So by now, I’m sure you must have seen the coverage of the TiVo/DirectTV patent litigation. This case is in front of the Fed. Circuit this week (en banc no less!!)

If TiVo wins this appeal, it really could be a modern day coup d’état, in the sense that competitors will have to pay big bucks to license its patent. On the other hand, if TiVo loses, whatever potential leverage they have will surely disappear. The latter could prove fatal for a company that is already losing significant market share to competitors.

I saw an interesting article over at the Hollywood Reporter that states that TiVo shares are plummeting.

For the number people out there, here’s a hot tip– TiVo is trading at $9.60 right now. Scholars think there is a 60% chance for a TiVo victory, in which case the stock could shoot to $19/share. Do you guys believe that?

I stumbled upon an awesome figure that shows who is suing whom in the mobile space. Check it out here, courtesy of Information is Beautiful.

This graphic is particularly interesting because it shows the vast array of technologies that are currently subject of litigation. The graphic also displays the revenue of each company relative to one another, as well if the company is current gaining or losing revenue.

Did you guys see this? To make a long story short, Apple is challenging a verdict that could force them to pay ~$600M in damages to Mirror World, founded by Yale University computer-science Professor David Gelernter. (Interesting/sad fact: Prof. Gelernter was a survivor of a uni-bomber package attack).

According to the New York Times, a federal jury in Tyler, Tex., on Friday awarded the company, Mirror Worlds, $208.5 million in damages for each of the patents allegedly infringed by Apple. The litigation focused on the use of 1) “Cover Flow” (the cover art that magically floats left to right as you touch or point your cursor on the screen), 2) “Spotlight” (a kind of an end-all-be-all search for Mac computers), and 3) “Time Machine” (automatic backup utility).

For the visual folks out there, here is Figure 1 from US Patent 6006227, “Document stream operating system”:

Here’s what Cover Flow looks like on my Mac:

To those not in the know, I know what you are thinking– how does this even happen? How is $600M a reasonable remedy? How is a $200M reward even reasonable? Lawyers get a bad name, and I think these mega-judgments and misunderstanding of the system is one reason why.

Let me try to explain. The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) grants patents, which are NOT a monopoly, but actually a “negative right” that allows you to exclude others from practicing your patent for a limited duration. Basically the patent system in the US does not take kindly to willful infringement. “Willful” is a term of art, and it actually comes up in many different areas of the law. It is generally considered an intent element–a frame of mind. If one can prove that x company willfully infringed a patent, it entitles the patent holder to potentially three times the actual damages. Mirror will have to prove this by clear and convincing evidence–no easy task. Many times the general public will see stories about these mega verdicts. Usually they are entered in order to make a point, and act as a deterrent to potential infringers.

As a Mac user, I know that the technologies referenced are a major part of the Mac experience. I use Spotlight every day. When I think Coverflow, I think iTunes. In fact, I use iTunes almost every day (come to think of it, I use my iPod everyday, and they have Coverflow so I actually do use it everyday). TimeMachine is more of a background feature, but I recently used that too so I can honestly say that all three are pretty prevalent features. On the other hand, one could argue that these are more secondary features, in that Spotlight requires affirmative use, CoverFlow is not the default view, and that TimeMachine is simply a timed file saving utility. It’ll be interesting to see where this case goes.

One final thought–it might be tough to prove willfulness in light of the 2007 Seagate decision.

Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple, Inc. docket (Courtesy of Justia).

New York Times article here.

More on the clear and convincing standard, and its application to this case.

Article from Yale Daily News.

Fact: Apple gets a lot of patents. It’s no secret that nearly all Apple devices implement some form of a capacitive touch sensor array. As a Mac enthusiast, I try to keep up on what might be coming out next.

I thought this patent was pretty cool:

A handheld device…configured to determine an identity of the user based on the pixilated image of the user’s hand generated by the sensor arrangement, and configure the handheld device in response to the identity determination according to user settings stored in a user profile associated with the determined identity.

In English, please? Basically, when you pick up a device with said patent, it will know who you are just by you picking it up. Presumably your settings, backgrounds and other preferences will all load up automatically (much like driver settings in modern cars). An image is worth a thousand words, so please see below:

Have a great day.

Kids like water guns.  Kids LOVE Super Soakers.  In fact, according to InventionStatistics.com, Super Soakers is a $400 million business.

This post is more like an extended story under a Snapple bottle cap rather than legal analysis, but I think the story is a fun one.  So how did this invention even come to fruition? Apparently, Dr. Lonnie Johnson, a nuclear engineer, was tinkering at home like many engineers do. Specifically, he was doing some work on a heat pump at home that used water instead of freon.  Turns out the pressurized system he used actually worked much better as a high performance water gun.  Not bad for an alternative embodiment!

As a part time inventor, it took eight (8) years before the gun was finally introduced to consumers.

Patent available online here.