Posts Tagged: "Microsoft"

Lost in all of this rhetoric over Chairman Pai’s supposed interest in limiting Internet access for Americans are the activities being overseen by Pai which are in the service of restoring Internet access to victims of natural disasters. On October 3rd, the day after Pai was confirmed for his second term, the FCC announced that it would make up to $76.9 million in funding available to aid in repairing wireline and wireless communication networks to restore communications services in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, two U.S. territories which have seen incredible infrastructure damage caused by two major hurricanes in recent weeks. The tech media world’s desire to cast FCC Chairman Pai in the least favorable light possible means that, while the net neutrality issue gets a great deal of coverage from the likes of Ars Technica, The Verge and CNET, the announcement on funding hurricane repairs to restore Internet access barely gets any coverage because it doesn’t fit a narrative. Outside of Reuters and Engadget, American news consumers would be hard-pressed to find details of that initiative.

So obviously the patent claims VirnetX has used to pursue infringers such as Apple and Microsoft are not the weak patents that opponents of the patent system claim are the scourge of the system. Well — not so fast! Just because an Article III federal district court confirms the validity of a patent doesn’t mean anything anymore. Indeed, federal courts have become subordinate to the PTAB, which is as ridiculous as it sounds but sadly true. A patent is not valid until an Article I executive tribunal says so, and absolutely no deference is paid to Article III judges of the United States federal courts.

A $1 trillion a year industry not wanting to pay innovators less than a 1% royalty on the innovations they appropriate (i.e., steal) for their own profits seems like a terrible price to pay given the national security and economic consequences of forfeiting our world leadership to the Europeans and Chinese… Google and Uber are locked in a patent battle over self-driving automobiles, so does that make Google or Uber a patent troll? What about General Electric, Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, Cisco, Oracle, Whirlpool, Kraft Foods, Caterpillar, Seiko Epson, Amgen, Bayer, Genzyme, Sanofi-Aventis, and Honeywell, to name just a few?

The licensing agreement, which covers patents directed at connected car technologies, is the latest partnership between these two companies seeking to increase entertainment and autonomous tech platforms within vehicles.,, In recent months, Microsoft has been ramping up licensing programs seeking to encourage the use of its patented technologies by auto manufacturers. At this year’s Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, the company announced the Microsoft Connected Car Platform, a development platform for connected car technologies using the Azure cloud.

We’re three months into 2017 and already the early returns are showing that this year should be a banner one for intelligent voice assistant technologies. The 2017 Voice Report from VoiceLabs, a voice assistant app development firm, forecasts a total of 24.5 voice-first devices sold by the end of the year, increasing the overall footprint for such devices to 33 million in circulation. The report also indicates that specialization between voice assistants will become much more pronounced this year as the largest players in the field continue to develop their voice assistant technologies in ways that benefit their core business.

Efficient infringement causes distress and agony for innovators struggling to survive,, and widespread efficient infringement absolutely stifles innovation… Innovators today patent their technologies in the hopes of licensing to a tech company but recent legislation from Congress, most notably in the form of the America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA), has increased the difficulties of asserting patent rights. In this environment, it becomes economically viable for a large company to simply copy what it can from available technologies it hasn’t developed instead of actually licensing that technology.

The number of patents granted to US companies by the European Patent Office (EPO) grew by 46.7% in 2016, the highest increase in ten years, and a new record high. Last year US companies were granted 21,939 patents by the EPO (2015: 14,955).

Dutch tech conglomerate Koninklijke Philips NV is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,522,695. The Philips patent is challenged by Microsoft on behalf of several other tech giants… At the center of the proceedings is a challenge to the validity of a patent covering a technology that enables more information to be stored on an optical or magnetic recording medium… The official petition filed by Microsoft is the result of a series of seven lawsuits filed by Philips in December 2015 in which it attempted to assert the ‘695 against a series of tech developers. According to Microsoft’s IPR, the American tech firm has intervened in five of these cases, including suits against Acer and ASUSTEK, by filing as a counterclaim-defendant.

There is often a tension between the needs of law enforcement and the companies that collect and store the electronic data of individuals. Law enforcement may seek this data from the companies through subpoenas, search warrants, and other court orders as part of its investigation and request that the companies did not disclose their interaction with authorities to maintain the confidentiality of the investigation. In contrast, companies may wish, or be obligated under the terms of their agreements or privacy policies, to disclose to their customers that they have produced the customers’ electronic data to law enforcement pursuant to legal process. To prevent the companies from doing so, federal law enforcement typically obtains a non-disclosure order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2705(b) from a federal magistrate court. These orders have generally not had a definite expiration date. However, companies have recently begun to challenge the limits and scope of such orders. The recent case of Microsoft Corp. v. United States Dep’t of Justice, No. C16-0538 JLR, represents the most serious challenge to date.

The springing license does offer at least some protection in the future against patent aggregators looking to monetize IP assets, but it wouldn’t stop any party, including an actual patent troll, from sending a demand letter asserting rights to a patent outside of the Azure IP Advantage portfolio. But, how those in the program can be use one of Microsoft’s patents to defend against a patent troll seems rather questionable. By definition a patent gives the owner the right to do nothing other than exclude. So even if you have lawfully acquired rights through the owner you’ve acquired no affirmative rights, just a promise from the owner that they won’t exclude you from what it is that you are doing. Therefore, you cannot defend a patent litigation against a patent troll or any patent owner by pointing to a patent you have rights to use because that isn’t how a patent works.

On the menu this week for Other Barks & Bites, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case challenging the Lanham Act’s disparagement provision, a six-figure damages verdict goes in favor of former USPTO Deputy Director Russell Slifer, a TTAB petition is filed to challenge the trademark application for an NFL franchise currently in the relocation process, an announcement by a Japanese academic-industry research project that claims to have doubled the effectiveness of solar cell panel conversion rates, the FTC takes action against a pharmaceutical company and much more.

Although the patent space surrounding VR headsets still looks very open, it’s interesting to note that Nintendo has an early lead over other top tech firms which have reportedly been working on their own virtual reality technologies. Fourth place in the VR headset space is Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT) which owns nine IP assets in the sector. This total seems low given Microsoft’s work on developing its HoloLens mixed reality platform. Trailing closely behind in fifth place is Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOGL) with seven IP assets in the sector. Again, given research and development conducted by Alphabet’s Google subsidiary for its Google Glass head-mounted device, it’s interesting to see that the company hasn’t invested heavily in the virtual reality headset space. Following further behind in seventh place is Japanese electronics conglomerate Sony Corp. (NYSE:SNE). Tied in eleventh place are Intel Corp. (NASDAQ:INTC) of Santa Clara, CA, and the Walt Disney Company (NYSE:DIS) of Burbank, CA.

Recently, we took a closer look at four of the largest trending stories playing out in the world of intellectual property and patents during 2016. Today we turn to the world of technology to see what trends have been developing in the technology sector over the past year. From an ever-widening scope of business activities being pursued by Silicon Valley’s largest firms to growing government authority over one sector of Internet services, there have been plenty of interesting stories playing out on the stage of America’s tech sector.

In terms of sheer numbers, in the CB Insights study, which curiously did not include patent giant and American research juggernaut IBM, Microsoft ranks supreme among this collection of five major tech firms. The Redmond, WA-based hardware and software developer has applied for a total of 16,840 patents over the seven years of the study. In second place is Google with 14,596 patent applications over the same time period. Although exact numbers for the other three firms weren’t publicly released by CB Insights, these two firms are followed by Apple (13,420 patent applications), Amazon (5,186) and Facebook (2,508), respectively. Collectively, these five companies have been pushing towards a total of 10,000 patent applications filed per year. This trend marks a sharp rise in patent application filing activities among the Big 5, which filed 3,565 patent applications collectively in 2009.

Instagram’s TTAB action targets U.S. Trademark Application No. 86663305, which would protect Microsoft’s use of the standard character mark “ACTIONGRAM” on goods including computer software for virtual reality realization, manipulation, immersion and integration of audio, video, text, binary, still images, graphics and multimedia files, as well as computer software for controlling wearable hardware and wearable computer peripherals. The application for this trademark was filed in June 2015. Microsoft is currently offering a beta version of Actiongram, a virtual reality service for Hololens users where users can create holograms which they can share with social contacts.