Life Expectancy

Can you imagine knowing the exact moment your life would expire? Imagine there being a system to approximate how long you would live.

Is that possible? Maybe.
Is that system patentable? Definitely. US 20070118398 A1

Claim #1 states:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
(A) providing health-related questions to a user;
(B) receiving answers to the questions from the user;
(C) identifying an estimate of a life expectancy of the user based on the received answers without charing the user a fee; and
(D) providing advice to the user for increasing the life expectancy based on the received answers in exchange for a fee paid by the user

While straight forward, my quick understanding is that:

• The user takes a survey - answering health questions 
• The system receives these questions 
• User gets life expectancy estimate for free 
• User pays to find out how to increase life expectancy 

ANALYSIS: 

Is there prior art? 

• Likely, I don't think you'd find a service specifically targeting health-related questions + life expectancy (focusing on only this) 

Is it non-obvious? 

• I believe other individuals in the field come up with a life expectancy, especially those in health career fields with a greater understanding of health-related questions (genetics, family history, ect.). *NOTE: I'm acting on the assumption that these are questions for the doctor. 
• In business field or programming field, I don't think they would have put this connection together. 

Is there potential infringement? 

• Since this is a service, I don't think so because the only place I can think of is the doctor's and you aren't paying for tips to increase life expectancy 

Overall? 

• I just thought it was silly because you could go to a health care provider, there never really is an accurate estimate health wise and there's more factors to the individual level than what could possibly be provided by a simple service system. 
• There are other factors to consider beyond genetics (i.e. demographic, what resources you have access to) 

Curbing Patent Trolling

Take a look at THIS article as my reference :) 

Recap of this Business Model: 

1. A litigation process that is very costly for the defendants 
2. Patents that are overly broad or vague so that they can be interpreted to cover commonly used technologies (NOTE: Given cost, many defendants are just willing to pay the troll so they can avoid the lawsuit) 

Supreme Court Help: 

• Defendant can recover legal costs if the judge sees plaintiff’s suit as frivolous 
• Made it easier to challenge validity of vague patents 
• Ex: Alice Corp v. CLS Bank 
• Case about patents on existing business method on a computer 
• Ruling: “doing it on a computer” wasn’t patentable 

Effect: 

• Declining lawsuits, notable drop after the ruling of the Alice court case 
• There are still more lawsuits that there were two decades ago

8-2: Smartflash LLC

Why did I pick this one? 

• There was a Reddit Thread 
• Racz had dropped out of school in 8th grade, but I had misread it and thought an 8th grader won against apple 
• It focuses greatly on the digital world that we’re a part of 

Background Info: 

• Patrick Racz, founder of Smartflash LLC, invented three patents related to downloading digital content, all three focusing on data storage and access systems 
• Initially, Smartflash LLC produced products, but in 2002, the business died 
• An interesting note: the product was actually promoted by Britney Spears 
• Her commercial is still on Youtube 

What does Racz believe? 

• The patent claims focus on “devices, such as handheld multimedia devices, that include certain functionality to enable users to easily pay for and download protected content” (as argued by Caldwell, the Smartflash attorney, who doesn’t disclose specific details that could be used against the company while talking to Apples attorneys) 

If this sounds strangely familiar… 

• They are owed money for basically the entire world of digital content 
• Suing big players including Apple, Samsung, Google, Amazon

Apple’s Argument: 

• Smartflash makes no products, has no employees, creates no jobs, has no US presence, and is exploiting our patent system to seek royalties for technology Apple invented 

The Verdict: 

• Smartflash LLC won $533M 
• As we’ve focused on in class, patents are given to those who file for the idea FIRST 

8-1: What is a NPE?

Non-Practicing Entities (NPE)

Definition: Any entity that earns or plans to earn the majority of its revenue from the licensing or enforcement of its patents (Patent Freedom) 

• NOTE: Not considered a NPE if the patents are offered to licensees in advance (i.e. university research labs, individual inventors) 
• Business model using Intellectual Property (IP) to collect licensing fees instead of producing actual products 
• Increasing trend of companies being sued by NPEs and increasing number of cases using controversial software and business method patents 
• Examples of sued companies include: Apple, AT&T, Verizon 

What are same ways to obtain these patents? 

• Auctions, where a bankrupt company is attempting to liquidate their assets 
• Doing enough research to prove they had the idea first 

Implications? 

• They have the right to insinuate lawsuits against companies who infringe on their patent 
• They can hold onto it (the patent) without doing anything 
• They help create a market for Intellectual Property 

"Novelty and Non-Obvious"

When looking for a video on obvious, I took a look at the examples and realized that I personally learn better by straight forward definitions over cartoons and animations. I really couldn't look beyond the first 15 seconds of most of the videos because it was just hard for me to focus on it.

So, I found this video:

Start the video at :30 to get to "Non-Obvious"

"It can't be something that is an obvious leap, something that there is a little more unexpectedness to" 

• Someone in the field: "I just haven't done it yet" 
• Patent Attorney: Having to take this step in order to approach 
• Understanding: What is the closest thing in my field, to my invention (Is it an improvement to what doesn't exist?" 

My reaction: 

The combination of this and my lecture notes complemented each other and gave me a stronger understanding of what "non-obvious" and what "obvious" because they were explaining the same thing in different words with different examples. 

Lecture - Obviousness

The definition of "obvious" to me is something I always took in dictionary terms - or rather, what seems to be a "duh" answer or something that seems very likely, very doable and the most probably answer.

But, what stands out most to me about the patent definition of OBVIOUS is what points to non-obviousness. Reviewing my lecture slides and my notes, here are the criteria that came to mind about what obviousness really means.

Understanding what is OBVIOUS, we must look at the criteria for what is NON-OBVIOUS:

1. The combination of multiple pieces of prior art 
1. Does it make sense to combine these two things? 
2. Is it a new idea? 
3. EX: Combining the tooth brush + glow stick to make a glow in the dark 
2. A person having ordinary skills (in the same field) would not have thought of it 
1. With the same skill set in the same field, an idea that is non-obvious is something that someone with these equivalent skills would have have thought of 
2. EX: Would the person with the toothbrush invention thought to combine these two for a practical use? The glow in the dark aspect is an extension of the toothbrush and something that others in the field MAY have thought of. But for anyone else not to think of it makes it non-obvious. 

Personal Views: Cups & Sleeves

I approached everything chronologically and felt kind of similar to the wheel argument. You can't quite re-invent the wheel, but you can improve, find better uses, different ways to make the wheel, ect. To best sum this up, I quote a high school teacher of mine: "No Changes, Just Improvements" 

That's kind of how I felt looking at these cups & sleeves. In the end, they're just cups & sleeves and I don't really take notice of them (I didn't think there were so many of them to possibly examine!). But, looking through the diagrams, reading the pages of the inventions, I do stand by what I explained in my last video. I think we just have a natural tendency to want to improve and build on what makes our lives better and easier. If a better improvement comes along, we'll use it. 

I don't think the changes are so obvious or predictable, so much as you don't really think it's a necessity until you think of it. I didn't even think that cold and hot drinks needed separate sleeves for better function, I always just used what was provided at my local coffee shop. 

NOTE: I apologize for the background noise, I'm not sure why there's so much of it...