Comments for MPowered Entrepreneurship: Blog http://mpowered.umich.edu/blogs "Living entrepreneurship to empower our education and future." Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:30:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2 Comment on A Little Confused? by Dave http://mpowered.umich.edu/blogs/?p=81#comment-1251 Dave Mon, 03 Nov 2008 19:17:46 +0000 http://mpowered.umich.edu/blogs/?p=81#comment-1251 Susan - Nicely written, and I couldn't agree with you more. Interesting to hear from the perspective of someone involved in the legal system Susan - Nicely written, and I couldn’t agree with you more. Interesting to hear from the perspective of someone involved in the legal system

]]> Comment on Have You Hugged an Engineer Today? by Israel Vicars http://mpowered.umich.edu/blogs/?p=43#comment-365 Israel Vicars Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:26:26 +0000 http://mpowered.umich.edu/blogs/?p=43#comment-365 Hi Susan, Google and Aernnova are the two news-worthy companies I hear about having chosen Ann Arbor for an expansion location. Any thoughts as to who/what is most responsible for Google building a facility in Ann Arbor? It's a sales center, for a company powered by engineers. Does A2 legitimately have high attraction for business development hiring? Or might this be a branding play to excite UM engineers to work for Google in California? ~Israel Hi Susan,

Google and Aernnova are the two news-worthy companies I hear about having chosen Ann Arbor for an expansion location. Any thoughts as to who/what is most responsible for Google building a facility in Ann Arbor? It’s a sales center, for a company powered by engineers. Does A2 legitimately have high attraction for business development hiring? Or might this be a branding play to excite UM engineers to work for Google in California?

~Israel

]]> Comment on Let’s Test This “Re-Branding Michigan” Thing by Israel Vicars http://mpowered.umich.edu/blogs/?p=24#comment-296 Israel Vicars Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:54:58 +0000 http://mpowered.umich.edu/blogs/?p=24#comment-296 I'm surprised those clauses aren't already accepted items. They just seem to makes sense. Aside from the U's leverage opportunity early on to secure a "better" agreement position, those clauses all seem to point to a mutually beneficial arrangement. And such an approach would seem to provoke more such deals--as opposed to fewer "better" deals with the current state of affairs. I figured the list would actually have been a little more "unfair" for the entrepreneur as a way to tilt matters the status quo. Am I missing something? It must be that *years of experience* factor. I’m surprised those clauses aren’t already accepted items. They just seem to makes sense. Aside from the U’s leverage opportunity early on to secure a “better” agreement position, those clauses all seem to point to a mutually beneficial arrangement. And such an approach would seem to provoke more such deals–as opposed to fewer “better” deals with the current state of affairs. I figured the list would actually have been a little more “unfair” for the entrepreneur as a way to tilt matters the status quo.

Am I missing something?

It must be that *years of experience* factor.

]]> Comment on Software: To Patent or Not To Patent? by Anonymous http://mpowered.umich.edu/blogs/?p=34#comment-239 Anonymous Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:07:34 +0000 http://mpowered.umich.edu/blogs/?p=34#comment-239 Very clear and descriptive. Thanks. Very clear and descriptive. Thanks.

]]> Comment on Let’s Test This “Re-Branding Michigan” Thing by Susan Kornfield http://mpowered.umich.edu/blogs/?p=24#comment-216 Susan Kornfield Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:02:24 +0000 http://mpowered.umich.edu/blogs/?p=24#comment-216 Hopefully, indeed. After my posting I had a conversation with a brilliant entrepreneur, after which I realized I should have included point #8, which I just added, above. Hopefully, indeed. After my posting I had a conversation with a brilliant entrepreneur, after which I realized I should have included point #8, which I just added, above.

]]> Comment on Let’s Test This “Re-Branding Michigan” Thing by Zurbuchen http://mpowered.umich.edu/blogs/?p=24#comment-214 Zurbuchen Sat, 09 Feb 2008 14:33:06 +0000 http://mpowered.umich.edu/blogs/?p=24#comment-214 Susan - I keep reading your posts. I was actually very happy about the article you refer to. The main reason were the quotes by Jeff Schox which provide evidence for change that is ongoing right now. I also like that your suggestions are to-the-point and specific. I will be sure this post is read. Hopefully, some good responses come from it. Best, Thomas Susan - I keep reading your posts. I was actually very happy about the article you refer to. The main reason were the quotes by Jeff Schox which provide evidence for change that is ongoing right now.
I also like that your suggestions are to-the-point and specific. I will be sure this post is read. Hopefully, some good responses come from it.

Best,
Thomas

]]> Comment on Steel Your Hearts by Susan Kornfield http://mpowered.umich.edu/blogs/?p=17#comment-50 Susan Kornfield Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:51:10 +0000 http://mpowered.umich.edu/blogs/?p=17#comment-50 Hi Nate! To learn more about what Google has patented, go to the web site of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, www.uspto.gov, click on "patents" then on "search patents" and you can access the issued patents and the published patent applications. Then run a "Quick Search" using the name "Google" as one search term (select "Assignee Name" as the field) and "Mountain View" as a second search term for field "Assignee City." You will see that Google has over 50 issued patents and over 40 published patent applications. I clicked through the search results and saw that many, many of the patents are for "systems and methods" which is a good indicator of a software-based patent. Although we use the phrase "software patent" what we really mean is a system or method that is tangibly embodied in software. You can further refine your search by looking for terms related to search engines. It can be a lot of work, but you will learn a great deal about the current technology and the technology paths that companies like Google are traveling (the published patent applications are particularly for that purpose). A company like Google also relies upon copyright for its expressive content, of course trademark and trade dress, and trade secret (its "secret sauce" for searching). Go MPowered! Hi Nate! To learn more about what Google has patented, go to the web site of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, www.uspto.gov, click on “patents” then on “search patents” and you can access the issued patents and the published patent applications. Then run a “Quick Search” using the name “Google” as one search term (select “Assignee Name” as the field) and “Mountain View” as a second search term for field “Assignee City.” You will see that Google has over 50 issued patents and over 40 published patent applications.

I clicked through the search results and saw that many, many of the patents are for “systems and methods” which is a good indicator of a software-based patent. Although we use the phrase “software patent” what we really mean is a system or method that is tangibly embodied in software.

You can further refine your search by looking for terms related to search engines. It can be a lot of work, but you will learn a great deal about the current technology and the technology paths that companies like Google are traveling (the published patent applications are particularly for that purpose).

A company like Google also relies upon copyright for its expressive content, of course trademark and trade dress, and trade secret (its “secret sauce” for searching).

Go MPowered!

]]> Comment on Steel Your Hearts by Nate Hill http://mpowered.umich.edu/blogs/?p=17#comment-49 Nate Hill Wed, 07 Nov 2007 01:19:44 +0000 http://mpowered.umich.edu/blogs/?p=17#comment-49 Hi Susan, was Google able to patent their search engine? Also, what type of IP does a company like Google patent? I'm in the dark about how software patents ... and how software can be improved and then patented again ... any examples of software patents? Oh and do you have any tips on search the U.S. Patent Database? I searched for Google Earth but was unable to come up with anything :-/ Well thanks so much for posting your blogs and being a constant contributor to MPowered! :-) Hi Susan, was Google able to patent their search engine? Also, what type of IP does a company like Google patent?

I’m in the dark about how software patents … and how software can be improved and then patented again … any examples of software patents?

Oh and do you have any tips on search the U.S. Patent Database? I searched for Google Earth but was unable to come up with anything :-/

Well thanks so much for posting your blogs and being a constant contributor to MPowered! :-)

]]> Comment on Steel Your Hearts by Nate Hill http://mpowered.umich.edu/blogs/?p=17#comment-48 Nate Hill Wed, 07 Nov 2007 01:14:02 +0000 http://mpowered.umich.edu/blogs/?p=17#comment-48 Hi Susan, was Google able to patent their search engine or were they only able to trademark the name? Also, what type of IP does a company like Google patent? I'm in the dark on how software can be patented ... and how software can be "improved" and then patented again ... could you share some examples of software patents? Oh and any suggestions for searching the U.S. patents online would be greatly appreciated (I was trying to look up Google Maps and ... well it didn't go so well) p.s.- thank you for posting your blogs! :-) Hi Susan, was Google able to patent their search engine or were they only able to trademark the name? Also, what type of IP does a company like Google patent?

I’m in the dark on how software can be patented … and how software can be “improved” and then patented again … could you share some examples of software patents?

Oh and any suggestions for searching the U.S. patents online would be greatly appreciated (I was trying to look up Google Maps and … well it didn’t go so well)

p.s.- thank you for posting your blogs! :-)

]]> Comment on Halloween Courtroom Drama Over Proposed New Patent Rules by Bryce Pilz http://mpowered.umich.edu/blogs/?p=16#comment-47 Bryce Pilz Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:00:21 +0000 http://mpowered.umich.edu/blogs/?p=16#comment-47 Yes, the Blackboard patent is one of many patents that has generated a lot of press for either being improperly granted by the PTO (i.e. invalid) or for being asserted in a way that improperly expands the contemplated scope of the claims. Blackboard filed suit against a company called Desire2learn in the Eastern District of Texas (a venue perceived to be favorable to plaintiffs, and something we can discuss in a future blog) back in 2006. It looks like the Blackboard patent is being challenged on two fronts. First, several companies, led by the Software Freedom Center have successfully asked the PTO to "re-examine" the patent. This means that the PTO will essentially re-open its examination of the patent to determine if the claims are in fact valid. More times than not, once the PTO has agreed to re-examine a patent, it finds some defect in at least some claims. A re-examination, however, can be risky, because often the re-examined claims are narrowed, but in a way that still covers competitors' business. Once you have filed a re-examination, you are typically barred from making those same arguments in later litigation. So, you are using up some of the arrows from your quiver, so to speak, and risk having a patent emerge from re-examination that is stronger due to the extra examination. From what I can tell, the PTO has not issued a final ruling yet. Second, in the pending litigation, Desire2learn is vigorously attacking the validity of the Blackboard patent (as almost all accused infringers do), and appears to have had some success. After the court construed the claims recently (this is the stage in the litigation often referred to as a "Markman" ruling where the court attempts to define the scope of the patent claims), the magistrate judged ruled claims 1-35 of the patent invalid for being indefinite. This ruling has since been upheld by the main trial judge. So, it looks like Desire2learn is having initial success in attacking the patent. My understanding is that there are still additional claims in the patent, and Blackboard will probably appeal any final rulings to the Federal Circuit, so this dispute likely still has a ways to go. Fortunately for people, like yourself, that are concerned about the Blackboard patent, but not involved in any of the disputes, it appears that the involved parties are intent on knocking out the patent for the good of everyone, and currently have shown no signs of looking to settle the case (which could preserve the validity of the patent and force others to deal with it in the future). My personal take on many of the problematic software patents we have seen over the past years is that, first, they often are simply not as broad as people fear, and second, if the patentee does attempt to assert them in a broad fashion, courts are doing a better job (although not perfect, and it depends on the court) of knocking these patents out short of trial. The tricky part is that often the accused infringer is unable to invest the substantial resources necessary to fight the patent, because it is often much less expensive to take a license and allow the patentee to move on and assert the patent against your competition. Yes, the Blackboard patent is one of many patents that has generated a lot of press for either being improperly granted by the PTO (i.e. invalid) or for being asserted in a way that improperly expands the contemplated scope of the claims. Blackboard filed suit against a company called Desire2learn in the Eastern District of Texas (a venue perceived to be favorable to plaintiffs, and something we can discuss in a future blog) back in 2006. It looks like the Blackboard patent is being challenged on two fronts. First, several companies, led by the Software Freedom Center have successfully asked the PTO to “re-examine” the patent. This means that the PTO will essentially re-open its examination of the patent to determine if the claims are in fact valid. More times than not, once the PTO has agreed to re-examine a patent, it finds some defect in at least some claims. A re-examination, however, can be risky, because often the re-examined claims are narrowed, but in a way that still covers competitors’ business. Once you have filed a re-examination, you are typically barred from making those same arguments in later litigation. So, you are using up some of the arrows from your quiver, so to speak, and risk having a patent emerge from re-examination that is stronger due to the extra examination. From what I can tell, the PTO has not issued a final ruling yet.

Second, in the pending litigation, Desire2learn is vigorously attacking the validity of the Blackboard patent (as almost all accused infringers do), and appears to have had some success. After the court construed the claims recently (this is the stage in the litigation often referred to as a “Markman” ruling where the court attempts to define the scope of the patent claims), the magistrate judged ruled claims 1-35 of the patent invalid for being indefinite. This ruling has since been upheld by the main trial judge. So, it looks like Desire2learn is having initial success in attacking the patent. My understanding is that there are still additional claims in the patent, and Blackboard will probably appeal any final rulings to the Federal Circuit, so this dispute likely still has a ways to go.

Fortunately for people, like yourself, that are concerned about the Blackboard patent, but not involved in any of the disputes, it appears that the involved parties are intent on knocking out the patent for the good of everyone, and currently have shown no signs of looking to settle the case (which could preserve the validity of the patent and force others to deal with it in the future).

My personal take on many of the problematic software patents we have seen over the past years is that, first, they often are simply not as broad as people fear, and second, if the patentee does attempt to assert them in a broad fashion, courts are doing a better job (although not perfect, and it depends on the court) of knocking these patents out short of trial. The tricky part is that often the accused infringer is unable to invest the substantial resources necessary to fight the patent, because it is often much less expensive to take a license and allow the patentee to move on and assert the patent against your competition.

]]>