Blog 28: Silly Patent: Allergan Suing Sandoz for Patent Infringement

Allergan is suing Sandoz for marketing a generic version of their patented drug COMBIGAN, which is a combination ophthalmic drug treatment. Sandoz went to the FTC trying and their major claim is 463, which is proving Alergan’s patent of COMBIGAN is not obvious. However this is silly, because it has the same chemicals and functions. The only significance part was the 4^th

part of claim 463 which shows that Sandoz  is a different drug because it changes the amount of time for the drug to kick in. For a drug this is not enough to make it different, because all a manufacture needs to do is make one more or less dissoluble for the body. Sandoz still lost this claim and is not allowed to patent or market this new drug until 2022, when Allergan’s patent expires.

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/05/allergan-v-sandoz-the-thin-line-of-nonobviousness.html

Blog 27: Silly Google Losing Injunction Battle Vs. Apple

Google is in the news yet again for another court failure. In Wisoconsin the Federal circuit court of appeal denied Google’s attempts to get an injunction ruling brought by Apple to be lifted or moved to another court. The injunction was brought on many Samsung products and with the use of a FRAND patent.

Some lower courts are trying to force Google to pay Apple’s FRAND licensing fee. However, Apple is trying to stray away from that court and focus on the injunctions. The author thinks that this case is one of the most significant cases for Google. These past few months have proven that Motorola’s patents have proven to be mostly a silly investment. Android will have to be more strategic in buying and licensing patents.        

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/05/federal-circuit-denies-google-motion-to.html

Blog 26: Continued: Google’s Defeats in Germany; Few Victories Elsewhere

The Mannheim Regional in German rejected Google’s attempt to enforce an injunction against Microsoft and its email system.

Sad Android 

Google was expecting $12.5 billion in the next four years or 3 billion annually from Microsoft on two SEP patent infringements, with video codec and Wi-Fi.  However, the court ruled that Google should only receive 1.8 million annually until the patent expires, which will not even cover the lawyer fees.   

German court lifts the injunction on Apple’s over Google’s automatic notification patent that affects Apple’s emails service. While also upholding a Microsoft injunction for a multi-part text messaging interface, which is forcing companies using Android to license this patent from Microsoft.

These infringement lawsuits have proven that Android is not “free” like Google claims they are. Many companies using the Android system will have to license patents in order to use it.

With all this bad news this month for Google we have to leave with some good news. So here are some court victories.

HTC helped Google and Samsung defeat in the Mannheim Regional Court a previous injunction from Apple’s 3G SEP patent.

German court dismissed Nokia’s lawsuit on HTC’s Google play, where Google acted as an intervener. However, this is only delaying the inevitable, because android devices will need to license this patent from Nokia soon.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/april-was-disastrous-for-google-on.html

Blog 25: Summary of a Bad April for Google in Court

Two weeks ago I spoke to the class how Google is losing badly in the patent ward. Google’s androids system is open source, it is missing many key patents, and is infringing on many patents. This is all recipes for lawsuits and injunctions. This year, April represents many of Google’s shortcomings in the Patent war, as many infringement cases piled up to one very bad month for Google. Now, it is more apparent than even that Google way overpaid for Motorola.

In the beginning of the month, the ITC found Google’s keyboard to infringe on some aspects of Apple’s keyboard text selection Patents. There will be a noticeable degradation of Google’s keyboard because of that.

Also, a case of Google vs. Apple for non SEP’s was slowed down a few months. This is in favor for Apple because Google is attempting to overturn some previous injunction which will have to hold for longer.

In another important case Google loss all but one SEP infringement, for a total of 5 patent infringement. The loss was on the basis of claim construction, which is a major loss for the Google lawyers.

Foxconn signed a deal with Microsoft to work together and address Androids infringement issues. This is very significant as Foxconn produces 40% of the electronics and they have thousands of patents that can prove to be harmful for Google.

Microsoft signed its 20^th licensing deal with ZTE over some patents that are used on Android. Nokia, Apple, and other third parties also hold patents on Android.
  
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/april-was-disastrous-for-google-on.html
     

Blog 24: Claim Construction Working For Defendant J&J on a Stent Patent

Many defendants, companies trying to show they did not infringe prefer a claim to be constructed broadly or narrowly. When hoping for a narrow claim it is in order to build a good case showing non infringement. When hoping for a broad case it is to build a case showing the claim is invalid.

Dr. Bruce Saffron is suing J&J for infringing on his patent which helps cover damaged tissue with a permeable sheet or spray. The cover prevent large molecules from going through while allowing smaller one to flow through. This is used in stints inserted for arteries all over the body. Previously he won 50M from Boston Scientific. Now, he won a case for 500M from J&J. However, four other circuit judges claimed that J&J is not infringing on the patent. The four judges each ruled on different reasons. The judges were all deciding based on the claim construction if the device needs a sheet or not, and if which bond the claim includes. This shows that just because one judge reads the claim one way does not mean that another judge will read it the same way. 

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/stent-patent-cannot-heal-divided-claim-construction.html

Blog 23: Ericsson and Nokia Selling Many Patents

 We always read about wireless mobile companies suing for patent infringement. In order to make the litigation, these companies need to acquire many patents. Lots of these patents end up being sold to other companies. In the past few weeks Ericsson and Nokia sold many of these patents to companies in other industries. Here is a look at what kind of patent deal they sell.  

Ericsson sold 820 patents to Unwired Planet Inc. The company invented many technologies that connect mobile phones to the internet. Part of the deals is that Ericsson will receive 20% of the first 100M in sales, 50% of first 500M, and 70% for any more revenue. Plus, this comes at a time when Unwired Planet is suin Google and Apple for infringement. I am specualtaing that acquiringg these patents will help their case.

In other news, Nokia transferred 30 patents to Memory Tehcnologies, LLC which is a company that does R&D in the physical, engineering, and life sciences industries. 

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/recent-patent-assignments.html

Blog 22: Another loss for Google against Apple and Microsoft

Apple and Microsoft are attempting to get a injunction lifted in Germany. The injunction is for automotive push notification coming from a cloud source. Apple had to stop this on their German products for services that used any automatic push notification like their icalendar, iemail and other data. This only applies to programs that are automatically updated and not ones that need to activated periodically.

Google Loses

The author thinks that the injunction will come to an end very soon. This will most likely happen through Apple and Microsoft filling a nullity, making the injunction invalid in the Germen Federal Patent Court. Another reason for the author’s speculation is that the court expressed doubt about the validity of the patent. If Google loses then they will need to pay Apple for holding a improper injunction. This is really sad for Android as this is the only injunction they are holding in the world and it is about to crumble down. While Apple and Microsoft have injunctions on Google or at least have accomplished some offensive litigation victories.     

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/appeals-court-likely-to-give-german.html

Blog 21- Nokia V. HTC continuing their litigation in the HTC

HTC Vs Nokia 

 Nokia filed paperwork for its lawsuit against HTC in the ITC, but it will be dropping three claims and focusing on four. The ITC usually expects a few claims to be dropped before beginning litigation in order to follow the time constraint. It seems that usually a case is filed in one court and then some claims are dropped and continued in the ITC. In the ITC is where companies try to give as much power as possible to each patent by attempting to put an injunction on the opposing product.  

However, in Germany Nokia was suing HTc on a 40 claim case and they won an injunction case. Now, HTC is countersuing Nokia which will likely drag on the case and prevent the injunction from happening so soon.  

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/nokia-streamlines-itc-case-against-htc.html

Blog 19: 2 Wars; ITC Vs. ALJ and Apple V. Samsung

Administrative Law Judge Pender made a remand against the ruling of Apple vs Samsung. Judge Pender added claim 34 and 35 to the review which was for a method of providing translucent images on to a computer display. The conclusion of the review will likely help Samsung in overturning Apple’s previous win on claim 34 and 35. The argument for Samsung is that they are not infringing because they are not selling the product, however Apple says the patented information is in the owner’s manual and it is being imported so that is grounds for infringement. The ITC staff who were sitting in on the review agrees with Apple and recommends the commissions to overrule, but Judge Pender still ruled in favor of Samsung. However, Samsung can still get an exclusion order from the ITC which is an import ban.

So there are two wars going on here Apple V Samsung and the SLJ Vs. the ITC. We see that ALJ  Judge Pander reviewed a previous case and overruled on a previous case. However, the ITC staff were also overseeing the case and they are trying to dismiss Judge Panders ruling.  

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/corrected-itc-ruling-finds-androids.html

Blog 20: Apple crushes Samsung in a battle of standard essential patents (SEP)

In the second round hearing of Apple V. Samsung with Judge Lucy Koh Apple has been crushing the battle. All of the claims were for patent infringements for smartphone systems patents. Four of five of Apple’s standard essential patents (SEP) claims held up with no problems and only one of Samsung’s claims held up. SEP usually deals with code that makes one device or system compatible with another, like making Wi-Fi compatible with every Wi-Fi capable device.

Apple beats Samsung

Apples four winning claims were Patent No. 5,666,502 which “provide solutions for improving speed and efficiency of data entry into user interface fields,"  Patent No. 5,946,647 - the famous "data tapping" patent.  The last two were dealing with SEM. Patent No. 7,761,414 on "asynchronous data synchronization amongst devices" and Patent No. 8,014,760 on "missed telephone call management for a portable multifunction device". The only thing protecting Samsung’s phones from future injunctions is  Patent No. 7,756,087 on a "method and apparatus for performing non-scheduled transmission in a mobile communication system for supporting an enhanced uplink data channel."  The Samsung claims that were tossed out were because of the word construction of the claim and for certain patents trying to be too broad. Apple attempted to add more infringements to the case, but the Judge Koh did not allow it. Seeing how well the case was going for Apple, another filing would have put Samsung in more trouble. 

Blog 18: Consolidates a few Google cases into one

Last week I wrote about Nokia suing Google and how the courts cut the amount of patents infringements for the case in half. While another case refused to add more cases to an already large portfolio of infringements. This week I will talk about the opposite, increasing the amount of infringement to a case by consolidating. Skyhook has two pending cases against Google that will be consolidated into one. The first case in 2010 was for patent infringement of location positioning software and for anti-competitive conduct. While the one in 2012 is another 9 patent infringements targeting Google maps ability to use geolocation and Wi-Fi.

 

One big down side for Skyhook in this case is that they will not go to court until 2014. It is amazing how a case that originally started in 2010 can take four years to be started. This is yet another example of the business trend of companies (especially Google) infringing on patents and not waiting for the consequences until the patent is actually worth something in the market. However, the time will come when Google will have to settle with Skyhook. This shows how big companies can just infringe on patents and not worry about the consequences until later.      

Blog 17: Sketching and Describing the Design of P&G's Mouthwash Bottle

Parent Patent

P&G is trying to patent an adaptation design of a mouthwash bottle. However, they are running into trouble because the person who patented the a new design on the bottle did not follow all of the rules. There are a few problems with the sketch of the new patent. The sketch added a trapezoidal region with dotted lines. Dotted lines is supposed to identify a region of the design that is unclaimed by another patent but already exists on the original design. However, P&G could not prove that the claimed trapezoidal region originally existed. Additionally, any new boundaries need to be correctly described in the brief, which this brief did not properly explain. The author continues to show where the written description for similar case had new lines that were not properly written in the brief. This additional error shows that the laws need to be more explicit in how to describe these new boundaries.    

Child Patent

Blog 16: Google and HTC Sued by Nokia for Tethering Infringement in ITC

Google and HTC are in court again trying to protect itself against an infringement case brought by Nokia. This time Nokia is trying to ban all Samsung devices as they may hold patented technology used in tethering. Tethering is the ability for someone to use their phone in order to set up a mobile Wi-Fi hotspot. In 1995, Nokia patented the capability of sending a data connection from a computer to set up a mobile device. At the time they did not even know how valuable the patent would be, so they did not bother setting up the patent in Europe. One argument Google is trying to claim that Nokia’s patent was only for using analogue devices, but now we are using 4G technology. Also, Google is trying claim that this patent is too broad and should therefore be thrown out. Apple and Blackberry have already settled this patent with Nokia, but Google is still fighting. Google seems like it will lose this case, and then they may have one more chance to prove that they are not infringing or their Samsung phones will be banned from importation.

Blog 15: Intellectual Property Ventures

Intellectual Ventures has a diverse portfolio of patents that they license out to companies from several industries. Licensing is their main source of revenue. However, Symantec, the popular computers based security system, does not see the need to respect three patents. So, Intellectual Ventures is suing Symantec for infringement. One interesting thing about this case is where all the patents originated. Intellectual Ventrues has acquired most of their patents from small tech companies that were shutting down, others from transferring company hands, and some from individuals who made the patent in their backyard. Intellectual Venures is very good at scouting for discounted patents.  They gather patents from different industries and companies in order to control many functions of one specific industry. I can imagine a company like this having extremely high profit margins and a lot of power.

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/03/intellectual-ventures-v-symantec.html 

Blog 14 - Judge denies additional claims Ericson Vs. Samsung

Ericson attempted to add 15 patents to its 130 claim portfolio against Samsung. These claims are on several of Samsung’s cellphones and tablets. However, the judge was worried about adding so many patents to a limited 15 month time frame for a case, so he rejected the addition patents. Most ITC judges are limited in time and try to reduce the amount of claims. Plus, most cases slash the amount of claims by majority or more. Plus, Erickson has recently been looked at suspiciously for filing claims that have hardly any basis. So, judges usually look at this unfavorably and it may affect their decisions in future cases. However, the judge for this case, Judge Shaw did not mention this when denying the additional 15 claims. This show how desperate companies are to get as much as they can out of these litigation cases. I can imagine the courts are seeing such high volume of complaints that they cannot handle so many claims.  

Blog 13 - Nokia Litigation - Google aids HTC

Nokia reduced the amount of patents it is asserting to 40 patents against HTC and  nine of those patents are through Nokia's company, ITC. Some infringements are on a calendar apparatus and a mobile terminal, which allows phones to stream movies and television. Google is acting as a intervenor with HTC’s fight against Nokia  through filing bland legal motions. Still, Nokia is getting impatient about Google and HTC’s unknown defensive stance. The author thinks that this case like 90% of patent litigation will be settled before trial. This is yet another example of Google siding with another company to defend another patent. Google seems to be having many strategic plans when it comes to patent litigation.  

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/nokia-drops-several-claims-of-one.html

Blog 12 - Comparing U.S Permanent Injunction to Germany's on Google Maps

Last blog I spoke about Nokia trying to change the direction of the U.S courts in order to make it easier to serve permanent injunctions, which means to completely stop business activities for the infringer's item. Comparatively, German courts already have the power for permanent injunctions. More specifically, in the U.S courts can use the demand for a product and its competitiveness as a reason not to stop the business, while Germany will stop any businesses if it infringes on a patent without its economic effect.  

German courts told Google Map's defenders to prepare for a permanent injunction. Microsoft is suing Google for infringing on a “big idea” patent created in 1996, which patents a computer systems ability to identify local items. This technology is used on Google maps in order to identify specific locations on the map. Even though Android, HTC, Samsung, and LG pay Microsoft to license this patent, Google says that they are not infringing on this patent. Now, the German court system thinks otherwise and is getting ready to stop Google maps. This is just one example of what could happen to businesses if permanent injunctions become more rampant in the U.S. Patents will become more valuable as they will have more power to stop businesses, and many other business decision will be affected.   

  

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/google-about-to-lose-patent-spat-with.html        

Nokia Showing Support for Permanent Injunctions - Blog 11

Patent Case

Nokia has lots of experience with patent litigation. It owns over 10,000 patents and had to protect these patents on many occasions. This includes settled patent instigation with Apple and Google. Plus, Nokia is attempting to have the courts be more responsive to patent holders needs, like themselves. This will in affect increase peoples’ ability to once again innovate and not worry about unprotected patents. Nokia will do this by increasing the courts ability to pass permanent injunctions, which is a complete stop of business activities for the patent infringers after a case is complete.

 Now Nokia is attempting to submit an ‘amicus brief’ (adding official testimony) with Apple and against Samsung. This case was ruled by Koh’s in mid-December, 2012 where apple won the patent infringement case against the Galaxy tab 10.1, Galaxy nexus smartphone, and others. However, judge Koh could not put forth a permanent injunction because in eBay v. MercExchange, and Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp made it nearly impossible for permanent injunctions to be passed. Nokia is trying to prove that because of these cases the court has diverged from its point of order by taking into consideration demand for the product, which is not part of patent law. Nokia has a strong point and if passed will have major implication on innovation, the economy, and patent wars.   

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/nokia-files-amicus-brief-supporting.html

Copyright a Hyperlink!?

Scholars have brought up a copyright case to the Court of Justice of the European Union in order to make it illegal to share a link to a site that has copyrighted information and is therefore illegal to see. The case started when someone who wrote an article referenced another article and which shared from then on. The group of scholars are trying to sue the person for making illegal content open to the web. This case seems pretty hard to go towards the scholars sides, as this practice is so prominent and hard to blame copyright infringement on the person sharing the link. Plus, this case  can have tremendous implication for the internet at large in the future. Half of what is on the internet are links that are shared illegally. For example, every time someone search on Google, there is an illegal link (not approve by owner) that Google dug up from the internet at large. Plus, if someone downloads a torrent to watch music or movie then whoever shared that link can be sued for lots of money. This would have implications for everyone who owns a site or shares info on the internet as they would need permission to post everything. the internet would be a different place and because of that, then I thin a law like that would take a while to pass.  

http://torrentfreak.com/hyperlinking-is-not-copyright-infringement-scholars-say-130218/ 

Foreign Online Copyright Infringement

Nowadays, many people have pictures online that they do not want other people to see. These pictures can be easily moved from place to place and even used illegally for profit through promotion. However, this year The Trinidad and Tobago Copyright Collection Organisation (TTCO) attempted to stop people from sharing their Carnival picture on social sites in order to avoid some uncensored photos from going online. As usual, no one really listened to laws preventing individual from accessing copyright intellectual property. However, Facebook did take down many photos for people in Trinidad. 

People download movies, music, and books online even though they have a copyright, why should this be any different. The main reason that people are accessing illegal intellectual property online is because it is so convenient and no one really gets caught or in trouble. So the rewards highly outweigh the risks of getting caught. In many countries, current laws are outdated and do not deal with online intellectual property. So, Trinidad is bringing new laws to update the language on copyright infringement and hopefully this will increase  private sector investments in the country and room for the creation of intellectual property. 

http://guardian.co.tt/lifestyle/2013-02-24/copyright-inconvenient-truth

Pirate Bay Sues Anti Piracy Group

Ironic things are happening with patent infringements lawsuits these days. Pirate bay is a file sharing websites that allows people to illegally download movies, music, and software illegally. All of their business is based on infringing copyrights and patents. They are suing CIAPC, a Finnish anti-piracy group. These opposite ideals are going at each other in court. Pirate bay claims that the Copyright Information and Anti-Piracy Centre (CIAPC) infringed on “parody” laws, as they copied imaging features on Pirate Bay’s site. Companies like pirate bay should not be given a chance of presenting their case and possibly winning money in court, as they are openly disregarding the law. There are other cases and people who deserve to be heard by the court.

On a sweeter note, Pirate Bay claims that if they win any money, then it will be used to buy a new laptop for 

the 9 year old girl whose laptop was confiscated by the police for piracy last year.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-20/macy-s-rex-titanic-pirate-bay-intellectual-property.html

Patents for Genetically Engineered

Have you ever though about making a patent on biological life? Very few people actually consider putting a patent on a living thing, like a specific cell or even a plant. These patents falls under the category of “biotechnology” and governments around the world are protecting these technologies with patents. However, these laws are a new system that even the U.S judiciary is still trying to figure out, as putting patents on living things is a new idea. For example, after the U.S patent office blocked GM’s patent on a bacteria that reduces water pollution, the Supreme Court over ruled the patent office’s decisions and allowed the patent to be implemented.

Now rising countries like Brazil are also protecting biological engineered patents. They put rules on what can be patented.  For example, it must be something that is novel, genetically altered;  non existent in nature, and will be used for industrialization. This patent also needs to be filed with the Brazilian patent office and put in a safe international depository for biologically engineered substances and organisms. These laws are impressive for a developing country as they are now implementing the same laws as the Budapest treaty, which is an internationally recognized treaty that Brazil did not sign in 1997. One thing the treaty put into place is an international depository in order to reduce biologically modified material and which Brazil is now also doing.

http://www.mondaq.com/x/222950/Patent/General+Overview+On+Patenting+Of+Microorganisms+In+Brazil

UN Working to Rid llegal Pharmaceutical drugs

Millions of people around the world purchase illegal pharmaceutical drugs from illegal drugs manufacturers who infringe on drug patents. As much as thirty percent of pharmaceutical drugs in Asia, Africa, and Latin America are illegal. Many of these drugs are not properly made or are completely fake and they have proven to be toxic. So, the UN office of drugs and crime (UNODC) is trying to minimize the amount of illegal pharmaceutical drugs in the world.They are working to have drug information easily accessible to all countries and to have more drug enforcement offices around the world.

Will taking down these illegal drug organizations help the people in these countries? The truth is that most of these illegal drug manufacturer are there compete with the high prices of pharmaceutical drugs. Plus, most people in these countries are already living in poverty and cannot afford these drugs, so they buy the cheap illegal ones. Maybe the hype about the illegal drugs being dangerous has been blown out of proportion by the pharmaceutical companies who would benefit from stopping the distribution of these drugs. If this is the case then it would be ideal if UNODC continues to stop the illegal drugs that are causing harm, while also working with pharmaceutical companies and countries to minimize prices.        

Government Protecting Trade Secrets From Going Abroad

Last week I spoke about how the government should help organizations protect their trade secrets and not just through patents, because the information of a patent is free to the public. This has proven to be a consistent problem in the financial industry. For example, last years a financial analyst for Goldman Sachs stole a complete trading program from the company, sent it to Germany in order to sell, and then erased it from his computer. When he was caught he was not convicted because the law was not written for that specific situation.Since the software was still being developed and it was only for assisting in international commerce. So it is unfortunate that he got away with stealing such valuable software.
Well a few months later Congress stepped up to protect our trade secrets. They recently added trade secret protection policies for more industries and raised the penalty for stealing trade secrets with two new acts. First, Theft of trade Secrets Clarification Act of 2012, which added into law the wording that stealing a product or service with the intention of using it in a foreign economy. This now includes stealing software from financial institutions. Second the Foreign and Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act of 2012 which raised the maximum monetary penalty by 10 times, from $500,000 to $5 million for committing economic espionage. So it now penalizes someone who steals a product or service with intention of selling it overseas to another company or government. Thankfully, Congress has done something to protect U.S intellectual property.

Copyright personal info on Facebook?

Most people have seen disclaimers from friends on Facebook or emails saying that the information they post cannot be used or transferred. This disclaimer is basically someone trying to copyright what they share online. However, it is really pointless because Facebook has the right to do what it wishes with the information that you share. That means they have the right to share your info with advertising companies and transfer your information to other sources. This is basically a friendly reminder that these companies know everything about you and they can do what they wish with that info. Do not be alarmed they are probably just running data about your age, sex, keywords you use, and sharing it as a stat with potential advertisers. However, they have the right to do this and a simple disclaimer at the end will not stop your info from being shared with others.   

http://gizmodo.com/5963210/that-facebook-copyright-notice-is-worthless

Military Intellectual Property

People usually do not think much about the patents in the military. However, look at countries like China and Russia you can see thousands of products and factories based off of patent infringement. However, patents in the military are usually kept by other nations to an extent. Even countries like Russia and China have not directly copied military patents. These countries try to build similar weapons, but not exactly alike. They can use reverse engineering, but that can also be too expensive for some countries. However, what really holds the difference in these advanced weapons is the trade secrets that the military engineers hold. So countries such as Iran, China, and Russia may try to create fighter jets and military ships but the weapons will not be as strong or compatible as the weapons they copy. So, they usually resort to copying many similar features and cannot copy exactly the same thing.
In the future, hopefully there will be some international rules and enforcers  of patents. So they can constitute the grounds for international patent infringements  Plus, the real worry of patent infringements comes from the increasing amount of cyber attacks on "intelligent offices," like the White House and Pentagon. Where the hackers can steal blueprints of billion dollar military engineer projects and then create the exact same thing somewhere else.

http://thediplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2013/02/06/intellectual-property-meets-military-tech/

Google alert "intellectual property"

Why this class?

I am interested in new technology that change the world and businesses today. Technological advnaces that affect people today are almost always patented. Because no one wants to have their intellectual property used for someone else's profit. So, I want to follow and learn about patents which will in turn teach me about the technologies that could affect todays business world. In particular, how to value these patents.

Additionally, this past winter break I went to Israel where I visited tens of brilliant  high tech companies. They all had patents to protect their products and businesses. Some companies were in the process of battling patent infringements in other countries like China and Korea. So, another thing that I am interested in learning is the big question of how to protect patents internationally and not just nationwide.

  

A little about me

Hello everyone,
My name is Dove, like the delicious chocolate. I am a Junior business student who started a small produce delivery business in the past and is trying out the financial services industry now. I transferred in the beginning of fall from Santa Monica College (SMC). I have lived my whole life in the city of Los Angeles right near Hollywood Blvd. where all the dead celebrities have their hands imprinted on the floor.
In general, I like people who are motivated, caring, and funny. Plus I enjoy  meeting people, discussing solutions, traveling, being in nature, and drinking lightly.
I enjoy being outdoors, being active, and playing all different sports. Since the age of 9 I have been playing basketball on teams and still play Intramural (IM) today. Plus, I love to snowboard and bring my GoPro camera which is the witness of the crazy things that I do in the mountains.