Week 10 Blog #4: Beth Noveck and "Opening" Up the Government

Beth Noveck's Ted Talk concerned her work as the White House Chief Technology Officer and leading the Obama administration's movement for an "open source" government. I found it quite amazing that when she arrived to the White House, how secretive the government was at the time and how the Obama administration attempted to open up the dialogue the government had with the general public. I found it especially reassuring that she made the claim that this "open government revolution is not about privatizing government, because many cases what it can do when we have the will to do so is to deliver more progressive and better policy than the regulations and the legislation and litigation-oriented strategies by which we make policy today".

I think this is a fabulous effort made by the American government to open up about the rationale and decision-making about executive decisions that will be made concerning not just the average citizen, but by the country as a whole. I especially appreciate how the government has divided this into two separate phases: one in which gathering information is imperative and the second is to continue the search for data through the mining of information through hackathons to allow for people to engage and participate. I thought Ms. Noveck's argument was progressive in the sense that it allows for us citizens to understand the rationale behind the decisions that the government makes and why it feels to go that way.

In a world where data has become increasingly accessible to everyone, I think Ms. Noveck highlights the role the government is playing to reinforce the ideal that the federal government is looking out for our best interests. We need to continue this open-source policy to allow for a direct and clear line of communication between the public and those serving the interests of the public. I strongly support the measures that the federal government has taken under Ms. Noveck and I hope they continue to publicize their effort in attempting to pass through policy that the general American public understands.

Week 10 Blog #3: Ellen Hoen and the Ethical Nature of Pooling Medical Patents

Ellen Hoen in her Ted Talk brilliantly brings up the need for companies to participate in the Medicines Patent Pool, where pharmaceutical patent holders voluntarily make their patents available to the Medicines Patent Pool which then license those out to whoever needs access to those patents. She brings up the example of anti retroviral medicines (ARVs) for AIDS treatment in the early 2000s when ARVs cost about $12,000 per patient per year. The patents on those drugs were held by a number of Western pharmaceutical companies that were not willing to make those patents available, causing patent wars to break out and an overall drug prices crisis to take place. Luckily, countries that didn't recognize pharmaceutical product patents product generic versions of these ARVs, dramatically lowering prices from $10,000 per patient per year to $350 to the current price of $60.

However, rules have changed where all countries are obliged to provide patents for pharmaceuticals that last at least 20 years and as new drugs are invented, a drug price crisis approaches closer once again. That is why the Medicines Patent Pool for HIV created by UNITAID in 2010 is critical to prevent cases where swaths of the world unable to afford high-priced patented medication are forced to suffer. The risk of this pool is the voluntary nature of it: these pharmaceutical companies are not obliged to participate within this pool and while the pool has been working so far, I believe it needs to be expanded. It shouldn't be just for HIV, but should be for a variety of diseases that afflict this world.

I believe the Medicines Patent Pool for HIV has been a great first step in addressing this issue, but I don't know the feasibility for its voluntary nature to continue to work in the long-run. I believe as new drugs for other diseases are produced and their value and need increases, these companies will be more so motivated in profits rather than contributing to the greater good. I believe in the long-run what we will need to do is to expand this pool and make it mandatory for pharmaceutical companies to throw their patents into. It is the only way to prevent these profit-seeking organizations from withholding medicine from those who need it the most.

Week 10 Blog #2: Kirby Ferguson and Separating Property from Remixes

In his Ted Talk, Kirby Ferguson notes the inability of the American patent system to understand the ideology of the term "remix". Remixing involves three techniques according to Mr. Ferguson: Copy, transform, and combine. He demonstrates this in music with the example of Bob Dylan, who some argued simply stole other individuals' songs. But copying and remixing are two separate actions. Bob Dylan, as Mr. Ferguson notes, copied melodies, but then transformed them and combined them with new lyrics which were frequently their own concoction of previous stuff. That is remixing, building upon the work of old to produce something new and possibly, better overall.

I agree with Mr. Ferguson's argument that the American patent system runs counter to this notion of building on the work of others. The idea of property fits well in the case of land because you have to defend it from squatters and such, but the idea of "property" when it pertains to intellectual products and ideas runs into a grey area. Yes, it is important to make sure that ideas aren't simply stolen and taken credit for by individuals who did not originally come up with the idea or product. That is a necessary defense in the system that is built in place to promote innovation and continually building products. But the issue that comes up is those that have built themselves up through recreation and consistently mixing and matching with prior inventions now seeking to defend themselves from those looking to build on their ideas.

Take the case of Steve Jobs. Mr. Ferguson showed the video of Jobs in 1996, claiming that Apple sought to take prior inventions and build upon it to create their own machines, or as he would quote from Picasso, "Good artists copy. Great artists steal". By 2010, Jobs wanted to "destroy Android because it's a stolen product" and proceeded to patent the "slide-to-unlock" technology in iPhones.

The question that arises here is how are we allowed to progress in this system? When one takes a few steps in innovation, that individual becomes the target of various organizations for infringing on their "intellectual property". Every invention that comes about is built upon the ideas and products of those that have come before it, but in the system we live in today, it seems inventors and organizations want to reject this "remix" ideal. We are dependent on one another and Mr. Ferguson showcases this brilliantly. That is how innovation can take root and really change the world we live in.

Week 10 Blog #1: Analyzing the Case of Drew Curtis and Patent Trolls

Drew Curtis, the founder of Fark.com, gave a Ted Talk on his process in challenging and defeating a patent troll that claimed that his company was infringing on their patent for the creation and distribution of news releases via email. Naturally, I found this story quite amusing and certain points really stuck out to me during his presentation.

1. Sticking with the case rather than settling.
Along with his company, Mr. Curtis noted that other large organizations such as Yahoo, MSN, TechCrunch, and others were also accused of infringement by Gooseberry, but rather than defend themselves, these companies choose to settle in hopes of avoiding the high costs that are associated with patent infringement lawsuits. The irony behind this that caught my attention was the inability of Gooseberry to defend its own lawsuit when Mr. Curtis did not give in to their settlement demands. Gooseberry couldn't even provide screenshots of Fark where the infringement of their patent was occurring. To further compound the hilarity of this situation, they pressed Fark further into settling. In my belief, if this doesn't go to show you the pathetic nature of these trolls and the need for the justice system to take action against these companies, I don't know what further proof you need to highlight the systemic damage these trolls cause on innovation. As the accuser, they cannot even come up with the evidence against the defendant, making it blatantly obvious that their existence solely is to manipulate the patent system for money rather than defending any intellectual property.

2. Lessons learned.
I thought Mr. Curtis brought up some unique defenses in how to combat these trolls. Fighting the infringement, not the patent is definitely a safer route of action to take against these trolls. It's easier to force their hand into showing what aspect you are infringing rather than going up against their patent, which is traditionally difficult to overturn. Making it clear to the troll that you have no money or you would rather spend money fighting the troll rather than giving them any money is another good option as the troll becomes fearful of not recovering any money. And in general, making the entire process extremely difficult and painful for them, simply frustrates them and pushes them into making poor decisions and weakening their allegations. I feel that this way mentally "trolls the troll" as their arguments become weaker and the evidence they draw up against companies really isn't as strong as they thought it would be.

3. Trolls are terrorists.
It's a bit of an extreme statement, but when you consider the fact that trolls have done more damage to the U.S. economy than any domestic or foreign terrorist organization in history every year, it shows you how much harm they cause to the economic environment we exist in. I don't argue with the principles of the free-market economy and capitalism because I believe they have proven to be the most efficient market systems in the world historically, but you cannot possibly defend those who manipulate and hold the markets hostage in such manners. If we have taken such a priority to defend our nation against terrorists both domestically and abroad, shouldn't we take the initiative to defend our economy against those manipulating it? Their has been nothing good coming from the existence of trolls and it's about time we take back our rights of innovation and creation.

Week 9 Silly Patent #4: Beerbrella

Title: Beerbrella
United States Patent 6637447

Abstract: The present invention provides a small umbrella ("Beerbrella") which may be removably attached to a beverage container in order to shade the beverage container from the direct rays of the sun. The apparatus comprises a small umbrella approximately five to seven inches in diameter, although other appropriate sizes may be used within the spirit and scope of the present invention. Suitable advertising and/or logos may be applied to the umbrella surface for promotional purposes. The umbrella may be attached to the beverage container by any one of a number of means, including clip, strap, cub, foam insulator, or as a coaster or the like. The umbrella shaft may be provided with a pivot to allow the umbrella to be suitably angled to shield the sun or for aesthetic purposes. In one embodiment, a pivot joint and counterweight may be provided to allow the umbrella to pivot out of the way when the user drinks from the container.

Analysis: Basically, the purpose of this invention is provide an umbrella covering the contents of a beer bottle while the user either drinks it or puts it down for a period of time. This isn't the same as insulating sleeves in the sense that the umbrella doesn't actually keep the beer cold, but rather simply provides a cover for the beer from the sun. This is what separates this invention from its prior art: the purpose and functionality is completely different from any prior inventions. Since this device is specifically for beer bottles, it's a tad easier to defend the novelty of this invention as there doesn't exist an invention quite similar to this and while its purpose is difficult to ascertain, it is undoubtedly non-obvious. What benefit this invention actually provides to the user is the only question behind its existence.

Week 9 Silly Patent #3: Dog Nose Art

Title: Dog Nose Art
United States Patent 20090188617

Abstract: A kit and method that converts dog nose smudges deposited on a first surface into a form of dog nose art on a second surface.

Analysis: When reading the background of the invention, the inventor holds the belief that "there is a need for kits or methods that enable dog owners to remember and/or celebrate their dogs in a decorative and artistic way". Essentially, due to the relatively short nature of a dog's life in comparison to human years, the purpose behind this invention is to take dog nose smudges found on separate surfaces onto a solid base surface to create a form of "dog nose art". What makes this entire process non-obvious is the utilization of multiple surfaces to collect the residue from this smudge and apply it to a separate transparent layer that essentially collects these smudges as "art". While the prior art for this invention describes inventions that relate to the collection of these types of imprints, the novelty behind this invention is that the purpose behind this is for the collection of dog nose smudges. As ridiculous as it may sound to collect these smudges and have an entire procedure behind the collection of it, the process is nonetheless valid in the sense that it is a non-traditional method for a non-traditional purpose that has not been utilized before in the prior art.

Week 9 Silly Patent #2: The Chin Putter

Title: Linear Putter Device of a Golf Club
United States Patent 6659880

Abstract: A linear putter device of a golf club includes a lower connecting rod, an upper connecting rod, a bearing unit, a locking member, an upright rod, and a movable member. Thus, the golf club is moved in a linear manner, so that the golf club can hit the golf ball in a linear manner. In addition, the distance between the movable member and the upright rod can be adjusted arbitrarily so as to fit the user's stature and height, so that length of the golf club can fit the user's stature and height.

Analysis: The purpose of this device essentially is for the user to hold an upright rod underneath their chin and the lower half of this rod is connected to another rod that functions as a putter. Basically, this invention allows you to maintain a linear stroke when striking a golf ball. In terms of obviousness, this invention separates itself from the prior art, which is a traditional golf putter, in the sense that this connect multiple components for the golf club to swing. Thus, it is clear that this invention is quite novel even though its purpose is quite ridiculous in the sense that this invention simply complicates the ability for a user to actually strike the golf ball in the sense that only one hand will be used to generate power to hit the ball since the other hand must hold the rod underneath the user's chin.