Value of IEOR 190G

IEOR 190G: Patent Engineering was a great class that I would recommend to everyone in my network, whether he/she is a student or a professional. The reason being is that I learned about the power of patents--as both a driver of innovation and a impediment of innovation :


ENCOURAGING INNOVATION
The original intent of the patent system was to provide inventors with the opportunity to protect their works of innovation. For the most part, patents have done exactly that, allowing their authors to maintain rights to their inventions for 20 years. Furthermore, patent auctions have enabled the free trade of patents, giving inventors the opportunity of liquidating their IP whenever they wish.

While there have been controversy surrounding the inefficiency of the USPTO and the malicious activity following the sale of patents at auctions, these two concepts have pushed potential inventors to continue with their work without fear of another entity stealing their hard work. Thus, the patent system provides peace of mind to the inventor and patent auctions incentivize inventors (on top of the possible sales of the product) to continue innovating.

Learning about how patents encourage innovation is extremely important, as in the competitive world in which we live, patents are essential in protecting and refining our innovations. This class has taught me the importance of filing applications early, clearly defining the invention in the application, and finding/reaching out to the right resources to speed the process along.

PREVENTING INNOVATION
Patent trolls have been around for as long as the patent system has. Since then, all malicious patent trolls (shell companies that have no operating activities other than suing actual companies) have impeded innovation. They have effectively reinstilled fear into the patenting industry by threatening companies with trumped-up lawsuits. For small companies, this could spell death as the settlement fees can consume a significant percentage of resources. For large companies, the financial impact is not as bad, but effects on reputation and resources that could otherwise go to more productive activities are not to be ignored.

Learning this in IEOR 190G is weighs very heavily on me, as the startup at which I am working is wrestling with a potential lawsuit from a patent troll. Learning the methods to combat these malicious entities was extremely enlightening and serves as a great foundation on which to build defenses against external threats.

Collaborative Learning Using Social Media

Collaborative learning is an idea founded on the belief that learning is a "naturally social act in which the participants talk among themselves" and "it is through the talk that learning occurs." Many people believe the following about learning:

1. Learning is an active process 
2. Learning requires learners to process and synthesize information
3. Learners benefit when exposed to diverse viewpoints 
4. Learning flourishes in a social environment
5. Learners are required to articulate and defend their ideas
6. Learners converse with peers, present and defend ideas, exchange diverse beliefs, question conceptual frameworks, and are actively engaged.

Traditional learning (lecture from a teacher to a student) does not fully meet some criteria and completely fails to meet others. For example, most lectures do not encourage participation, especially those of large class sizes. Most lectures also do not allow students to synthesize information; they generally require students only to regurgitate information in exams. In other words, lecturing is a one-way street that allows information flow to operate in one direction which generally "works" (as it has been for hundreds of years) but is not ideal.

On the other hand, learning through social media meets all 6 criteria mentioned above in the following ways:

1. Participants actively blog, tweet, video-blog, and reply
2. Participants read others' posts and then write their own either in response or separately
3. Social networks are open to people of all ages, races, ethnicity, and religions 
4. Social networks are platforms that create social environments
5. Participants regularly attack, defend, and clarify others' and their own posts
6. Participants have tens to hundreds of people with which they communicate, debate, exchange ideas, question frameworks, and engage

Assignment 11B: Nest Cuts Deal with Devil to Fight Competitor

The term, "patent troll" generally holds a strong negative connotation, conjuring images of an office building empty of employees but filled with cash. However, patent trolls hold the tools necessary to fend off enemies, as can be seen in the case of Honeywell v. Nest.

As many of you might know, Nest is known for disrupting the traditional thermostat business, selling clean, modern-looking, and innovative products. It currently holds more than 200 patents in its arsenal. However, in 2012, it was sued by Honeywell, a major competitor in the thermostat industry, on the basis of patent infringement. According to Techcrunch, the suit "alleges Nest Labs infringes on several of Honeywell’s patents involving thermostats." To fight Honeywell, Nest engaged in a patent licensing deal with Intellectual Ventures (IV).

This controversial move has a number of benefits:

• It allows Nest to keep its current momentum as a fast-growth, innovative tech company.
• It augments Nest's current IP portfolio.
• It protects Nest from IV and other patent trolls from patent infringement cases.
• It protects Nest from its competitors from patent infringement cases.

The last bullet point is extremely critical, especially in the current case against Honeywell. Honeywell sued Nest, demanding that Nest cease and desist as well as pay for damages. This amounts to a huge sum of money and as Honeywell has the financial resources and time to fight Nest, Nest most likely cannot settle. 

Assignment 11A: Technology Adoption Lifecycle

Efrat Kasznik in class talked about this graph, otherwise known as the Technology Adoption Lifecycle (TALC) which depicts the progress of a company's product through its life stages as it relates to IP. The area under the graph is the number of customers using the product.

• In the beginning, people using the product are innovators who are the most excited to try out the new product. These people are generally more educated, prosperous and risk-oriented.
• In the second stage, early adopters are usually be younger, more educated, tended to be community leaders, and less prosperous.
• The early majority are more conservative but open to new ideas, active in community and influence to neighbours.
• The late majority are older, less educated, fairly conservative and less socially active.
• Finally, the laggards are very conservative, the least well-off, the oldest, and the least educated.

As you can tell, the user base of a product grows more conservative, less educated, and less active as time goes on. This trend can be seen in multiple industries; one that comes to mind is the desktop market. As time went on and substitutes became more widely available, the majority of people today who use desktops tend to be of the older generation. 

Assignment 10B: Kirby Ferguson on the Idea of Remix

Good artists copy and great artists steal. Even visionaries like Steve Jobs agree to the concept and idea behind this phrases. However, the controversy begins when these great artists get stolen from. Steve Jobs in 2010 publicly announced a war on Android because he believed that the company had stolen the technology from Apple.

Especially regarding the music industry, we all realize that many products are simply "remixes" of others, incorporating lines of code, lines of lyrics, or components of other products. On one side of the coin, this is clearly copying or stealing the innovation of another. On the other side of the coin, improvements are necessary for advancement. If the human race had not improved upon the original invention of the chair, then we would have constant back pains or even stunted growth.

As such, the patent system should be revised so that the infringement conditions be clearly defined and more reasonably measured. This way, innovation in the form of remixes will not be treated as infringement and thus be welcomed as a source of new inventions.

Assignment 10A: Ellen 'T Hoen on Medical Patents Pool

The Medical Patents Pool is a great idea on paper. It is a voluntary mechanism that lets participating pharmaceutical companies such as Gilead to license its medical patents to allow generic manufacturers to produce and sell the medicine. While Gilead does get a royalty for each sale, the question of whether the costs incurred to research and develop the patent will be covered by these royalties and Gilead's sales.

Even if Gilead does manage to break even, it still must make a certain level of profit in order to satisfy its stakeholders. If it doesn't project that licensing will result in this, then it has no incentive to participate. But it did, which is good news for both parties.

However, in the long run, we must seriously consider Hoen's words. Hoen, at the end of her talk, basically says that pharmaceutical companies must do it now or governments will force them to do it later. This is an ultimatum, not to be taken lightly. With the enormous multitude of countries and forms of government, bio-pharmaceutical companies need only to move their operations to another geographic location to avoid government pursuers.

Assignment 9B: Silly Patent 2 [Method and system for increased realism in video games]

U.S. Patent No. 8,529,350, “Method and System for Increased Realism in Video Games” is owned by a patent troll, White Knuckle. The patent itself involves "remotely updating a sports video game based on real-world events—a player injury or a change in a stadium, such as new grass." The patent covers a "computer 'configured' to 'provide a sports video game' with 'parameters' that can be updated over the Internet."

The funny thing is that White Knuckle did not invent computers, sports video games, the Internet, or software that allows updates from a server. However, it claims to have invented a system that involves all of these components. The USPTO gave White Knuckle the patent rights on the grounds that the specific application of these elements on a single idea (updating sports video games using software over the Internet) is enough to grant White Knuckle the rights.

This is clearly abuse of the patent system by trolls. White Knuckle used this patent to sue Electronic Arts among other video game companies on the basis of patent infringement. The troll, much like the one in my other post, received settlement money from more than a few companies because the patent covers all software that allows for system updates over a live server.

Assignment 9A: Silly Patent 1 [Method and apparatus for an automatic vehicle location, collision notification, and synthetic voice]

U.S. Patent No. 6,442,485, “Method and apparatus for an automatic vehicle location, collision notification, and synthetic voice," was filed in 1999.

The "Background of Invention" depicts a method and device that speaks for a driver involved in a collision and transmit location details to 911. At first glance, this is a really good idea, especially because many collisions may render the victim(s) unable to pick up their phone or even speak. However, everything after the background is vague and clearly fabricated with no substantiation. 

The patent includes phrases such as “Location Comparator-Indicator Module” and “Automatic Speed Controlled Location Detection Module” with no description as to what they are or how they operate. There is no prior art or any information on the internet supporting these phrases. Furthermore, key terms in the claims do not show up in the invention description. Overall, this patent is exceedingly hard to decipher or understand. Despite all this, the patent was successfully given to NovelPoint Tracking LLP.

NovelPoint Tracking LLP has proceeded to sue around 100 companies using this patent as a basis for infringement. These companies include Subway, McDonald's, and Burger King. Can you guess why? Novelpoint accused these companies for infringement because their mobile applications allow users to check their physical locations and communicate their information to the restaurant. Despite these two industries being vastly different, NovelPoint was able to receive settlement money because the patent covers all sorts of GPS technology. 

Assignment 8: The Political Battle Against Patent Trolls

In the past month, more than 50 law professors and economists sent a joint letter to Congress, asking government officials to crack down on patent trolls. They argue that these trolls are inhibiting R&D and venture capital investing, essentially preventing innovation from occurring.

Economists and analysts cite a number of studies that find "the more R&D a firm performs, the more likely it is to be hit with a patent lawsuit" and "associates lawsuits from PAEs with a decline of billions of dollars of venture capital investment." Patent trolls on the other hand, argue that the current system "is effective for promoting innovation." Fortunately for patent trolls and unfortunately for companies attempting to innovate, patent lawsuits are cheap to file but expensive to defend.

Congress has already tried and failed to reform patent law twice in the past 5 years. However, recent court battles and media controversy has alerted and informed both political parties and the three branches that patent reform is necessary, if just to provide transparency to the inner workings of patents and their trolls.

Assignment 7B: Beneficial Innovations vs. Google

In January of 2014, Google won a trial against patent troll Beneficial Innovations. The patent troll sued multiple media companies over infringement of online advertisement patents. However, Google did not stand by and defend against the patent troll's attacks, as is typical of a troll lawsuit. Google instead went on the offensive and argued that the troll had violated contract by proposing this lawsuit.

Google had already paid for a license to use the patents in question, and since the other media companies were clients of Google's licensed technology, Google argued that these other firms should be free of blame.

Google won the case, but only received damages of $1 as well as a court order preventing Beneficial Innovations from suing other companies that use Google's technology.

A few months later, however, the judge ruled that Google should also be able to collect attorneys' fees, bringing Google's payment amount up to $1.3 million and a dollar.

The significance of this case is not that Google won some money, but that the company won against a patent troll. In very few cases do the defendant actually win against patent trolls, as it is their specialty and lifeblood to learn the intricacies of patent litigation. This court case win is like a bulldog in front of the Google house, an unfriendly reminder that Google can and will fight back.

Assignment 7A: Introduction to Patent Trolls

The term "patent troll" is, of course, not an official one. It is used to describe people or companies that use patents not as a tool to defend their own works, but as one to attack other entities. Officially called a patent holding company (PHC), patent assertion entity (PAE), or non-practicing entity (NPE), a patent troll can obtain patents through two ways:

1. Buying them at patent auctions where bankrupt companies often try to liquidate assets
2. Prove that the troll company itself had the idea first

After acquiring the target patents, trolls engage in lawsuits against companies that infringe on the patents. In addition to this, trolls can also just present infringing companies with the threat of a lawsuit. This forces the infringing companies to stop production in fear that a lawsuit could steal everything.

According to Business Insider, the biggest patent troll in 2012 was Intellectual Ventures. This company holds anywhere between 10,000 to 60,000 patents, depending on whom you ask. Not much is known about this company, other than the fact that it holds hundreds of subsidiaries to carry thousands of patents.

As you can tell, patent trolls are extremely powerful organizations, holding the power to make or break other companies. However, they are not invincible. Take for example, Beneficial Innovations' case against media giants including Google, which is what I will discuss in my next post!

Assignment 6B: Further Discussion of Obviousness

Hi everyone,

First off, I will be referencing to this YouTube video:

First off, the video establishes credibility--whoever is speaking comes from a firm that specializes in patent law. This is extremely important as the patent process is a long and grueling one.

Now to the speaker: the speaker is very clear, offers examples, stresses key points, and the video editing is such that it provides strategic pauses. All of these points together lend the viewer a sense of peace and safety--there is time to understand the material, examples to show real-life scenarios, and not so much information that would overwhelm a listener.

Now to the content: the content is split into two parts--novelty and obviousness. While this week we are focusing primarily on obviousness, it is important that he mention both in the same video as they are connected to each other. Novelty is associated with a single prior art, whereas obviousness is associated with more than 1. By explaining them in conjunction with each other, he enables the viewer to understand the difference and as a result, build a better patent application.

Most importantly, the speaker does not overwhelm the viewer. Almost every other article and video seeks to explain obviousness very succinctly (too little information) or very in-depth (too much information). This video provides the basics, but also backs them up with examples, leaving the step-by-step process for the next video.

Assignment 6A: Defining Obviousness

Hi everyone,

This week I will be taking a deep-dive into background, definition, and applications of obviousness. Obviousness is typically the most difficult obstacle to overcome for would-be inventors, as the law makes this condition seem difficult to understand, subjective, and even arbitrary.

The concept of and requirement for obviousness came about as a result of the United States Supreme Court case of Graham v. John Deere. The trial determined a 4-step process for analyzing the level of obviousness for a patent:

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 objective indicia of non-obviousness

As you can tell, the definition/process of obviousness is not so clear. After looking through the internet, I found a suitable and easier-to-understand definition:

"With obviousness we are asking whether there is any combination of prior art references that when put together would be the invention in question. In other words, could an ordinary mechanic create your invention or was there some kind of non-obvious innovation."

 A more refined set of criteria (if even one of these criteria is met, then the patent is considered obvious) to determine obviousness is the following:

1. If the invention is a product of combining prior art elements and yields predictable results, the invention is obvious.
2. If the invention is created through a substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, the invention is obvious.
3. If the invention is achieved by using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, the invention is obvious.
4. If the invention is created by applying a known improvement technique in a way that would yield predictable results, the invention is obvious.
5. If the invention is achieved from choosing a finite number of identifiable, predictable solutions that have a reasonable expectation to succeed, the invention is obvious.
6. If known work prompts variations based on design incentives or market forces and the variations are predictable to one of skill in the art, the invention is obvious.

Assignment 5B: Anticipation & Obviousness of the Coffee Sleeve Patent(s)

In this blog post, I will talk about the level of anticipation and obviousness of these sleeve patents. First, let's define these two terms:

1. Anticipation occurs when someone has known about or used the invention before the patent applicant applies for a patent. The act of anticipation means that the patent applicant will be rejected and not be granted a patent.
• The presence of anticipation is thus the lack of novelty.
• The obviousness standard prevents the patenting of relatively insignificant differences between the invention and the prior art
2. Obviousness is defined as an insufficient difference from what has been used or described before that a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention would find it obvious to make the change. 

As all of these patents seem to cover the same invention. However, according to Wikipedia, the coffee sleeve was patented by Jay Sorensen in 1993, by the name of Java Jacket (JJ for the purposes of this review). This patent, US5425497 A, is actually NOT one of the patents that our professor assigned us to analyze. Interestingly enough, the priority date in 1993 makes it the second-oldest patent filing in the list of 8 that we were assigned to analyze. 

Anyways, now that we have a reference point, we can go about determining the anticipation and obviousness of the other patents. I have removed the patent titles (you can visit my 5A post if you want the reference number) and grouped certain patents together:

•  

1. This is the first coffee-related patent and is certainly novel and different from the JJ, as this is basically a cup for a cup.
2. As this was the first of its kind, it is definitely non-obvious.

• 

1. These above inventions are very similar to the JJ, but use different material and construction. They also argue to be economical and environmentally friendly.
2. As these seem to only differ from the JJ in respects to materials and appearance, then they are very obvious.

•  
1. These above inventions offer unique capabilities beyond the typical coffee sleeve. The first empowers the barista, the second scientifically measures the temperature of the liquid, and the last prevents spillage of liquid from reaching the customer.
2. These inventions offer different capabilities, so they should be considered non-obvious because they use technology generally considered outside this field.

Assignment 5A: Coffee Sleeve Patent(s) Analysis

Hi everyone,

So for this week's assignment, I will briefly go over all of the patents that stake claims on the coffee sleeve that we know and love. I will tell a brief summary of each, in order of priority date:

1. US 2661889 A: 
• The priority date is Jul 20, 1948.
• The prior art includes US 1497159 A which refers to a "heat and cold insulating receptacle" to store hot and cold liquids cheaply.
• The product is an insulating jacket with removable cap containing a tearable hole.
• The claim is a summary of the product, saying that the jacket is conically-shaped and closed at the bottom end and open at the top end, attachable to a cap with a tearable hole.
2. US 6152363 A: 
• The priority date is May 3, 1999.
• The prior art is mentioned in the "description of related art." The author of this patent mentions 7 other patents that are similar to his.
• The product is an improved sleeve that the author of this patent quantitatively proves as superior to those previously invented.
• The claims are as follows:
1. A sleeve that is standardized in size, contains air gaps, and depicts a layer of graphics on the second side.
2. The sleeve is made of paperboard of X caliper and Y weight.
3. The air gaps are made of adhesive dots.
4. The air gaps are also made of foam.
5. The air gaps create a distance of Z between sleeve and container.
3. US 6343735 B1: 
• The priority date is May 4, 2000.
• The prior art includes all sleeves previously invented, as they serve the same function and look nearly identical.
• The product is an improved sleeve that provides two "wings" along the side of the sleeve. The main purpose of this product is to provide at least one portion of the sleeve spaced away from the cup. 
• The claims are summarized as follows:
• Claims 1-3 describe the physical structure of the sleeve, explaining the curves and angles associated with the wings as well as the sleeve itself.
• Claim 4 seems to be 60% a replica of Claim 1 but then focusing on the wing as "one portion" angled away from the cup.
• All further claims are more technical details regarding the construction of the sleeve and wings.
4. US 7922031 B1: 
• The priority date is Mar 1, 2006.
• The prior art is not listed. The author claims that this invention is intended for repeated use, so prior art is unnecessary.
• The product is a dual-sleeve mechanism in which the outersleeve is semi-transparent so that the writing on the undersleeve is visible. This makes it possible for customers to write the desired drink on the innersleeve, attach the outersleeve, and hand to barista for order.
• The claims are summarized as follows:
• Claim 1 is a physical description of the product.
• Claims 2-10 are various possible combinations of materials and physical constructions that the patent should cover.
• Claims 11-13 are yet again variations on construction.
5. US 20080078824 A1: 
• The priority date is Aug 23, 2006.
• The prior art includes all sleeves previously invented, as they serve the same function and look nearly identical.
• The product here is actually a method/application as the author presents a system by which a cup is outfitted by his company's designed sleeve. 
• The claims are summarized as follows:
• Claims 1-13 describe the cup insulating system as a sum of parts and the construction itself.
• Claims 14-17 describe the cup protector/sleeve itself and its materials.
• Claims 18-20 describe the insulating ring and its materials.
6. US 8118189 B2: 
• The priority date is Dec 15, 2006.
• The prior art includes all sleeves previously invented, but this invention has a specific function.
• The product is a sleeve with a temperature indicator on it that can predict the temperature of the liquid in the cup with an accuracy of +/- 4 degrees Fahrenheit. 
• The claims are summarized as follows:
• Claim 1 is a physical description.
• Claims 2-17 are variations/combinations by which the temperature indicator can be displayed.
• Claim 18 describes the manufacturing process necessary to build the product.
7. US 20100019023 A1: 
• The priority date is Jul 25, 2008.
• The prior art includes all sleeves previously invented, but this invention has a specific look.
• The product is an ordinary sleeve, but shaped differently to be arch-like. As a result, this design is more efficient and less wasteful.
• The claims are as follows:
• Claim 1 is a very basic description of the product--two edges to the sleeve, with one peaked.
• Claims 2-9 are physical descriptions and construction of the peak/arch.
• Claim 10 is a basic description of the process to make the sleeve.
• Claims 11-15 includes more detailed steps to cutting and creating the sleeve.
• Claim 16 focuses on the sheet material and its construction.
• Claims 17-20 are further details of the sheet material.
8. US 20140151385 A1: 
• The priority date is Feb 6, 2014.
• The prior art includes all sleeves previously invented.
• The product is an ordinary sleeve, but with 3 different layers. The inner layer absorbs water, the middle layer is a film that sticks the inner and outer layers together, and the outer layer is a synthetic fabric to keep the hand dry.
• The claims are as follows:
• Claim 1 is a very basic summary of the sleeve 3-layer composition.
• Claim 2 is a description of the material origins of each layer.
• Claims 3-5 are the physical dimensions of the layers.
• Claim 6 goes into more detail about the sleeve itself and its layers, as well as introducing the concepts of securing and perforation.
• Claims 7-12 expand on the physical dimensions by providing explanations on how the securing and perforation work.

Assignment 4B: U.S. Patent Analysis

Hi everyone,

So I'm here to explain Claim #1 of Patent #8046721, otherwise known as the slide-to-unlock filed by Apple.

Claim 1 details the "method" of the slide-to-unlock function:

• First, the user makes contact with the slide-to-unlock image on the screen. 
• Then, the user moves the unlock image--defined as a graphical, interactive UI object--in the direction the image instructs. 
• Finally, the screen is unlocked if the movement initiated by the user results in the movement of the unlock image from the "first pre-defined location to a predefined unlock region" (left to right typically) on the screen.

As you can tell, this claim is very specific, detailing the process from start to finish.

Assignment 4A: The Wrong-est Technology Predictions

Hi everyone, here is my selection of the top 5 wrong predictions (with explanations) from our professor's list of 25. I selected these 5 because the speakers all have these things in common:

• They are experts in their fields
• They are leaders with a reputation to uphold
• They reject innovation because it threatens their current manner of doing business

Without further ado, here is my selection (ranked by how ubiquitous the invention is in today's world) with corresponding points:

1. “The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys.” — Sir William Preece, Chief Engineer, British Post Office.
• Preece is a chief engineer, in charge of maintaining the technological systems of the British Post Office.
• Preece has been knighted by the Queen of England.
• Preece probably feared that the telephone would cut down on the profits of the Post Office, and through deductive reasoning, risk losing his job.
2. "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home." – -Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corporation.
• DEC, like IBM, was a leader in the computer industry (succeeded by HP).
• DEC had won many awards, being the first creator of the microcomputer.
• DEC was not a leader in the PC market and therefore was threatened by the rise of competitors.
3. "The world potential market for copying machines is 5000 at most.” — IBM, to the eventual founders of Xerox.
• IBM was and still is one of the leading manufacturers of computer technology.
• IBM is taking the position as an investor talking to a startup company that needs capital.
• IBM is clearly threatened by the prospect of a copy machine as it is technology that IBM didn't invent itself.
4. “The idea that cavalry will be replaced by these iron coaches is absurd. It is little short of treasonous.” — Comment of Aide-de-camp.
• An Aide-de-camp is an assistant of a senior officer, someone that the senior trusts to make rational judgments to help in his decisions.
• The Aide-de-camp has to report to superiors and thus must maintain the status quo.
• The Aide-de-camp is thinking of subordinates and comrades who would be out of a job in the armed forces since tanks only need a small number of people to operate.
5. “ How, sir, would you make a ship sail against the wind and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck? I pray you, excuse me, I have not the time to listen to such nonsense.” — Napoleon Bonaparte.
• Bonaparte is a conquerer, leader of thousands of troops, and expert strategist.
• Bonaparte needs to command the respect of his subordinates, so he cannot be backing then-absurd ideas.
• New technology means new training, new risks, and new complications--things that Bonaparte does not have the time to deal with.

I also researched 5 other wrong predictions not listed on the original 25. These ones I judged on a different criteria--each is a lesson that we, as a human race, have yet to learn from completely.

1. "Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." — Irving Fisher, economist, 3 days before the stock market crash preceding the Great Depression.
• The Great Depression was a result of investor exuberance that was left unchecked--a bubble that burst. Sound familiar? Think the Dot-Com bubble in the 1990's and the Great Recession in the late 2000's. While tremendous amounts of legislation and regulation have been implemented each time to protect the global economy from another crash, bubbles still continue to form, driven by investor exuberance. 
• The lesson here is that human greed and mob mentality will continue to run rampant unless investors are warned and informed on how to value companies and why stocks move.
2. "I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse." — Robert Metcalfe, founder of 3Com, inventor of Ethernet
• The interesting thing about this quote is that Metcalfe's invention was essential to the development of the internet. He feared that our demand for more information (and thus more internet) would far outpace our power to keep the internet safe and secure. While the internet has not collapsed, it is in a constant state of turmoil, made clear by ongoing security breaches and concerns.
• The lesson here is to look before you leap.
3. "Within five years, I predict [the tablet] will be the most popular form of PC sold in America." — Bill Gates, Microsoft co-founder, in a 2002 speech at Comdex.
• The irony in this quote is while the tablet has become the fastest-growing, if not the most popular form of PC, Microsoft is not the leader. Both Microsoft and Apple experimented until 2010 when Apple took the market by storm and has since then kept a dominant market share. 
• The lesson to be learned here is that anyone can be a visionary, but success is determined by proper knowledge of the market and what it demands.
4. "The subscription model of buying music is bankrupt. I think you could make available the Second Coming in a subscription model, and it might not be successful." — Steve Jobs
• By 2012, iTunes held 64% of the music subscription market and generates over $8 billion per year for Apple.
• The lesson is to take business risks and not to discount ideas without testing them.
5. "Apple is already dead." -- Nathan Myhrvold, former Microsoft CTO, 1997
• Apple is now the most valuable company in the world, with an enterprise value 3 times as much as Microsoft, whereas Microsoft reached its peak value just 2 years after Myhrvold's prediction. 
• The lesson here is to never discount competitors and to never be complacent. Microsoft still struggles against Apple in almost every category other than personal computers (which many argue is a dying industry). By retreating into comfort and complacency, Microsoft stood by as Apple gained control.

Assignment 3: Top 10 Inventions 2.0

Hi everyone,

As per our professor's request, I am here to list out my new top 10 inventions. Taking into consideration the suggestions of my peers, I have implemented a clear and decisive ranking system for this assignment. I argue that the most important inventions are ones that save lives. My logic is simple: what is the point of an invention if only a fraction of the world's current population are alive to use it? So here is my list of the top 10 life-saving technological innovations as well how it saves lives and the number of people each has saved.

1. Synthetic Fertilizer - 2.72 billion lives saved! Invented by Fritz Haber, this is the foundation of modern agriculture. Prior to this, farmers needed to use manure to grow crops, which was sufficient for small levels of agricultural production, but not enough to sustain large-scale human population. The  International Fertilizer Industry Association reports that 40% of the world's population is supported by food grown by fertilizer.
2. Anticoagulation - 1.094 billion lives saved! Improving on the work of his predecessors, Richard Lewisohn discovered the exact concentration of sodium citrate that was necessary for blood transfusions, thus allowing blood to be stored outside the human body in order to be given to patients who need it.
3. Bifurcated Needle - 973 million lives saved! Vaccination had just been accepted, but without this invention, nobody would have been able to receive the safest level of treatment. The only means of injection before the needle was multiple stabs into the patient's arm which, although effective, was painful and inefficient.
4. Vaccination - 973 million lives saved! The very first vaccine was invented by Edward Jenner to combat smallpox. He experimented on a local farmer's son and proved that a small dose of cowpox would prevent him from getting smallpox. Needless to say, it worked.
5. Specialized Wheat Breeding - 259 million lives saved! Norman Borlaug invented a method of breeding wheat to be both resistant against disease and harsh environments. For regions like Asia that experienced high population growth, wheat breeding was necessary to drastically increase and protect farm production of food.
6. Water Chlorination - 117 million lives saved! Linn Enslow was responsible for this water purification method. Prior to this, water supplies would easily be contaminated by a variety of issues including times of rain that caused runoff of toxic materials.
7. Penicillin - 82 million lives saved! Howard Walter Florey created the world's first antibiotic, the start of modern medicine. This was the only substance that killed bacteria without harming patients, as prior to this, doctors would use mercury and even arsenic.
8. Oral Rehydration Therapy - 54 million lives saved! Invented by David Nalin to address death by dehydration due to diarrhea, this innovation saves millions of people every single year, especially in 3rd world countries where lack of running water is a rampant problem. Moreover, the ingredients (water, salt, sugar) are so easy to obtain that everyone can access ORT.
9. DDT - 21 million lives saved! Paul Müller was the mastermind behind the world's first insecticide, preventing the spread of incredibly dangerous diseases such as malaria and typhus. Although contested by environmentalists, proper application of DDT kills flies and mosquitoes without harming the environment.
10. Insulin - 16 million lives saved! Frederick Banting invented the world's first miracle drug in order to address diabetes. Prior to this discovery, nobody had a clue as to what insulin was, where it came from, or what it did. By removing the pancreata of a cows and extracting insulin, he was able to treat the lives of millions of people.

Assignment 2B: Top 10 Technological Innovations

Hi everyone!

This is my official first post in response to Dr. Lavian's first assignment. I will be listing and briefly discussing my list of the top 10 innovation in human history.

1. Money - Destroying the barter system and allowing efficient conversion of labor into necessary goods, this is arguably the most important driver of inventions—the inventor of all inventions—as it provided easy, quick incentivisation. Notable applications include everything.
2. Vaccination - This provided a means of combatting diseases that otherwise would have went untreated. Without this, the world’s population would have been decimated by disease. Notable applications include influenza, AIDS, polio, measles.
3. Refrigeration - This allowed for safe storage of food over a dramatically longer period of time. Additionally, this allowed for transportation of food and other goods over a much greater distance. Without this, the shelf-life of cold food would be no more than a few hours. Notable applications include food, drugs, human organs, import & export, biological experiments.
4. Electricity - This is the creator of light and thus “extended” the hours by which humans could do productive work. This also provided the power necessary to drive almost every invention in the modern world. Notable applications include refrigerators, motors, radios, telephones, computers, generators
5. Semiconductor - This is essential to the construction of electrical equipment. Without it, there would be no means of long-range communication or modern day technology. Notable applications include computers, radios, telephones.
6. Internal Combustion Engine - This revolutionized the way energy was created and utilized. This increased work efficiency exponentially, cutting process time drastically across all industries (e.g. farming, manufacturing). Without this, work would at best be conducted using steam or water power. Notable applications include automobiles, airplanes, construction.
7. Personal Computing - This propelled mankind into a new era of thinking, computation, and knowledge. This allowed for computations and simulations much beyond the capability of manual labor. Without this, all forms of computation would need to have been done by hand. Notable applications include mathematical calculations, word processing, gaming.
8. Internet - This allowed for an unparalleled, quick method of communication of ideas and goods. Without this, information relay would be limited to telephone, radio, and physical mail. Notable applications include messaging communications, item orders, information transmission, entertainment, search.
9. Cloud - This ushered in a new era of information storage, transitioning from the physical to the intangible. No piece of information is really lost if it is not confined to a physical body. Without this, the sharing and transmission of data would be much more expensive. Notable applications include information storage, information transmission, email.
10. Cement - This is literally the foundation of civilization. This provided a quick means of building structures in locations lacking natural resources (e.g. stone, wood, mud). Without this, construction projects would be much more labor-intensive and lengthy. Notable applications include skyscrapers, commercial structures.

Assignment 2A: Introduction

Hey everyone!

My name is Healy Shen and I am writing this blog in order to document my experiences in UC Berkeley's College of Engineering course, IEOR 190G, otherwise known as Patent Engineering.

I am taking this course with the intention of learning a deep-dive analysis of industry developments. For example, I want to learn the intricacies of the Apple v. Samsung patent war so that I can better understand and predict the outcome of a battle between two technology behemoths. 

I believe this knowledge will help me make wiser investment decisions, especially in the technology industry. Furthermore, as I plan to enter the investment banking field, I aim to learn more about the technology industry from a different perspective.

This is the YouTube video of this assignment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftN9hQOWV1c