Unicorn: Dropbox

The next Unicorn that I'll be discussing is Dropbox. Dropbox is a file hosting service that offers "cloud storage, file synchronization, personal cloud, and client software." It was founded by MIT alums, Drew Houston and Arash Ferdowsi in 2007. Their software allows users to create a special folder on their computers, which Dropbox then synchronizes so that it appears to be the same folder (with the same contents) regardless of which device is used to view it. So no matter if they’re on their phone app, their computer, someone else's computer, they can access all of the files they need instantly. I for one use this software a lot for photo sharing with friends or as a form of an external hardrive for documents I can't lose. 

As of now, Dropbox is valued at $10billion with an IP patent portfolio list longer than my resume. Their most notable patent is US 8825597 B1, Network folder synchronization. This patent details how multiple clients can share and synchronize folders and their contents across a network and have it be the most up-to-date version of that file too. This aspect truly makes Dropbox what it is and is the core reasoning behind its booming popularity. On top of that one, they have patents about “shared content item commenting,” “system and method for group participation in a digital media presentation,” “peer-to-peer synchronization,” (displayed above) and many many more. Plus their client base is even longer; they provide client software for the OS systems Linux, OS X, and Windows NT. And on smartphones such as Android, BlackBerry OS, iOS, and Windows Phone. 

Dropbox definitely has some major competitors in this field however. Companies such as Google with googledrive as well as smaller ones such as 4share and AeroFS are providing the exact same service so it’s hard to differentiate. However, Dropbox is still going strong and has an edge with their patents.

Unicorn: AirBnB

This week we're learning about Unicorn companies, which is a privately owned start-up company valued at over $1 billion (and even better, the Canadian tech unicorns are known as narwhals). One of the most well-known and third most successful of recent Unicorns is Airbnb. Airbnb is a website for people to list, find, and rent lodging in most cities all over the world. It has over 1,500,000 listings in 34,000 cities and 190 countries. It was founded in August 2008 in our own backyard of San Francisco. I've used Airbnb on numerous occasions and I completely understand its success from those encounters with it. It's so much cheaper than most hotels and if you truly want to experience a city it puts you right in the centre with a local. I plan on using Airbnb all throughout my travels this summer in Europe and will continue to use it in the future.

Because of this new and innovative way to travel, Airbnb is currently valued at $25.5 billion after its latest round of funding. In eight years it has accumulated that much money... thats insane! The industry that they operate under (and created in the first place) is known as "alternative accommodations space" and the industry is estimated at a worth of $100 billion and Airbnb has taken ownership over a quarter of that.

As of now, Airbnb's IP patent portfolio consists of 7 different patents. A main one is; US 20150154163 A1 "Third party assets merging for embedment into web pages." But, perhaps a way for them to bolster this portfolio is to acquire patents on their non-obvious innovative software aspects that have put them ahead of their fellow competitors.

Their competitors, who include other "alternative accommodations space" companies such as Tripping, Roomorama, and Homeaway, along with everyday hotels, Airbnb is killing the game. The graph below displays the fact that valuation for Starwood Hotels, Marriott International, Hilton, and Hyatt have all declined in the last year while Airbnb is just continuously climbing.

Microsoft vs. Motorola cont.

After the decision made in the US and being $14.5 million dollars down the drain in damages, Motorola took the battle overseas. They filed patent infringement cases in Germany, accusing Microsoft of infringing two H.264-essential patents. They alleged that Microsoft’s Xbox and Windows infringed on Motorola’s German patents essential to the H.264 standard. Motorola eventually got an injunction against Microsoft from the German court prohibiting Xbox sales in that country (but they found a loophole and started just distributing through the Netherlands). Then they brought it back Stateside where Microsoft filed a motion in Washington trying to prevent Motorola from enforcing the injunction, and the court granted temporary restraining order between the two companies butting heads.

This case is ever continuing and is just one of the many multimillion dollar smartphone war cases that have been circulating around the globe. Since smartphones are such a new concept the lines of the law are very much skewed and blurry. The high level of intellectual property on top of the insane software created from that is undeniable, and thats the issue. Since patent courts are still very much facing issues, its nearly impossible for them to correctly rule this brand new products. On top of that fact is the idea that these companies are world wide. And because of that, they have courts all over the world to hop to and from if it doesn't work out in their favour in one place. It's like an endless cycle of lawsuit and money going out the widow. Just look at this graph, everyone in this industry is facing lawsuits and it doesn't seem like its going to be solved any time soon.

Microsoft vs. Motorola

In October 2010, Microsoft sued Motorola for patent infringement of their smartphone-related patents in both the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and W.D. Washington district court. Case 696 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2012) was a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case about Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) Licensing and foreign anti-suit injunction. RAND, in the patent sense not the African currency, denotes "a voluntary licensing commitment that standards organizations often request from the owner of an intellectual property right (usually a patent) that is, or may become, essential to practice a technical standard."  Apparently 9 aspects of Motorola's Android smartphones infringed on Microsoft's patents, these include the following:

• 5,758,352: Common name space for long and short filenames
• 6,370,566: Generating meeting requests and group scheduling from a mobile device
• 6,621,746: Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an indicator for invoking erasure operations
• 7,644,376: Flexible architecture for notifying applications of state changes
• 6,826,762: Radio interface layer in a cell phone with a set of APIs having a hardware-independent proxy layer and a hardware-specific driver layer
• 6,909,910: Method and system for managing changes to a contact database
• 5,664,133: Context sensitive menu system/menu behavior
• 6,578,054: Method and system for supporting off-line mode of operation and synchronization using resource state information 
• 5,579,517: Common name space for long and short filename

In short, these patents include such aspects as Calendar, Update Software, Contacts, and many more. Soon after this file was made, Motorola sent Microsoft two letters. The letters outlined an offer in which Motorola asked Microsoft for a 2.25% royalty rate on the price of all end products (the smartphone android in question) that Microsoft sold which drew upon the technologies that Motorola had patented. Microsoft deemed this idea completely outlandish and insane so they responded by filing a "breach of contract case" against Motorola, claiming that Motorola had violated its agreement "to provide reasonable and non-discriminatory terms of licensing to all potential licensees on a global scale." So, officially on November 9th, Microsoft files an official complaint against Motorola, stating that they had gone against their contractual RAND licensing obligations. In court, Judge Robart dismissed most of Microsoft’s claims, but upheld the breach of contract claims. 

(Case will continue in the next post)

Silly Patent: Animal Ear Protector

So this one is actually extremely adorable and will make your puppy look like it belongs in space... but still useless. US 4233942 A "provides a device for protecting the ears of animals, especially long-haired dogs, from becoming soiled by the animal's food while the animal is eating."
Just look how cute that puppy is up there. However, the way I look at this device is that someone stuck two empty toilet paper rolls onto two clasps from a hat. Granted, the inventor, James D. Williams, discussed prior art but all he seemed to mention was previous ear protector inventions. No where does he mention toilet paper rolls or the clasp of a hat. James was definitely successful in creating a device that is not obvious, but what he doesn't realize is that anyone could make this at home practically for free. Plus, I personally think its adorable when puppies haven't grown into their ears and end up getting it into their food so this invention is useless in my perspective.

What this week of Silly Patents has taught me is just how creative (to put in nicely) people are in this world. There are hundreds of thousands of patents in existence, and a lot of them have truly changed to lives of everyone in our society today. On the other hand, hundreds of thousands is quite a lot and definitely leaves room for stupid ones to get approved. But, even though they may seem stupid, major props to the inventors for thinking outside of the box on these ones.

Silly Patent: The Butt Kicker

Before taking this class I genuinely thought that all patents were important and useful to our world in anyway. Well.... I guess I was quite naive in thinking that. On top of the centrifugal force machine to birth a baby (honestly how did anyone think this was safe or necessary) and the fact that someone was successful in patenting a branch (????), I have come across many patents that just make me go "huh?" Amongst them is this beauty; US 6293874 B1 User-operated amusement apparatus for kicking the user's buttocks. I don't even know what to say, just please look at this picture. 
The patent is described as, "an amusement apparatus including a user-operated and controlled apparatus for self-infliction of repetitive blows to the user's buttocks by a plurality of elongated arms bearing flexible extensions that rotate under the user's control... As the user rotates the crank, the user's buttocks are paddled by flexible shoes located on each outboard end of the elongated arms to provide amusement to the user and viewers of the paddling." I cannot tell you which part of this made me laugh the most because it was all of it. But it just keeps getting better because of how serious the patent is. The inventor, Joe W. Armstrong, has included 14 claims to his 62 part invention (SIXTY-TWO just have to emphasize that) as well as including information regarding the prior art, which in the case means, "individual spanking devices that must be reloaded or reset after each individual spanking action."

Now all I can imagine is some random person who paid real money for this device and has it in their basement and decides from time to time that he or she needs a laugh so all by their lonesome they venture downstairs and begin the crank to smack their butt. I can imagine the little giggles so clearly and I would like to thank Joe personally for this invention. And here are some more pictures just to make your imagination of this clearer:
 

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

In 2007 the Supreme Court took on the case of 550 US 398, a case between KRS International and Teleflex Inc concerning the issue of obviousness as applied to patent claims. Teleflex sued KSR under the claim that one of KSR's products was an infringement on Teleflex's patent (US 6237565 B1) which is titled: Adjustable pedal assembly with electronic throttle control. However, KRS responded that the invention and combination of those two object was "obvious," thus making it not worthy of a patent. This stems from 35 U.S.C. Section 103(a), stating that obvious inventions cannot be patented. According to this condition, in order to determine the obviousness of a patent claim, the courts must "consider the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the subject matter of the claim, and the ordinary skill level required of a person in the subject matter of the claim before considering secondary factors and the test for teaching, suggestion, or the patentee's motivation."

At first, the case was taken to district courts where they voted in favour of KRS, agreeing with the fact that the patent is in fact "obvious" so the infringement is in fact allowed. The court stated and ruled that anyone with knowledge or experience in the industry would have considered it obvious that the two components could be combined. However, Teleflex would not accept that and decided to take the case to the Court of Appeals in 2005. In this court the original decision by the District Court was reversed. The Circuit Court reversed it because they found that the district court's analysis was incomplete, mostly because they had not applied a full "teaching-suggestion-motivation test" (TSM). The TSM test, established by the Federal Circuit, "requires evidence of some reason to combine various references that teach the elements of the invention, as claimed." Thus, in order to describe patent US 6237565 B1 as 'obvious' the District Court would have had to identify the exact "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" that would have led any competent person to think to put together the two previously-existing components. But KRS did not accept the new decision and decided to take the case to the Supreme Court. Finally, April 30, 2007, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the decision of the Federal Circuit, holding that the patent was 'obvious' under the requirements of 35 U.S.C. section 103, and that in "rejecting the District Court’s rulings, the Court of Appeals analyzed the issue in a narrow, rigid manner inconsistent with §103 and our precedents," which refers to the Federal Circuit's use of the "teaching-suggestion-motivation" (TSM) test.

Overall, this case is a perfect representative of the vagueness of the idea of obviousness when it comes to claims and court cases. It went through two different courts before reaching the Supreme Court. This shows how this idea of vagueness needs to be further defined and analyzed to make it a clear and distinct differentiation for patents.