Ted Talk_Our Patent System may be Outdated

In his Ted Talk "Embrace the remix," Kirby Ferguson claims that our patent system is outdated by not allowing an individual's creativity to catch momentum from other ideas.

Ferguson goes out of his way to compare various songs of Bob Dylan to the original songs from which he borrowed tunes to show that borrowing others' ideas and making them your own through varying interpretation is not always a bad thing.

Steve Jobs' supposedly new technology of "multi-touch" is also considered by Ferguson to be an idea that was not completely brand new but rather bothered and altered to suit a new purpose. Ferguson says that multi-touch had been around for decades before Jobs had patented it. And so, in through producing patent law, the government, in Ferguson's opinion, fails to promote the progress of useful arts.


The original Ted Talk is below:

http://www.ted.com/talks/kirby_ferguson_embrace_the_remix/

Ted Talk 5_Patents vs Free Flowing Ideas_Insight from the Fashion Industry

Typically, we believe that patents protect most industries by allowing the original creator to safeguard his idea. In her Ted Talk, Johanna Blakley claims that the fashion world's incessant creativity sprouts from its free culture. The fashion industry does not rely on patents to protect clothing ideas and apparel, and Blakley argues that it thrives because of this.


The reason the fashion industry did not have copyright protection is because American courts decided that apparel is far too utilitarian and commonplace to qualify for copyright certification.  Without patents, the fashion industry has thrived from being able to bounce ideas from all sources - the person down the street who has great fashion sense to the French designer. Some may have even literally copied each other. Thus, to stay competitive, designers around the world have had to come up with new fashion ideas and trends that would draw in their customers.

Still, Blakley claims that the ability to copy fashion ideas makes clothes available to everyone: those that want Gucci purses but can't pay 2k can afford knockoffs for cheaper prices, while wealthier individuals who care for the genuine name-brand purses will gladly pay $2400 for the Gucci purse in store. And, this is why the high-end fashion industry has been so successful, despite the lack of patents to protect from the production of knockoffs: because their customers base remains wealthy and loyal.

This ability to sell both expensive and lesser versions of original ideas could possibly play out well in the drug industry, which is currently controlled by pharmaceutical companies who can afford R&D to create restrictive patents. This is problematic, as poorer individuals who need the drugs oftentimes can't afford to buy expensive drugs ; they would largely benefit from an increase in generic drugs. In the drug case, the fashion industry practice of having unrestricted production of ideas could save lives by making generic drugs more accessible to those who need them.

Ridiculous Patent Part 2: the Cordless Jump Rope

The Cordless Jump Rope was published in 2006 by Lester J. Clancy.

 The cordless jump rope simulates the effects of jumping rope without actually utilizing an actual rope. What's cool about this contraption is that is offsets the cons of jumping rope by getting rid of the jump rope: one no longer has to worry about hitting the ceiling with the roof or even tripping over the jump rope because of his lack of coordination, because there's no rope! One could even jump rope while sitting on the couch; the jump rope simulation is great, but how much of an exercise would one actually get out of jumping rope if one did not have the rope?

This invention is non-obvious, as one would not think to take out the rope of the jump rope. It's possible that this patent should be renamed though, as the cordlessness takes out the rope from the jump rope: perhaps cordless stimulus of jump roping would be better.

If you'd like to see the patent for the cordless jump rope, here it is: https://www.google.com/patents/US7037243?dq=jump+no+rope&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dCQrVYq4G4reoASA84GADA&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA

Ridiculous Patent Part 1: Frameless glasses attaching to the body

You read correctly: the USPTO actually allowed this fabulous idea to become an actual patent.

This patent for Frameless glasses attaching to body piercing studs was originally published in 2003 by John Rose.

Here's a picture of the contraption.


In Rose's patent, the frameless glasses can attach to one's face either through eyebrow studs and/or nose bridge studs. This patent seems ridiculously painful to me, as I don't understand why a person would want to have his glasses on all day. Not only would the piercing hurt, but the could potentially become infected, which brings complicated the ordeal of having to wear corrective lenses. Moreover, wearing glasses is an inconvenience when one showers or sleeps.

This patent wouldn't infringe on the grounds of anticipation, as it's not likely that anyone in the field of eyeglasses production would think of that one's potential customers would be actually go along with the idea of having their faces pierces so as to not lose their glasses.

This patent particularly stood out to me because I have lost at least half a dozen of pairs of glasses in my lifetime. Still, I would not resort to having frameless glasses pierced on my face; I'll try to be more responsible instead.

If you'd like to take a look at the actual patent, here's the link: https://www.google.com/patents/US6557994?dq=pierced+glasses&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HR8rVZrbAsXooASywYDIDw&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA

Fighting Non-Practicing Entities: the TROL Act

In 2014,  the House of Representatives passed a patent reform bill called the Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters Act to deal with the issue of misleading patent demand letters. Unfortunately, non-practicing entities accuse both large and small businesses on the grounds of patent infringement. Although larger businesses can afford to go through related cases, smaller mom and pop stores can't afford to go to cases, so they often give into trolling entities demands for upfront fines.

MPHJ and Innovatio IP Ventures are two different non-practicing entitities that haven taken advantage of their patenting rights to exploit business in their related fields. MPHJ sent over 16,000 letters to small business demanding payment for their use of basic "scan to email" technology. Similarly, Innovatio delivered over 10,000 letters to cafe and hotel businesses to demand payment for providing Wi-Fi from them. Innovatio even went as far as to target millions of devices that were already protected by patent licenses.

These trolling entities waste a lot of businesses' time and money, especially in regards to smaller business who deem these demand letters as high potential risks for their businesses.

Although the TROL Act's drafting shows that Congress somewhat cares about the abuse that NPEs are inflicting on thousands of businesses throughout America, this act does not bear enough teeth to actually stop trolling identities' greedy schemes.

Source: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/when-it-comes-stopping-patent-trolls-trol-act-not-enough

NPE Litigation: Wyncomm and HD Radio

Not only going after WiFi-related offenders, Wyncomm LLC has joined forces with Delaware Radio Technologies to sue companies for HD Radio Patent Infringement.

These two firms sued various automobile companies, like Chrysler Group LLC and Porsche Cars North America, for making, using, importing, selling, and/or offering automobiles for sale that are equipped to receive HD radio broadcasting. Various broadcasting companies, such as CBS and Univision, have also been sued, as these firms are infringing Delaware Radio's patent by using HD Radio Transmission. Delaware Radio is the only firm that has a license to the use of this technology.

Unfortunately, Wyncomm and Delaware Radio's attempts to sue these major automobile and broadcasting agencies is frustrating Congress, as it seems quite ridiculous that non-practicing entities are stifling these bigger corporations' operations because they want to collect licensing fees and other financial compensation through these so-called patent infringements. For this reason, Congressmen have introduced the Patent Litigation and Innovation Act of 2013, that will require more stringent proof for patent holding companies to establish a formal lawsuit for potential patent infringement.

It's interesting to note that Wuncomm began suing most of these HD radio-violating firms in November of 2013, which is when its former US Patent expired. One can thus assume that Wyncomm switched to HD Radio infringement because it needed to find a new cause to sue firms.

Source: http://www.ipbrief.net/2013/11/24/wyncomm-llc-sues-113-companies-for-alleged-hd-radio-patent-infringement/

Non-Practicing Entities' WiFi Litigation

There are several NPE's that sue other firms for patent infringement through the usage of WiFi-compliant devices.

Innovatio IP Ventures in one such non-practicing entity who has attacked thousands of businesses, of all sizes, for infringing on WiFi-related patents that were formerly owned by Broadcom.

Another NPE that's also targeting businesses who infringe WiFi-related patents is Wyncomm LLC. Wyncomm has asserted that companies who use WiFi-compliant devices are infringing on U.S. Patent No. 5,506,866 - "Side-channel communications in simultaneous voice and data transmission."
Wyncomm claims that entities, such as Acer, Apple, and Casio Computer infringe this patent by importing, making, providing, selling, and/or providing and causing products that use WiFi to be used. Wyncomm filed dozens of suits against various firms in 2013, as this patent was going to expire in November of 2013, and the firm wanted to take advantage of it for as long as possible.

Wyncomm targeted Apple's iPhone and iPad and Casio's GzOne Bouler as devices that allegedly infringe the '866 patent, which transmits data through a WiFi network and converts information that represents analog data into voice or sound.

Sources:

http://www.essentialpatentblog.com/2013/04/non-practicing-entity-wyncomm-llc-claims-wifi-devices-infringe-former-att-patent/

http://www.law360.com/articles/432082/apple-asus-targeted-in-wi-fi-patent-blitz

YouTube's Insight on Obviousness

Here's some interesting knowledge that I gained about Obviousness.

From Peer to Patent - What is prior art?

Before an application can be issued, the potential patent needs to be compared to prior art, which helps the patent examiner see whether a patent's claims are new, usable, and non-obvious. The three main qualities of prior art are that this work should be published, it should come before the date of the invention, and prior art must relate to a specific claim in the patent application that's being reviewed. 

Anticipation of prior art, infringement in a time machine invention- Patents, Inventions and Ideas

A scenario between two friends regarding a time machine describes that anticipation and infringement are both dependent on time. If a person copies another person's invention, but the original creator has not published a patent for his idea, than this other person can legally patent the original inventor's idea. This did not occur in this video, as Julie copied the original inventor's patent AFTER the original person had filed her patent, so Julie's patent application was rejected on the counts of infringement and anticipation of her prior art. The main takeaway of this video is: that which infringes if later, anticipates if earlier.



Novelty and Non-obviousness

In this video from Goldstein Patent Law, Attorney Goldstein clearly describes the two main requirements for an idea to be patented: novelty and non-obviousness. For an idea to be novel, it must have nothing exactly like it in prior art. The second characteristic is that the invention needs to be non-obvious, or a significantly different invention or addition to the previous patent that is not a predictable leap that people in that respective field would easily come up with on their own.

Obviousness

Here are a few things that I learned about Obviousness through my Google search on the topic:

• Graham v. John Deere Co. was the Supreme Court case that first drew upon the idea of obviousness, which took place in 1966. The ultimate decree of the case was that the following analytical framework should be considered when deciding whether a patent is obvious or not:

1. Determine the scope and content of the prior art
2. Ascertain the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art
3. Resolve the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
4. Consider the objective indicia of non-obviousnes

• Obviousness isn't very predictable because it's very subjective in nature.
• In 2007, KSR v Teleflex (which we learned about in class) was an incredibly influential Supreme Court case in the patent world.
• the teaching, suggestion or motivation test was declared too restrictive, although the TSM test had facilitated patent creation during the previous 30 years.
• By saying that "common sense" should be used to decide whether a patent is obvious or not, the Supreme Court increasing the subjectivity of deciding whether an idea for a new patent is obvious or not. The Court didn't really define what it meant by common sense, so a lot of room was left for interpretation
• Obviousness is typically unevenly applied by patent examiners; because they have a lot of discretion in their choosing of patents, patent examiners pass some ideas way too easily while stunting the patenting process of others harshly.
• Maybe the patent world needs a bit more regulation through better structured guidelines for their patent examiners.

The Obviousness of Similar Patents Regarding Sleeving Systems

Obviousness in the patent world means that a person having ordinary skills in that respective art would not have easily thought of an idea given the plurality of the prior art. In my opinion, the following patents are all very similar. I did notice that the authors of the patents included specific rhetoric to differentiate their particular patents as original ideas. Despite their similarity, one can argue that the changes of the patents are incremental improvements rather than peculiarly insignificant changes for the sake of having different patents that allow the respective inventors the ability to manufacture these goods without the need of licensing from previous inventors’ patent ideas.

The first time that the idea of a thermal-beverage-related patent was established was 1948 with the thermal coffee cup. Here, Delbert Phinney described his patent as a hand-held container that was adapted to withhold hot substances.

From there, the idea was restructured by James Arthur Rule who patented the sleeve construction for improved paperboard cup insulation in November of 2000. His idea differed from Phinney’s in that his protective sleeves had hot-melt glue dots that improved the insulating abilities of the paperboard cup.

Following Rule’s improvement, Liming Cai created a patent for the insulating sleeve in 2002. Cai’s patent further describes the abilities of the “insulating” sleeve, as it could be used for both hot and cold beverages, as well as paperboard and non-paper cups.

Although John Katchko et al filed a patent for the thermal sleeve, Method for manufacturing a thermal sleeve and combination cup and thermal sleeve in 2005, their patent was not issues until 2012. Their patent goes into depth in describing what the thermal sleeve is composed of: it has top and bottom openings that allow the cup to go through the sleeve; an inner, creped paper lining; and an adhesive holding that rings the sleeve around the cup.

In 2007, three different patents applications were filed regarding the thermal sleeves: all three were patented.

In March of 2007, Kevin Prince patented the insulator sleeve for a beverage container, which is distinguished by its disposable nature and ability to be used repeatedly. Moreover, these sleeves could be made of biodegradable materials, so as to leave less of a negative impact on the environment through the manufacturing of said product. Unlike previous patents, this one describes the different types of cups, such as the frusto-conical beverage cup, and sleeves, like the transparent or disposable sleeves, that are a part of the patent. His idea was patented in April 2011.

In December of 2007, Wendy and Donald LaGuardia filed the patent for the temperature-indicating sleeve and related container. What distinguishes this sleeve from the rest is that it has a temperature indicator on the sleeve, which improves the customer’s interaction with very hot or cold beverage containers. The LaGuardia’s idea was patented on February 21^st of 2012.

In August of 2007, Andrew Raymond Spriegel et al filed the beverage cup sleeving system and method. This contraption is differs from the previous patents in that the sleeve is elastomeric and manufactured with a liquid crystal that changes color with temperature fluctuations. Published in 2008, this idea was patented far quicker than the previous two inventions. It was probably easier for the USPTO to patent this idea because of the addition of crystal liquid to the sleeve, as this clearly distinction the idea from the others, whereas the other two patent files may have required more editing and research in order to be differentiated enough to become new patents.

In 2009, the protective sleeve’s patent application was filed. Unlike former designs of thermal sleeves, this protective sleeve has one or more arch-like shapes; this arch-like shape is said to improve the efficiency of the material used in manufacturing these sleeves and decrease the environmental waste emitted through the sleeves’ manufacturing process. Barry Silverstein et al patented this protective sleeve in January of 2010. The efficiency that the change in shape brought to the thermal sleeve was probably a clear improvement of previous sleeve patents, which is why this application was published in less than a year.

The last patent application was filed in February, 2014 by Eugene Chun. His patent is the hot and cold, disposable cup sleeve with water-absorbent lining, a water-repellent outer layer, and a coating laminate layer that is bound to the outer layer. This outer layer is made up of polypropylene, polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate, viscous rayon, acrylic, aramid, and nylon and is enclosed to provide a safe and comfortable.

Published in June of 2014, the patent was probably published in such a quick manner because it was easily distinguished by the thorough description of the lining and outer layer.

Patents Galore!

I will briefly summarize similar 6 patents and 3 patent applications. Although these patents are similar in nature, they are all explained in manners that differentiate them as unique ideas. At least, this is what those who approved the patents believed.

Patent 1: The Insulating Sleeve (US 6343735 B1)

Filed by Liming Cai from Dopaco Inc on May 4^th of 2000, this patent is for an insulating sleeve for a beverage container. This sleeve is meant to keep one from burning himself while trying to pick up a hot beverage. This sleeve can also be used for either hot or cold beverages held in both paperboard and non-paper cups.

Patent 2: The Thermal Coffee Cup (US 2661889)

Surprisingly, the first thermal coffee cup was patented on July 20^th, 1948 by Delbert Phinney of Sherman, Tex. Phinney’s thermal coffee cup is described as a hand-held container that is able to withstand hot substances. Moreover, this cup is made of paper and has a cover cap that can be torn in order to allow a person to drink the hot liquid.

Patent 3: Thermal Sleeve, Method for Manufacturing a Thermal Sleeve and Combination Cup and Thermal Sleeve (US 8,251,277)

On April 15^th, 2005, John Katchko and David Raymond Uitenbroek filed this patent through Wausau Paper Mills, LLC of Wisconsin. The method for manufacturing a thermal sleeve and combination cup and thermal sleeve is, in essence, a description of what the thermal sleeve is composed of: it has a creped paper inner-lining, top and bottom openings that allow the cup to go through the sleeve, and an adhesive holding that brings both ends of the sleeve together so that they enclose the cup. Like the insulating sleeve, the thermal sleeve can be used for both warm and cool beverages. This patent also goes into depth in describing the different components of the thermal sleeve and how they are made.

Patent 4: Insulator Sleeve for a Beverage Container (US 7,922,031)

In March 1^st, 2007, Kevin R. Prince patented the insulator sleeve for a beverage container. This sleeve is referred to as a device that is disposable in nature and can be used repeatedly. Some of these sleeves are made with biodegradable material materials so as to not harm the environment. Unfortunately, they can be problematic to the barista’s creative customization, as these sleeves often hide words and images written on the cup. Unlike previous patents, this one goes further into depth about the different types of cups, such as the frusto-conical beverage cup, and sleeves, like the transparent or disposable sleeves, that can be used.

Patent 5: Temperature-indicating Sleeve and Related Container (US 8118189)

Wendy and Donald LaGuardia filed the patent for the temperature-indicating sleeve and related container on December 14^th, 2007 through New Jersey’s Cups Unlimited LLC. What distinguishes this sleeve from the rest is that it has a temperature indicator, which is labeled and drawn on the sleeve itself. Various visuals are within the patent to depict the various ways in which the temperature indicators may be displayed on the cup. Unlike the other sleeves, this one claims to be the simplest to produce, inexpensive to purchase, and most accurate in measuring the beverage’s temperature.

Patent 6: Sleeve Construction for Improved Paperboard Cup Insulation (US 6152363)

In May 3, 1999, James Arthur Rule filed the sleeve construction for improved paperboard cup insulation. The invention consists of protective sleeves for paperboard cups that have hot-melt glue dots, which improve the insulating abilities of said paper cup. The patent has detailed graphs that depict the sleeve and show the varying temperatures at which the hot-melt glue insulates air.

Application 1: Beverage cup Sleeving System and Method (US 20080078824 A1)

Filed in August of 2007, this patent application describes a cup insulating system that has a conical sleeve. The cups can be plastic or paper, while the sleeve is elastomeric and manufactured with a liquid crystal that changes color with temperature fluctuations. Moreover, the sleeve is microwave safe, shippable in a flattened condition, and may also have Velcro attached to it. The beverage containers also have an insulating ring that is made of either silicone and/or rubber and can contain printed matter on its exterior surface.

Application 2: Protective Sleeve (US 20100019023 A1)

In 2009, Barry Silverstein et al filed a patent for the protective sleeve, which has at least one arch-like shape that reduces material costs and environmental waste through the material efficiency of its manufacturing. This arch-like sleeve has at least one peak and one trough, has a blank area made of biodegradable paper, completely conceals the area of the container that it covers, and accommodates at least two fingers and a thumb of the person holding the cup.

Application 3: Hot and Cold Cup Sleeve (US 20140151385 A1)

Eugene Chun filed the patent application in 2014 for the hot and cold, disposable cup sleeve with water-absorbent lining, a water-repellent outer layer, and a coating laminate layer that is bound to this outer layer. This outer layer is made up of polypropylene, polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate, viscous rayon, acrylic, aramid, and nylon and is enclosed to provide a safe and comfortable.

My perspective about IBM's 5 Future Predictions

I wanted to have some inception going on: I'm going to make predictions about IBM's predictions. [Taken from this article: http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/19/tech/innovation/five-tech-predictions-ibm/] The 5 predictions are as follows: 1. IBM thinks that smarter, more technologically advanced schools can make kids smarter. By "tracking everything a student does," IBM thinks that big data can help "tailor"education for students. I don't see this working for the following reasons: -Although technology is useful, the more dependent we become on it, the lazier we become. -The widespread availability of technology is sometimes a distraction for children. -It's hard for every school district to own this type of technology. -I think children are very smart without this technology as it is, and controlling their lives through technology might actually stifle their development. (It would be sad to become a civilization like that of Wall-E.) 2. In five years, Local retailers will fight back and become "better than e-tailers can ever hope to be," according to IBM. IBM claims that local retailers will take advantage of digital tools to give customers a "richer in-store experience." Although this sounds nice in theory, I doubt that it'll come true, as local retailers struggle to compete with e-tailers. Large corporations may have the means to take advantage of digital tools, but smaller, local retailers have a harder time funding these projects. It is possible, though, for technology to become increasingly cheaper, which would then make it cheaper for both smaller and larger businesses access technology. 3. Doctors will be able to routinely analyze our DNA to give patients individualized treatments. I think this is definitely possible, as medicine receives a lot of funding for research projects. The only thing that I wonder is the extent to which individuals will be able to afford this kind of health care; it doesn't seem likely that everyone will have the resources to receive these specialized DNA check-ups. 4. IBM has a vision for the creation of "digital guardians" that would know our digital life inside and out: they'd track all of our accounts and know our cars, houses, and electronic devices in depth. Instead of relying on passwords or unlocking features, these guardians would be able to analyze "contextual, situational, and historical data to verify your identity and your actions on different devices." This is an incredible idea, and I really hope that it can come to fruition. I don't see it happening on a wide-scale extent in the near future, but definitely in the next few decades, these digital guardians could become essential to our daily lives. There will definitely be prototypes of these digital guardians within the next five years. 5. The last of IBM's predictions is that the "city will help us live in it" by using sensors to adapt to our needs. This is another great idea, but realistically not everyone owns a cellphone, so only the privileged, wealthy individuals may benefit from these kind of mobile-developed sensors, but lower-class individuals may not. Also, by having politicians and city leaders in charge of these resources, there will need to be an extensive check on their usage of these resources to make sure that they don't take advantage of them.

5 Predictions that were Thankfully Ignored

Since the beginning of humanity, there have always been critics of innovation and change. Fortunately, millions of inventors did not let these crtics stop them from developing their ideas, even if the inventors were successful, educated individuals. In fact, the inventors of these 5 particular creations proved these critics wrong. 5. In 1876, an internal memo by Western Union declared that the telephone had "too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication." This couldn't be more wrong: even if the idea of the telephone was not fully developed, the idea in itself was revolutionary. In fact, if developed, it could be of great use to the world of communication. This came into fruition throughout the 20th century. 4. When the President of a bank tells you to do something, it's usually wise to listen to this person, but in the case of Henry Ford's lawyer, he was right to disregard the Michigan Savings Bank President's advice. This bank president claimed that the automobile was only a "novelty, a fad" and that it was surely not there to stay: the horse, on the other hand, was. Although the first automobiles were quite expensive and even dangerous, as they lacked safety regulations and even seat belts, this president's claim was wrong. And it is great that this lawyer did invest in Ford's company, for without his and others' investments into this car company, the car industry may have not reached the wide-scale success that it has in our modern world: today a car is a necessity to most Americans, while owning a horse is more of "a novelty" than car ownership. 3. What Darryl Zanuck, a movie producer from 20th century Fox, failed to consider in 1946, when he said that television wouldn't last because people would "get tried of staring at a plywood box every night," was that the human mind could be very easily entertained by images displayed on wooden boxes, and that if he got tired of the plywood box, man would continue to improve this idea so that he could be less "bored." Zanuck could probably not even begin to fathom the existence of television screens. Fortunately for Fox, millions of viewers around the world don't get tired of staring at their screens for large periods of time and Zanuck was very wrong indeed. 2. Being King of Prussia and all, King William I must have had a lot of free time on his hands, which is probably why he proclaimed in 1864 that "no one" would "pay good money to get from Berlin to Potsdam in one hour" when one could simply "ride his horse there in one day for free." Poor William must not have heard the phrase "time is money," as an entire day of travel could be well spent by an American businessman into making a company millions of dollars. If trains would not have been created, transportation would still be very slow. Moreover, thousands of business men are actually quite willing to "pay good money" to get to their destinations in faster periods of time. 1. The Chairman of IBM in 1943, Thomas Watson was being very near-sighted when he predicted that the world market for computers would be "maybe five computers." He failed to see that the computer in itself was a great idea, and that great ideas can only be improved throughout time. Unfortunately, Watson did not live to see our modern world that is full of computers and computer buyers. The computer has become indispensable to millions of people's lives, which is why I'm glad that IBM ignored Watson's prediction by producing and improving computers.

Slide to Unlock Patent: Simplified

The Slide-to-Unlock patent, also know as the patent for "unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image," is in essence a patent for the ability to unlock our cellphones and other "hand-held electronic" devices. The patent is held by Apple Inc and has 6 inventors. Without this patent, most devices would render our electronic devices defenseless from outside penetration, via our accidental brushing of skin on our phones or other external forces, like robbers.

Claim one of the patent describes the attributes that accompany the slide-to-unlock feature on such electronic devices. It claims that there's a predefined location for the unlock image to appear; that the user will interact with this unlock image, or "interactive user-interface object", to unlock said device; and that the unlock image  is opened through a touch-sensitive display.

The sub-sections of the first claim are that it includes the following: claim one comprises movement along a desired path; this path is "predefined" to a particular unlock region; there may be visual cues as a part of the unlock image in order to "communicate a direction of movement" that is required to unlock the device; these visual cues may include text; and these visual cues also comprise an arrow to indicate a "general direction of movement."

Top 10 Inventions that redefined life for humanity: Part 2

In my opinion, there are 10 particular inventions that dramatically changed life for mankind.

After seeing my classmates 10 inventions, I realized that I left out a few very important creations. My original set included the laptop, telephone, cellphone, and automobile. Although these were also quite important inventions, I chose to replace them with written language, anesthesia, refrigeration, and penicillin, as I now see that these three inventions had a larger impact on humanity than the previous three I had before.

I kept my inventions in historically chronological order. Now that I’ve added written language to the mix, my invention lists spans over a larger period of human history. The progression of man’s innovation has really been quite fascinating!

1. Written Language – The first written language was developed in Mesopotamia in 3200 BC. Written language was detrimental to human history, as it facilitated record keeping for both financial and social interactions, while also making it possible for us to record our present events, aka, what latter generations would refer to as history.

2. The Toilet/Sewage System -  Although notoriously nicknamed the “crapper” because of its improvements by Thomas Crapper, the toilet was actually first invented by an Englishman named John Harrington in 1596. If it weren’t for this brilliant Englishman’s idea, our world may quite literally be full of crap.

3. Electricity - Although William Gilbert is known as the “Father of Electricity,” the actual inventor of electricity was Otto von Guerick, who created a machine that produced static electricity in 1660. Thomas Edison did not invent electricity nor the light bulb, he merely made a better version of the light bulb. Regardless, these men all established the foundation for an idea that would quite literally 

light up the world. Without electricity, thousands of latter inventions may have not been possible.

4. The Steam Engine - Invented in 1698, the steam engine is a technological advancement that lead to future combustion engines and other mechanical innovations. Our modern, high-tech world would be a very different place if the steam engine were never invented. In its time, the steam engine facilitated the industrial revolution, urban development, and transportation. Thanks the steam engine, manufacturing, agriculture, and mining also benefited in efficiency.

5. Anesthesia – Developed in 1846 by John Collins Warren, anesthesia has made surgeries a lot more efficient. Before anesthesia, various medical procedures that were meant to improve one’s health could actually kill us. Anesthesia has definitely increased the life expectancy of individuals undergoing surgery, and on a larger scale, helped advanced medicine and spur other medical creations.

6. The Airplane - Although most of us erroneously credit the Wright brothers with the invention of the airplane, it was actually Richard Pearse who invented the first airplane in 1902. Although his plane only flew for about 350 yards, Pearse’s creation would transform transportation for later generations. The airplane is nidispensible in our world today, as individuals like me would not be able to travel from the OC to SF in a matter of minutes and would not be able to receive important correspondence, such as medications or orders from Amazon.com, if it weren’t for Pearse’s airplane.

7. Refrigeration – In 1805, a brilliant man named Oliver Evans designed the first refrigeration machine.  The refrigerator has also been detrimental to man’s nutritional needs: we can now store our food, transport different types of agricultural products and livestock over long distances without worrying about the food rotting.

8. Penicillin – Created in 1928 by Alexander Flemming, penicillin was the first antibiotic of human history. The creation of penicillin definitely spurred the establishment of future antibiotics. Without antibiotics, many of us would die due to the most trivial of things. A paper cut or diarrheal disease could very much end our lives. Thanks to antibiotics, our life expectancy and ability to fight off diseases have increased tremendously.

9  The Computer - John Mauchly is credited with creating the first computer in 1946. His invention would also become indispensable to humanity, as computers have expanded and improved several areas of human life: technology, education, infrastructure, and entertainment.

10. The Internet - The internet is one technological advancement that has simultaneously helped and harmed humanity. Seemingly a blessing, the internet has allowed billions of people to connect within seconds, to see each other despite miles of separation, and to share all kinds of information without any stamps. Still, the internet has hurt society, as younger generations prefer to communicate online over speaking in person. Whether for better or worse, the creation of the internet is attributed to J. C. R. Licklider, who wanted to create a network of computer systems that could be interconnected so that he could connect 3 separate systems in Santa Monica, UC Berkeley, and MIT in 1958.

10 Inventions that have Forever Changed the World

In my opinion, there are 10 particular inventions that dramatically changed life for mankind.

I listed them in historically chronological order, as I enjoy history and thought it would be a cool progression of how man became increasingly more technologically advanced.

1. The Toilet -  Although notoriously nicknamed the “crapper” because of its improvements by Thomas Crapper, the toilet was actually first invented by an Englishman named John Harrington in 1596. If it weren’t for this brilliant Englishman’s idea, our world may quite literally be full of crap.

2. Electricity - Although William Gilbert is known as the “Father of Electricity,” the actual inventor of electricity was Otto von Guerick, who created a machine that produced static electricity in 1660. Thomas Edison did not invent electricity nor the light bulb, he merely made a better version of the light bulb. Regardless, these men all established the foundation for an idea that would quite literally light up the world. Without electricity, thousands of latter inventions may have not been possible.

3. The Steam Engine - Invented in 1698, the steam engine is a technological advancement that lead to future combustion engines and other mechanical innovations. Our modern, high-tech world would be a very different place if the steam engine were never invented. In its time, the steam engine facilitated the industrial revolution, urban development, and transportation. Thanks the steam engine, manufacturing, agriculture, and mining also benefited in efficiency.

4. The Automobile - A Frenchman with a wonderful name, Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot invented the first self-propelled road vehicle in 1769, or military tractor. Although Cugnot created the vehicle to further the success of the French army, what he didn’t know is that his idea would be the first of many future vehicle inventions that were to come. The electric carriage, gasoline automobile, and the hybrid automobile would not exist today without Cugnot’s clever tricycle. Cars are a very important technological creation that have not only helped transportation but also a myriad of other industries and technologies.

5. The Airplane - Although most of us erroneously credit the Wright brothers with the invention of the airplane, it was actually Richard Pearse who invented the first airplane in 1902. Although his plane only flew for about 350 yards, Pearse’s creation would transform transportation for later generations. The airplane is nidispensible in our world today, as individuals like me would not be able to travel from the OC to SF in a matter of minutes and would not be able to receive important correspondence, such as medications or orders from Amazon.com, if it weren’t for Pearse’s airplane.

6.  The Telephone - Ring ring. Hello? It’s Alexander Graham Bell! He patented the first telephone in 1876. A century after independence, Bell’s creation facilitated communication, as it helped millions of people connect in a matter of hours. Thanks to Bell, the good old Pony Express, which took months to deliver messages, would no longer be the only source of communication that everyone was dependent. 

7.  The Computer - John Mauchly is credited with creating the first computer in 1946. His invention would also become indispensable to humanity, as computers have expanded and improved several areas of human life: technology, education, infrastructure, and entertainment.

8. The Internet - The internet is one technological advancement that has simultaneously helped and harmed humanity. Seemingly a blessing, the internet has allowed billions of people to connect within seconds, to see each other despite miles of separation, and to share all kinds of information without any stamps. Still, the internet has hurt society, as younger generations prefer to communicate online over speaking in person. Whether for better or worse, the creation of the internet is attributed to J. C. R. Licklider, who wanted to create a network of computer systems that could be interconnected so that he could connect 3 separate systems in Santa Monica, UC Berkeley, and MIT in 1958.

9. The Cellphone - Martin Cooper designed the first cell phone in 1973. It’s nearly impossibly to imagine a world without cellphones, as our modern society is incredibly dependent on them today: cellphones help us communicate with anyone on the go, update our fb statuses in bathrooms, take pictures of every meal we consume, and even help us avoid traffic with its various gps apps. It took only 41 years for the cell phone to become a necessity to most of the world’s population: who knows what gadget we’ll be dependent on in the next forty years?

10. The Laptop - Although the computer in itself was an amazing invention, in 1981 Adam Osborne thought of something better: a portable computer that could be taken any where. Known as the laptop, this portable computer has also changed the world, as technological resources became more accessible to more people around the world. Today, millions of college students and professors, like us, depend on laptops for even the most menial of tasks.

Introduction: Who I am?

That's a great question!

I am Nicole, a sophomore, UC Berkeley student. I wish to major in Business Administration and minor in Conservation and Resource Studies and Luso-Brazilian Language and Literature. I am a Latina, and very proud of my Hispanic roots. That said, I would love to work in Latin America or with an American firm that engages with Latin American countries.

I was interested in this class, because I like history and patent law ACTUALLY sounds very interesting to me. A small part of me is considering going into Patent Law (yikes law school). For this reason, I hope to learn a lot about business, law, and patents in this class. This class may be that extra push towards my becoming a lawyer. Besides that, I'm also interested in how industrialized firms' business activities affect the environment and overall society in Latin America.

On campus, I am involved in intramural soccer, basketball, and volleyball. I also an in an entrepreneurial club named EthiCAL.