Post # 28: Mobile Patent Environment

As a final blog and as a snapshot into the mobile patent environment that we have covered this semester, I decided to look at what companies own the most significant amount of mobile patents. In 2012, Samsung received the most Mobile Patents meaning that now it leads the rankings on a global scale; it now holds the most mobile patents of any company worldwide, according to the mobile analyst Chetan Sharma. (The study covered more than 7 million mobile patents awarded in the U.S.)

Interestingly, you can view the state of the leading player’s patent portfolios below:

This is not just an impressive statistic however, it is a clearly strategic move on behalf of Samsung’s top management in order to form a legal defence against Apple and other mobile companies and their legal attacks. At the same time, the greater amount of patents acquired, means that Samsung will be able to form more robust legal assaults if necessary over the next few years.

The study also outlined that the mobile technology arena is specifically on the rise, which I am sure comes as no shock to the students in our course. Furthermore, in the U.S, mobile patents account for around 25% of the total patents granted. This is extremely impressive when this figure is compared to 5% in 2001. Right now, Europe has less of a reliance on mobile patents with only 10% of the whole patent pool being mobile related.

Evidently, mobile patents are a vast and growing part of the economy that cannot be ignored. 

Post # 27: Glass Staircase

After the search to find the most ridiculous patent ever, with the Motorized Ice Cream Cone and the Cry No More from my previous blog posts, I found a series of patents from that could be deemed as strange, but on closer inspection, do have value.

Once again, these patents come from probably the most referenced company from this course – Apple.

Apple is not only well known for its sleek and innovative design of hardware but also its impressive retail outlets that have a strong and individual aesthetic. One of the parts of this individualistic aesthetic is their glass staircases. 

Their Glass Staircase was patented in August 26, 2003 as a design patent with the official registration number D478,999 S:

On a smaller scale, Apple has also patented its purely presentational iPad stand that also appears in stores. It is another design patent, granted from July 3, 2012, with the number D662,939 S:

Although ostensibly irrelevant, these patents provide protection from rival companies where brand image is an essential part to business. These patents demonstrate how far a tech company will go to improve and maintain its brand image and how far companies will go to protect it. 

Post # 26: Cry No More

In a search to find the most ridiculous patent ever, I came across another patent that even surpasses the 1999 Motorized Ice Cream Cone in its ludicrously; the Cry No More.

After the peaceful Motorized Ice Cream Cone that brightens up children’s days, the Cry No More appears even more dreadful. Essentially the Cry No More is a muzzle for infants, stopping their mouth so they are unable to omit any noise. Bearing resemblance to a torcher device, it is described by the inventor as the following:

"The inventive device includes a pacifier having an outwardly extending guard plate, apertures in opposite sides of the guard plate, and adjustable straps employing hook and loop fasteners to form loops for engaging the straps between the apertures in the guard plate and an infant's ears."

What is all the more shocking is that the patent was granted in 2000. Even in the modern age, only 13 years ago, someone believed this idea had value. Ultimately, this patent fails however because its potential benefits are far outweighed by its disadvantages; namely the cruelty enacted upon the child. Indeed, if this patent were to manifest itself in the market, it would most likely fail U.S Department of Health and Human Services laws in its relationship to child abuse and neglect. In this respect, the patent is rendered completely useless.

Post # 25: Motorized Ice Cream Cone

In a search to find the most ridiculous patent ever, I came across the Motorized Ice Cream Cone, which was awarded in 1999.

The description offers the following reasoning:

"The repetitive task of moving one's tongue up and down to manipulate a hollow ring can become monotonous and tiring, especially for a child."

Perhaps this patent could be deemed as useful to an extent – i.e. it rids the need to use your tongue. Perhaps also, it could be seen as an original idea – i.e. the combination of a motorised function along with an ice cream cone is a far-fetched idea. Ultimately, however the overall value of the patent is extremely limited. Not only would the market for this idea be extremely small, the patent evidently lacks economic value. The fact that someone would submit this patent and expect it to be bought by customers is shocking. 

Post # 8: USPTO changes, negative

My previous blog post discussed the positives of the new USPTO changes that were made last month and implemented on March 19th. Here I discuss the potential negative implications. Although, the new amendment greatly favours "Micro entities", on the other hand, the majority of the USPTO fees have inflated in price.

Below are a select few that represent important areas where price inflation occurred:

Filing Application (Filing + Search + Examination Fees): $1,600 up from $1,260.

Additional claims: $80 for each additional claim; $420 for each additional independent claim. This is up from $62 and $250 respectively.

Issue fee: $1,780 up from $1,770. 

Maintenance (renewal) fees:

Due at 3.5 years: $1,600 up from $1,150.

Due at 7.5 years: $3,600 up from $2,900.

Due at 11.5 years: $7,400 up from $4,810. 

Request for Continued Examination:

First Request: $1,200 up from $930.

Second or Subsequent Request: $1,700 up from $930.

Request for Prioritized Examination: $4,000 down from $4,800. 

Arguably, these price increases could lead to a decrease in the quantity of patents submitted to the USPTO. However, the submission of patents is an extremely important part of long term strategy for large companies  Given the fact that large companies are the biggest submitter of patents, it would be reasonable to assume that these price increases would have little impact on a company that is turning over revenues within the millions or more. Patent submission, especially within the current highly competitive environment is essential; companies will most probably make the small adjustments to their budgets to integrate these changes without thinking.  Alternatively, companies can make the necessary financial and budgetary cuts in other areas of the organisation in order to pay the USPTO's new fees. In this respect, I believe that these changes will have limited negative impact on the P+L's of major corporations.

Post # 7: USPTO changes, positive

After blogging about a variety of legal cases concerning mobile device patent litigation I felt that a more practical investigation into what we are learning in class was in order. For this reason, my next two blogs will focus on the newly implemented changes that occurred recently within the USPTO. The USPTO, although known for being laboriously slow, last month, instigated a new fee system. This officially became active on March 19th. Initially, I will talk about the positives of the amendment.

Perhaps the greatest addition to this fee amendment is the 75% reduction of standard fees on "Micro entities." This is clearly delineated on the USPTO website where "The fees subject to reduction upon establishment of small entity status (37 CFR 1.27) or micro entity status (37 CFR 1.29) are shown in separate columns”.

This new change is good news for small scale entrepreneurs  startups and importantly students like us. A micro entity is assessed for qualification on a series of criteria: 

1) Qualification based on experience: No more than 4 previous applications
2) Qualification based on Income: The a applicants gross income (as defined by the IRS) must not exceed three times the median household income
3) Qualification based on Institution of Higher Education status: The applicant’s employer has to be an institution of higher education or the applicant has agreed in advance to pledge the patent to an educational institution upon receiving it

This favouritism for smaller scale inventors is a welcome addition to innovation and in my opinion a long awaited change. 

Post # 24: Cloud computing

A very interesting exploration into cloud computing was brought to light when the CEO of Amazon, Jeff Bezos filed a "remote display" patent recently.

The patent’s functional process is as follows:

1) Initially, the display in question would connect with a nearby base station

2) Secondly, this centrally located base station utilises its local processing power and sources of energy

3) Finally, the base station would then send the mobile device information in the form of data as well as power to sustain its use

Currently, Cloud computing is primarily based within the internet. It is the use of computing resources, wheather they be hardware or software, that are delivered over a network. Conventionally, end users then access cloud-based applications through web browsers or mobile apps, whilst the data is stored on remote servers.

However, this patent takes a step further by broadcasting energy via a network to devices from remote servers that form central base stations. The most exciting part of this, is that this process invalidates the need for a battery. Although, the technology needed is clearly not developed enough yet, the possibility is still exciting.

Post # 23: Apple's argument against Google neutrality

In my previous blog post, I spoke about Apple's frustration over Googles ambiguous association with legal proceeding, especially in relation to Samsung. In this post I will be concerned with what action they took and with what evidence they used to dispute the assertion that Google is simply a 'third party' bystander.

The argument rested on 3 key points:

1) Apple claims that Google involvement and collaboration with Samsung regarding the subject matter lawsuits is far too deep. This is primarily because Google is the primary co-creator of the materials in question, both hardware and software. For example, Google not only developed Android but also collaborated jointly with Samsung in the development of the Galaxy Nexus phone, which has been accused of patent infringement.

2) Secondly, Apple argues that Google purposely chose to involve itself within litigation by providing declarations from their engineers to support Samsung's legal stance. These kinds of declarations can take the form of a written statement submitted to a court in which the writer swears 'under penalty of perjury' that the contents are true. Declarations are usually implemented in legal proceeding to satisfy and replace the need of a live testimony when the court is asked to rule on a motion. Although declarations are specifically factual in nature, and are supposed to be without bias, Apple still maintains that the very act of submitting these declarations shows heavy involvement within legal proceedings. Similarly, it is indicative of a sense of comradery between Google and Samsung.


3) Thirdly, in connection with Apple's Subpoenas (A writ ordering a person to attend a court), Google had engaged with a law firm and the lawyer that was representative of Samsung’s legal proceedings. Furthermore, the company then used the same lawyer Quinn Emanuel that represented Samsung.

Post # 22: Google, involved or not?

Apple is criticising Google for their laissez faire attitude in legal issues that, Apple believes, does actually concern them. The ambiguity of Google’s stance emerges because Google is often a partner of firms that are in legal disputes. The most obvious example of this is their development of the Android operating system that multiple phone company’s use. Indeed Apple formed a very compelling argument that Google could no longer be considered as 'third party' within certain patent lawsuits involving Samsung.

The close association between Google and Samsung calls into question the credibility of Google’s assertion that they are simply neutral third party. In the case of legal disputes between Samsung and Apple, Google is unhappily being pulled into legal proceedings that they would prefer to ignore. It will be interesting to see if Google maintains their stance as a neutral third party or choses to get involved. In the past, for instance, Google has been active in the ITC investigation of Nokia's complaint against HTC and had close dealings within multiple German Nokia v. HTC lawsuits.

Post # 21: iOS's jiggle

Apple recently won their ‘jiggle’ patent that allows customers to more easily organise and move their applications within iOS. Many of you are probably familiar with this idea, but this kind of functionality should not be taken for granted. It is indicative of Apple’s constant attempts to improve and simplify their mobile devices for the benefit of the user.

With all the negative media attention concerning Apple litigation we are exposed to as part of this class, its important to remember that Apple's mobile technology is still an incredibly innovative force within the market, that constantly tailors to user needs.

The functionality of the patent works in the following way:

1) Hold down an app icon

2) All the icons represented on the screen then ‘jiggle’

Then:

3) Delete a chosen app by pressing a small X that pops up, or;

4) Press and drag an icon to move it, or;

5) Press and drag one icon onto another to instantaneously merge them into one folder.

Post # 20: Falling apples in China

Often Apple’s legal debates seem so centred around the US and California, especially in regards to Samsung, that it’s easy to forget that Apple is a truly global organisation and that patent problems emerge all over the world. An excellent example is Apple's current struggle in China.

A year after Siri support was released in China, Zhizhen Network Technology Co, sued Apple for patent infringement. Zhizhen Network Technology Co, based in Shanghai filed their patent for Xiaoi Bot which is basically “a type of instant messaging chat bot system”. This was filed in August 13th 2004 and approved in 2006. Initially, Zhizhen attempted to solve the patent dispute outside of court, however Apple’s lack of response now means that Zhizhen is aiming to over $60 million in settlement. Evidently, if approved, this is major setback for apple’s strategy in china.

To exacerbate this situation, after Apple’s infringement is confirmed, Zhizhen Network Technology Co is demanding Apple to stop manufacturing and selling products using their patent rights in China. When this is accompanied with the possibility of paying future compensation the effects on Apple’s market share in China, appear greatly unsettled.

Post # 19: Google v.s Microsoft, unmapped territory

Under legal pressure in Germany, Google may perhaps be pushed into a licensing agreement with Microsoft regarding potential patent infringement. Namely, Google's data collection process for inputting information onto their Maps app is considered patent infringement by Microsoft’s Bing. But before suggesting that a licensing agreement is even a possibility, an examination of the legal situation is important.

Ironically, it was Google owned Motorola that initially initiated legal proceedings against Microsoft. In response, Microsoft assaulted Google with a threat to sue them on grounds of patent infringement. In spite of this and backed with the confidence of their large store of mobile device patents from their recent acquisition of Motorola, Google maintained its strong stance by denying that any form of license agreement should occur. 

However, Microsoft’s injunction against German Google Maps service would simultaneously benefit Microsoft’s Bing and modify the landscape of map apps. Furthermore, this, coupled with the fact that the German courts are heavily favouring Microsoft, could cause Google to rethink their choice to ignore any kind of licencing agreement.

Post # 18: Google, Genuine or Not?

Recently Google chose not to enforce 10 of its patents on Open Source Software. Is this a simple PR stunt or a genuine expression of Google’s caring culture they often promote?

As a reference, Open Source Software is computer software that’s code originally came from and was made available through an open-source licence in which the copyright holder can distribute the software for free to anyone and for any purpose.

This pledging of patents for the sake of Open Source Software is not something new. Indeed, companies such as Computer Associates, IBM and Sun Microsystems publicly chose not to enforce a series of patents they held against Open Source Software. As a result of this, the companies gained positive PR in exchange for a minimal loss in their patent portfolio. Many proclaimed these companies pledges essentially meaningless, when held in comparison to the patent portfolios they own; as the majority of the companies realised a comparatively small amount of patents.

Like the events that occurred in 2005, my personal belief is that Google’s motivation to choose not to enforce 10 of its patents on Open Source Software, was primarily a PR stunt for brand enhancement. This is to be expected of a large public company that from an investor standpoint, cannot afford to give things of real value away for free. Arguably however, the motivation here is irrelevant – Google did pledge these patents and for many it is a step in the right direction for innovation.

Post # 17: Implications of ITC import ban on Apple

A ruling is due on May 31 by the ITC (International Trade Commission)  most likely to pronounce that Apple has infringed at least one of the claims detailed in U.S. Patent No. 7,706,348. This is supposedly an UMTS-essential patent, which stands for The Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS). As a brief explanation, UMTS is a third generation mobile cellular system for networks based on the Global System for Mobile Communications standard which unties compatible handsets and communication devices.

What is concerning Samsung however, is that this US import ban, if put into effect against apple, would affect only older apple products and thus cause little disruption to Apples mobile device market share.

Nonetheless, it is worth considering the implications of this import ban. Arguably, the removal of older and inexpensive apple products could affect their sales from more traditional, less tech savy consumers who are not concerned with the latest apple product releases. Similarly, this ban would most likely hinder apple’s repair business; as consumer’s older products break, apple will be unable to fix these products as promised. Most importantly, I believe the greatest wound to apple in this case is the negative PR, surrounding the case. We are dealing with a company here that is already being accused of losing some of its innovative touch, with a slightly disappointing release of the IPhone 5, therefore anything that suggests any of their products were in some way plagiarised is detrimental.

Post # 16: Judge uncertainty in Apple and Samsung litigation

In the impending shadow of a second trial for Apple and Samsung in the North of California  there is growing disagreement and uncertainty between the competitors. However, regardless of the lengthening waiting period, the court is in critical indecision over Apples assertion that Samsung's recent envisioned appeal is premature and deployed in order to further delay the legal proceedings at stake. In the midst of this incessant waiting is a growing uncertainty as to whether Apple's asserted claim 19 of their 'rubber banding' or push back patent is still valid.

Apples 'rubber-banding patent' (outlined simply below) is an integrated iOS interface feature that causes the screen to bounce back briefly after reaching the bottom of a scrollable page, as I am sure you have all experienced.





This is especially important in the current situation primarily because this claim was successfully used against a series of Samsung products in the California trial. The USPTO invalidated Apple's U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381 in October of last year which included claim 19. The specific outcome of these series of events is, as of yet, ominously unresolved. It will be interesting to witness the ultimate decision.

Post # 15: Google's innovative new camera patent

Googles new patent will utilize a phones GPS in order to understand current weather conditions in the users vicinity. What makes this different from the simple auto adjust on current cameras and thus patent-able  is its reliance on GPS to achieve this function rather than light sensitivity.

For example, the software will use this data to adapt the camera to favor different saturation or chose weather to use flash or not. This not only enhances the quality of users everyday pictures but also makes the photography experience far more automatic and speedy. If the patent proves as effective as claimed users will no longer have to manually chose many or all of the camera settings they are used to.






This patents could have a allot of potential for the upcoming releases of smart phones. Indeed, Vic Gundotra, senior vice president of engineering for Google, recently stated that that future Nexus smart phones will feature “insanely great cameras”. Furthermore, if this patent is ultimately integrated into future versions of Andriod there is the possibility of interaction with Samsung Galaxy S4′s new temperature and humidity sensors. Although the extended future application of this patent is pure speculation, its immediate advantages for smart phone cameras are very interesting.

Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/google-exec-says-insanely-great-cameras-coming-to-future-nexus-devices/#ixzz2PRoNcWzH

Post # 14:Google's new slide to unlock patent

In my other post I talked about the legal process surrounding Apples Slide to unlock patent and how the publication of Google's new patent may provide relief to their partners. In this post, I will talk specially about Google's patent itself.

Below are part of the actual blueprints for the patent that were submitted in 2010:



Interestingly, in many ways the patent seems a more useful tool for the end user.


How it works:


Phone locked

1) Press the icon you want to access e.g. email

2) Hold and drag it to the unlock bar (detailed above)

3) Phone is unlocked and the icon is automatically opened simultaneously e.g. your email instantly opens up for use

Phone unlocked


Arguably, more important than these features however, is the voice-recognition-to-unlock method that was also filed at the same time. This is something completely new and innovative to the mobile space, in terms of unlocking devices. Perhaps we will see a repeat performance of the apple slide-to-unlock legal fiasco, but with future legal suits ensuing over voice-recognition-to-unlock software.

Post # 13:Legal Relief from Apple?

The publication of Google's patent to 'unlock mobile devices' may now provide some protection from Apples legal onslaught. In August 2010 Google filed paperwork detailing a method for unlocking a computer or mobile device with the users touch.

As many of us are now aware, Apple has been especially notorious for pressing legal action against their competitors on the basis of patent infringement. Specifically  Apple has been rigorousness y protecting its slide to unlock function over the past 18 months, resulting in multiple lawsuits. Many of these have been successful  For example, in Germany on February 16th 2012, it was ruled that Motorola's Android phones were infringing on Apple's unlock patent.

However, Google filed blueprints of a very similar patent in August 6, 2010, 11 days before Apple was awarded their slide-to-unlock feature. Now that this patent has been published, it will no doubt change the shape of the legal debates between Apple and their competition.

Most importantly, for Google's mobile partners, (specifically Motorola, Samsung and HTC) the publication of this patent will most probably provide legal standing and relief from further lawsuits.

Post # 12: VP8 Patent Infringement

Nokia is suing Andriod 2.3 over the operating systems ability to decode VP8 videos. Although, Nokia holds a series of video codec patents that VP8 may infringe upon, Google has been brought into the case because they technically own the patent. What is interesting, is that Google appears to have a lack of control over their patent, the decoding of VP8 videos, that one of their recently acquired companies created. 

However, it appears that Nokia does not have any FRAND licensing obligations: namely, Nokia does not have any  "Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory" grounds to participate in a standard-setting process related to VP8. As VP8 was created by a company Google acquired, in my opinion I assume that Nokia will lose the case, which will reach a resolution on 3rd May. Indeed, the UK is close to voting against Nokia, however the cause is still very open in Germany. 

Either way, it will be interesting to see how the case plays out, in front of the Chancery Division of the High Court of England and Wales, considering Google is acting as a third-party intervener.

Post # 11:Page Limit Fiasco

After reading a series of  interesting articles on ITC rulings and trends on http://www.itc337update.com, I came across a rather nit-picky piece of legislature  that in my opinion, demonstrates the overactive bureaucratic patent hearing system.

According to the law, Apple improperly bypassed the page limit their pre-hearing brief in violating Ground Rule 9.2 in Inv. No. 337-TA-808. The pre-hearing brief is 'meant to be a complete stand-alone document” that “shall not exceed one-hundred seventy-five (175) pages and shall have no more than fifty (50) pages of relevant attachments. Allegedly, because Apple explained some issues in the attachment part of the briefing, there was a motion to cut it. This tiny idiosyncracy in patent law, in this case seems entirely ludicrous. 

Post # 10: Design vs Utility

I came across a series of interesting articles that illuminated the fact that there are specific differences in Patent Filings.

These can be categorized into two sections; the way an invention looks (Design Patents) or the way an invention operates (Utility Patents). When you file your patent, it is up to you which avenue you decide to pursue. Obviously, a way a product works can sometimes impact on the way it looks and vice versa, however below are the main differences that I gauged from a series of articles. 

Design Patents:

Aesthetic components safe from imitation
Protection for 14 years after the grant date
No maintenance fees required
Allows filing in US

Utility Patents:

Functionality of product safe from imitation
Protection for 20 years after application date
Maintenance fees are required
Allows filing of “international application
naming various countries”

Post # 9: How much protection does a Provisional Patent give?

Potentially, as students, we are looking to put through Provisional Patent (or Patent Pending) applications on ideas we may have. Therefore, an examination of how much protection this gives us, is important.

The USPTO defines a Provisional Patent as:

'It allows filing without a formal patent claim, oath or declaration, or any information disclosure (prior art) statement. It provides the means to establish an early effective filing date in a later filed non-provisional patent application filed under 35 U.S.C. §111(a). It also allows the term “Patent Pending” to be applied in connection with the description of the invention.'

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/types/provapp.jsp

But how much protection can a provisional patent give us as innovators, entrepreneurs and inventors?

A provisional patent application only offers proof that your invention was made by the day you filled out the application  Thus, if another application is filed for the same invention after yours, yours will be the only valid one. In this way, a provisional patent offers a way to ensure that if others attempt to copy your idea, you will have a legal standing in court. Importantly,  the only instance where provisional patent applications have any legal importance is during later litigation to defeat a competitor’s later priority date.

Post # 6:Trolls

I was shocked to listen to the stories in class about the various Troll companies that attempt to gather money by threatening to sue companies that supposedly infringe upon their a series of patents. But the story below is truly ridiculous:

Steven Vicinanza, owner of IT services provider BlueWave Computing, recieved a letter that his company was required to pay $1,000 per employee for a license for a certain use of scanning quiptment. Put basically, the demand was that anyone using a office scanner to scan documents to e-mail would have to pay. In total, the troll called Project Paperless LLC was demanding $130,000.

Unbelievably, Project Paperless LLC claimed in the letter that if you hook up a scanner and e-mail a PDF document that was scanned in, they have a patent that covers that process.

Thankfully, Vicinanza won the consequential legal case, however thousands of these letters are still being sent out to small businesses from New Hampshire to Minnesota. Unfortunately, not all of these companies will have the strength to fight back.

Below is a copy of the letter for your interest:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/117291579/Led-Letter-final-redacted

Post # 5:How many patents cover your device?

Patent aggregator RPX ( a provider of patent risk management solutions), recently estimated that as much as 250,000 active patents impact your smartphones. When we concider that the smartphone industry owns under 1% of the US GDP, that number is asstunding. This number becomes more shocking when the smartphone industry is held up in comparison to the pharmasuitcal. Currently, it is calculated that there are approximately 46.8 patents per every 1,000 jobs whithin the pharmasuitical industry. In contrast within the computer and peripherals equipment sector, there are 277.5 patents per 1,000 jobs. The difference is astounding.

Post # 4: USPTO

There is a giant argument over whether the patent process represents an arrow straight to the heart of innovation, or whether it is a legitimate way to encourage competition. In the application process you must demonstrate to the USPTO that innovation has occurred in some way or another. The USPTO may or may not make a mistake in reaching their decision. So perhaps the fault lies with them.



In defense however, there appears to be a long legacy of agency blame, which has been viewed by many as a scapegoat for other contributing problems. In the past, applicants have complained when the agency has been too lax because of the difficulties they find in protecting their inventions. At other times, often the same type of applicants then argue the process is inefficient because it is too easy and exposes them to others who claim have invented an identical product. Evidently, there is a hard balance to be struck between the two.

Post # 3: Patent Cold War

After hearing of the virtual battles between companies, I thought it would be interesting to do some research on the topic. By the end of my research it was clear that it is more like a 'cold war'. Research illustrated that last year alone, companies spent over $20 billion arming themselves with patent ammunition.
Google, Apple and Microsoft are the main players and the numbers are astounding. Google spent $12.5 billion last August buying 17,000 patents. But what is more impressive are the amount of patents governing one tech device. Your smartphone has an average of 250,000 patents. The graphic illustration of this war, on the left, is perhaps one of the clearest indicators why many people feel that the patent system is broken and is detrimental to innovation. Even Apple CEO Tim Cook, arguably one of the main culprits, said the patent system is "broken".

Post # 2: Why do I want to do this course?

Why do I want to do this course?

I hope to grasp an understanding of the legal process of applying  for a patent, as well as how to create one myself.

Ultimately, I wish to apply my knowledge to an upcoming tech start-up idea.

Post # 1: Short Bio

Haydn Evans

Bio:

Born in London, from the age Haydn had an active interest in acting. By the age of 15, Haydn had participated in Indian charity work, won various national rowing gold medals and held various jobs, including Silver Service Waiter, Film Set Designer and Theatre Ambassador. At Kent University, studying English and Drama, Haydn developed a strong marketing skill set as a Student Brand Manager for the ICAEW and intern at top London agency, Bryan Morel PR. At 19, Haydn founded and became General Partner of 'In a Nutshell Theatre' and completed an accountancy internship at Burgess Hodgson, learning the relevant skills necessary to create, lead and manage a successful company. Currently, Haydn is studying Business and Mandarin at Berkeley.