I have had to look at. Filing date March 1, 2006

US 8118189 B1 Temperature-indicating sleeve and related container

Summary: This patent explains that a cup can indicate the temperature of the content inside. The cup has a thermometer on its outer surface so that the user can better tell the temperature of what is inside the cup so he or she will not get burnt.

US 6152363 Sleeve construction for improved paperboard cup insulation

Summary: this patent argues that there is a more effective way to insulate a user from the hot contents inside his or her cup which involves putting hot melt glue dots which arguable increase the safety and ability to insulate the user from heat.

Patent Applications:

US 20080078824 A1 Beverage cup sleeving system and method 

Summary: This patent illustrates different kinds of insulation holders that can be fitted into cups and other modifications that can come in handy. It talks about the various mechanisms and shapes that can be used to fit the cover with the cups, and goes into details about the options for the cups (e.g. can add a hole to put keys, or can put ads on the cup).

US 20100019023 A1: Hand held medical device, protective sleeve, filed Aug 15, 2009 (Priority date)

Summary: This patent refers to creating a device that helps you hold medical devices without getting diseases, since many medical diseases are used in context that are likely to gather unwanted germs. It is supposedly a clear, sealable isolation sleeve, which when applied, still allows you to manipulate the keypads well.

US 20140151385 A1 Hot and Cold Cup Sleeve 

Summary: This patents seems to show the normal cup sleeve that we have in Starbucks. It seems really basic now that it is common. Also, in my opinion, it seems pretty obvious that a sleeve protection idea would be used so widely, so I am not sure if it will be able to pass.

Sean's Top 5 Quotes from research

This blog post will explain some more bad predictions that people in the past made with regards to new inventions.

• "Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You're crazy." -- Workers whom Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil in 1859.

This quote is about how people in the past did not think drilling oil would be a viable option. Perhaps the science was outdated during this time, or the heavy cost structure of the operations, with high capex for machinery and equipment was not feasible, given the supply and demand for oil at that time and the availability of oil in locations in more accessible areas.

• "It will be years -- not in my time -- before a woman will become Prime Minister." -- Margaret Thatcher, 1974.

This quote is ironic because Margaret Thatcher made a prediction against herself. She eventually did become Prime Minister. I think the quote also illustrates our changing values and push for equality.

• "With over 50 foreign cars already on sale here, the Japanese auto industry isn't likely to carve out a big slice of the U.S. market." -- Business Week, August 2, 1968.

This quote shows how humans did not understand the transformative power of cars and that they thought just 50 cars was enough.

• "Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." -- Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929.

This quote is actually very surprising for me because a common business and economic concept is the concept of cycles, so the professor does not seem to know what he is teaching. There is also a tendency for inflation so it makes sense that in the future the stock market will perform better than it is doing now.

• "Everything that can be invented has been invented." -- Attributed to Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899, but known to be an urban legend.

This quote shows that some people are resistant to change. People often feel complacent once their lives are good and thus may be less incentivized to make new inventions. Silicon Valley today though has a distinct culture of innovation.

Explaining Claim 1 of “Swipe to Unlock” Patent

Explaining Claim 1 of “Swipe to Unlock” Patent

This blog post will explain US patent 8046721B2, specifically Claim 1. This patent is described “Unlocking a Device by Performing Gestures on an Unlock Image.” It was filed June 2, 2009. It has a total of 15 claims.

So Claim 1 says:

“A method of unlocking a hand held device including a touch sensitive display, the method comprising direct contact with the touch screen display etc.”

So the claim goes on and on but generally here are the key ideas that I took away:

-          Type of Device – Hand held device, so I am guessing this refers to phones, tablets, and anything in between. The device has to be touch sensitive.

-          The swiping motion – this is really simple since we all know what swipe to unlock means, but describing this process is long. For example, the patent includes the visual cues that suggest u have to swipe left right or down. It also includes the graphical interface and the image being used to unlock, for example the image of a lock.

Some questions that I had:

-          The patent has some really general statements or claims. For example – “The method of claim 1, wherein the moving comprises movement along any desired path.” I wonder how strictly these patents are actually enforced.

Reading this patent case was very interesting to me because I never realized how nuanced the process actually was. Reading through the case, I saw a lot of diagrams that mapped out the swiping movements, and because I had thought of the touch to unlock feature as given and intuitive, I did not realize that it took a lot of effort into making the idea work.

Top 5 Quotes

This blog will be about quotes that are about scientific progress and skepticism of creating new inventions that were unthinkable.

1.“A rocket will never leave the earth’s atmosphere.”  - New York Times, 1936

I like this quote because it shows how little we knew before. It also shows the progress of humans as a species, how we are able to solve problems and find solutions to what we thought we could have never solved.

5. “The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys” – Sir William Preece, Chief Engineer British post office, 1878

I think this quote just reflects the dominant factor prices at the time. In Britain wage labor was cheap and maybe in America labor was more expensive hence the need to use machines for communication. It’s also hard to imagine a world without telephones, and we just have to remember that what we take for granted today actually took years to build on.

8. “The idea that cavalry be replaced by these iron coaches is absurd. It is little short of treasonous” – comment of Aide de camp to Field Marshal Haig, at Tank demonstration

I think this quote is interesting because it captures the skepticism of military personnel in reacting to the tank. It seems so obvious today that a tank is like a moving fortress, and that its strong protective quality makes it naturally better suited to horses, which have emotions, limited stamina, and can die.

12. No, it will make war impossible – Hiram Maxim, inventor of the machine gun, in response to the question “Will this gun not make war more terrible?” from Havelock Ellis, an English Scientist.

Today, the machine gun is used in almost all infantry situations. Good for direct combat. It is hard to see how the inventor thought it would make war impossible.

20. I think there is a world market for maybe 5 computers – Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

I think this is a pretty funny quote if you read it today. We already know how effective the computer is and how important it is to our daily lives. It helps us at work, it helps us connect to different people, and it helps us communicate over long distances.

Overall, the lesson is that we should not limit our thinking to what we know, because there are a lot of future technologies that we can develop. Who knows, maybe we can live in space or travel at light speed. What seems impossible can actually become reality.