Week 4 - Post 2: Bowman v. Monsanto

        Today I read about a court case pitting the world's biggest seed company, Monsanto, against an Indiana seed farmer named Vernon Hugh Bowman.  Monsanto, which produces genetically modified seeds, claimed that Bowman replanted soybeans that Monsanto had manufactured, which is against the law.  In order for Monsanto to sell seeds each year, and thus to be profitable, they sell their seeds with the instructions that their seeds are not to be replanted so that farmers must repurchase these seeds from them yearly  Bowman claims he purchased the soybeans from a grain elevator, a facility that distributes grain, and saved $30,000 doing so.  However, Monsanto claims that Bowman has still violated their patent rights.
        Many companies support Monsanto in their lawsuit, for the very obvious reason that if Bowman is allowed to reuse the seeds, that many companies will be vulnerable to having other people reproduce their products that they spent millions developing.  For instance, Apple and Microsoft fear legislation in fear of Bowman could aid those who pirate software.  I am personally inclined to side with Monsanto, although I believe they have too large of a monopoly on the seed industry.  If Bowman were to win, then the patent rights of many companies would be at risk, which could slow down innovation in the United States.

Here is the link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-19/top-court-justices-signal-support-for-monsanto-on-patents.html

Week 4 - Post 1: Limiting Software Patents

        Google, Facebook, and JP Morgan Chase & Co. have all teamed up together to lobby for the U.S. courts to make stricter rules about what type of software can be patented, thus making it easier and less expensive to weed out frivolous and time-consuming lawsuits.  However most interestingly, by supporting stricter rules about software patents, these companies are signaling that they do not wish to engage in patent lawsuits any longer.  Google especially must be tired of fighting patent lawsuits off from both their mobile device and search-engine fronts, notably with Apple, and this alliance with Facebook and JP Morgan will allow them to do so.

        Ten judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals, "...heard arguments about how to distinguish software innovations from programs that computerize unpatentable ideas...".  I wonder what the court will decide upon to be the definition of unpatentable ideas?  Here is an obvious instance in which non-partial and unbiased programming and technology consultants should be involved in helping to decide what the ruling on this case will be.  Were these companies to have their way, the patent wars of today may be long gone in several months, and many of the frivolous litigation of the past will no longer have to be a concern for today's inventors and researchers.  I personally hope that the court appeal for tighter software patent law goes through, as this will allow more freedom within the technology industry to experiment and fully develop more of their ideas, which in the long run can only help the economy.  

Here is the link to the article: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-08/google-joins-jpmorgan-in-seeking-software-patent-limits.html

Week 3 - Post 2: Musical IP

        For this post I just want to share my thoughts on intellectual property regarding music.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Dr. Lavian mentioned in class that it becomes very hazy when trying to patent a "musical idea", such as a melody or a certain rhythm used in a song.  Many artists likely seek out the permission of other artists and producers to use certain melodies and background beats, and I assume this would apply to a majority of instances in which artists borrow music, but I wonder what happens for cases in which an artist blatantly records over another artists melody or riff without first seeking their permission.  Clearly for basic drum beats, rhythms, scales, and chords (multiple musical notes being played together in harmony), it would be hard to argue that you were the originator of these ideas.  Furthermore blatantly stealing several lines of lyrics would obviously be a likely source of infringement.  But for songs with original background melodies and riffs, such as the "musical themes" or backgrounds in rap, does patent law apply? Should it apply?  I have personally listened to several modern artists who borrowed musical ideas from earlier artists; whether or not they sought permission to do so is another question.  I believe everybody should be able to produce music however they want, even if it involves using previously employed musical ideas, so long as someone does not steal whole lines of lyrics.  For example when Vanilla Ice used Queen's melody from Under Pressure as a musical underbelly for Ice Ice Baby, I thought the choice to do so was unique and refreshing.  I am curious to hear what everyone else thinks.

Week 3 - Post 1: Apple & Samsung Redefined

        The article I chose to read and comment about today was one sent out by Professor Lavian earlier this week.  The article essentially summarizes a new emerging relationship between Samsung and Apple, a relationship which will likely be redefined in the months to come as less intense and hostile as the patent wars die down.  Although Apple won a billion dollar court case last August against Samsung it was believed Apple would be able to achieve a ban on Samsung products, however Apple has failed to demonstrate Samsung caused them "irreparable harm".  Thus, Apple is now having trouble with their lawsuits against Samsung, and Samsung will be still have time to continue pushing out its new products.  Yet both companies have had reciprocally beneficial relationships in the past, and some believe even more collaboration between the two companies has yet to come once the patent wars are extinguished.
        One of the most interesting things that stood out to me about the Apple v. Samsung patent wars was the fact that Apple was unable to get sales bans on Samsung's products, even though they had patents on many of their technologies.  Simply because sales by Samsung were not "wiping out" Apple's customer base, the court was not in favor of Samsung.  This concept is what interested me the most - the fact that if you have a patented device, and a rival creates a similar product infringing on your patents, you cannot have their product banned unless they cause you great harm by stealing a large amount of sales from your company.  This seems to defeat the purpose of patents; the judges essentially said to Apple that they were not losing that much money, so that it was okay for Samsung to continue selling their products, even though some of them violated patents by Apple.  I know this promotes competition, but doesn't this seem unfair to those companies who justifiably filed their patents in the first place?

Here is the link to the article:

http://news.msn.com/science-technology/stalemate-between-apple-samsung-in-smartphone-wars

Week 2 - Post 2: Patent War Perspective

        I have read several of the posts by the students of the Dr. Lavian's class, and I noticed that many people expressed a negative opinion regarding the patents that had been filed and /or purchased by Google, Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, etc.  Many people commented that a majority of the patents that were filed were "excessive", such as the patent on the rounded edges of a smartphone.  I completely agree with many of the students about patents such as these, however because nobody seems to be arguing for the opposing view - that the smartphone patent wars are not excessive and that they are instead actually good for the economy- I have decided to play devil's advocate.

        In a New York Times article published November of 2012, David J. Kappos, director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, argued that the smartphone patent wars were not excessive and that, "'the fact is, the explosion of innovation — and follow-on litigation — that we see across consumer electronics hardware and software is a direct reflection of how our patent system wires us for innovation.'”  Kappos argues that the patent wars are simply a naturally occurring byproduct of the competitive society that we live in - an idea which does have a lot of merit.  Kappos also argued that after examining, "'some of the highest-profile litigation among major firms in the smartphone industry... the courts ruled that more than 80 percent of the patents were valid.'"  Kappos thus implies that most of the patents that were filed, ridiculous or not, were deemed valid by the courts, and thus that these patents were inherently valid to begin with.  I'm curious to see what everyone else thinks about Kappos' view.

Here is the link to the article:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/smartphone-patent-wars-show-the-system-works-patent-chief-says/?ref=patentandtrademarkoffice

Week 2 - Post 1: Beer Battles

        A little over two weeks ago, Anheuser-Busch - the Belgian brewing company and manufacturer of the popular Budweiser brand beer - won a court case in the European Union over a trademark dispute with a Czech brewing company called Budejovicky Budvar.  The dispute, which was over the right to use the "Bud" trademark, was settled by the General Court of the European Union in favor of Anheuser-Busch because they claimed, "that Budvar failed to show it used the word 'Bud' for its products to a sufficient level before A-B's application for a trademark in 1996."  In other words, although Budvar had in fact been the first to use the "Bud" trademark, Anheuser-Busch was able to successfully lay claim to the trademark due to filing their application in a timely manner.
       A court case like the one between Anheuser-Busch and Budvar seems ridiculous considering that Budvar was acknowledged as the originator of the "Bud" trademark in the first place.  In fact, I would venture to say that Anheuser-Busch likely won the dispute due to their vast legal and financial resources, compared to that of Budvar.  It's hard to imagine how many times something similar to this case must have occurred - where a small company that originally used some patentable idea or trademark lost their rights to that item because they lacked the resources to fight off a larger and wealthier firm.  I may be incorrect in assuming that Anheuser-Busch won their court case simply by "outspending" Budvar on legal fees etc., however I feel that cases such as this are commonplace, considering the enormous influence that businesses have over politics through their lobbying efforts.  Regardless, Anheuser-Busch now has practically universal protection for their "Bud" trademark throughout the world according to their company spokesperson.  The following is a link to the article:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-busch-wins-long-battle-over-bud-trademark-in-europe-20130122,0,7915133.story


I'd be very interested to see what everyone else thinks.

Week 1 - Post 2: Hopes for IEOR 190G

        Regarding what I expect to gain from IEOR 190G, as an intended Business Administration major and intended Energy Engineering minor, I hope this course will grant me the experience and knowledge necessary not only to file my own patents but to understand the basics of patent law so as to avoid infringement of any sort.  I am contemplating eventually starting my own clean-tech firm, and if that were the case I would likely choose to develop a patentable product or process of my own that would require to have the knowledge to do so.  Out of curiosity as well I would like to gain a basic understanding of the various claims and suits that can be filed against (presumed) violators of patent and copyright law.  In addition to my academic expectations, I also hope to meet people that share similar interests to mine regarding business and patent law.  Finally, I enjoy meeting new people, and I hope that we have plenty of opportunities to do so in this class!