28. Patent for eating counter apparatus for mobile vending vehicle and seating apparatus therefor

There is patent for eating counter apparatus for mobile vending vehicle and seating apparatus therefor issued by the USPTO. This patent is for an eating counter apparatus for mounting to a three or four-wheeled, motorized or pedal-powered vehicle used as at least part of a mobile food vending eatery whereby to utilize the vehicle to provide an eating area for the patrons of the eatery. The eating counter apparatus also may mount a seating apparatus arranged to support seated patrons about the vehicle as they eat at the counter of the eatery vehicle.

This patent, although issued, seems to violate the non-obvious requirement of patents. The idea of this patent really is a combination of 2 commonly seen things: a food stall, and a food truck. Such a simple combination seems quite obvious to a general person. Also linked to this idea of non-obviousness is novelty. Because it is such an easy combination, it is highly likely that such an idea has been thought of before and documented. 

With this idea being non-obvious and not novel, it seems highly like that this patent could be invalidated easily when the owner of this patent sues truck vendors for any infringement. 

27. Stupid Patents: Method of swinging on a swing

A patent was issued by the USPTO for a method of swing on a swing, in which a user positioned on a standard swing suspended by two chains from a substantially horizontal tree branch induces side to side motion by pulling alternately on one chain and then the other.

When first hearing about this patent, many questions of the validity comes up. Firstly, who would the inventor of this patent go after for cases of infringement? The children playing the swings will be the one who infringe the patent, but it is not realistic that  the inventor sue every child who did that. In addition, the inventor cannot go after the people who installed the swing, or the people who made the swings because they did not infringe on the patent.

The non-obviousness and novelty of this patent is also in doubt. It seems that this method may be considered obvious because there are only a few ways you can move a swing. You can move it sideways, up and down, or rotate it with respect to a different axis. This method then falls under the rotation because when one chain is pulled, the swing rotates vertically. Although it seems like an idea that is out of the box, it really is not because of the limited options there are to move the swing. When it comes to novelty, it further does not make sense because even a little kid can accidentally pull a chain on one side because of his/her playfulness, and see the effects. This then causes it to not be a new idea anymore. 

With this being said, it seems like this patent for swinging is unrealistic and a stupid one. No one can ever earn royalties from having this patent, and it should not even have been valid to begin with. I wonder how it was first approved.

26. Nokia vs HTC

Recent discussions in class has really struck me when I came across this article regarding the battle between Nokia and HTC. We talked about how language is really important in determining infringement, and we analyzed the different preambles of patents. In the case with Nokia, the German court has not been kind with Nokia in granting injunction against HTC because its patent is still pending. In addition, HTC has also been invalidating Nokia's patents as a form of defense. Most invalidation comes because of the wordings of the claims, and it is said that HTC has been doing a good job so far defending itself.

However, as Nokia is in a similar position of what we mentioned as patent trolls in class. Nokia does not worry about losing those litigations. They can lose countless amounts of patent cases, but all Nokia needs is to win just one highly impactful patent, or a few that are collectively very impactful. To Nokia, it is like a soccer game, where it doesnt matter how many times you try to score because the final number of goals is what that matters.

This strategy is then even made easier for Nokia because of its patent portfolio which has enormous breadth and depth. They can easily bring new assertions to HTC, and it is a matter of time that Nokia will win this one major lawsuit against HTC. This can be said to be a sure-win strategy, but it will just be time and resources consuming. It is then up to either party to try to resolve this situation where it is a lose-lose for both, and settle for a much beneficial outcome.

25. Motorola: a mistake by Google

Just last week, the court has reached a FRAND rate for Motorola's SEP and this has served a huge blow to Google. This is because the FRAND rate will affect Google's ability to generate licensing revenues, which they had optimistically accounted for when purchasing Motorola. This inability to generate as much revenues meant that Google's ROI from its Motorola purchase has dropped significantly. In fact, it is calculated that it will take around 7000 years to make back the $12.5Billion it paid from licensing the SEPs to Microsoft. This of course will be impossible, because the patents would have expired way before then.

Apart from this poor revenue stream from licensing, Google additionally burdens its financials with funding lawsuits. They are involved in patent lawsuits where its expected returns if they win do not surpass its cost of litigation by much.

This all may not make financial sense, but I am sure there is a strategic reasoning behind these moves that Google has taken. Google can definitely afford such a loss in the short term, and these deals might allow it to gain much more in the long term through signals of strength sent to its competitors. Motorola might also provide other strategic benefits aside from those patent related.

24. FRAND or foe?

Federal judge has set a FRAND rate for Microsoft's licensing of Google's SEP. Microsoft had previously brought a lawsuit against Google's Motorola for a breach of FRAND contract. It feels that the initial royalty demand of Motorola was "blatantly unreasonable and constituted a breach of Motorola's FRAND pledge. In the first trial last year, an ITC judge had concluded that "Motorola  was not interested in good faith negotiations and in extending a FRAND license" to Microsoft. 

A FRAND agreement is a win-win situation that allows companies involved to all benefit. Each and every companies in the FRAND network can gain from the licensing fees, and can gain from the ability to innovate because it is assured of the opportunity to license a patent from another company in the network that it knows would be essential for its development. Although there is a limit to how much licensing fees can be obtained, the benefits of being able to access other patents, and innovate far outweighs the cost. 

In addition, a company does not earn money from preventing or suing others from using its technology or infringing its patents. It earns money from licensing their patents and therefore, FRAND is generally largely beneficial for companies. FRAND also allows companies to make friends, rather than foes because of the openness in sharing and controlled licensing price. 

After this lawsuit between Microsoft and Google, it will then be interesting to see if they are friends under FRAND or foes with or without FRAND.

23. More help needed for USPTO

The USPTO is signaling to people that it will be cutting its spending with the Commerce Department mentioning that the USPTO is continuing its effort to develop a sequestration plan. This plan is said to be work in progress, and its details are still forthcoming. Sending this signal of budget cut means a huge deal to innovators and parties that are considering applying for patents or even disputing patents. The lack of funds will delay patents or trademarks examinations, further extending the wait-time for any process. 

That being said, the USPTO is still identifying potential savings and projects that could be managed in a way that minimizes the impact of this budget cut on both its services, and its employees. Non-examination related spending will be the first to focus on, so as not to affect the standards and performance of the examinations as much. 

This reduction of spending, although having a negative connotation, is not as bad as it seems if considered over a few years. The USPTO's current budget has increased by almost 50% over the past 3 years, and the sequester reduction is minuscule compared to the size of this increase. However, firms should still expect some form of change in the standard or service provided, which is most likely translated to longer wait times. This then bodes ill for companies awaiting patent issuance or litigations status, that are really time sensitive.

22. Apple having fiercer relations with Samsung

Apple has won Samsung in California claim construction battle on all patents except one SEP. A claim construction is a huge component of the lawsuit for any patent as it sets the definition of the the words in the claim. As infringement requires all elements in the claim to be violated, setting the definition of such elements in Apple's favor would give a huge advantage to Apple in its case for the patent lawsuit. Apart from proving infringement, winning a claim construction battle also reduces the chances of having the patent invalidated. As mentioned last week with the case of the slide-to-unlock in Germany, one alternative of fighting back against a lawsuit for patent infringement is to try invalidate the patent. Laying out the 'rules' of the patent well would then aid against having any patent invalidated.

It is also interesting to note that companies sometimes do contradicting actions in hopes to win against patent infringement. As in the case of Samsung and Apple, Samsung had consistently tried to narrow the scope of the claims in order to have a better basis for disputing infringement. However, sometimes, defendants will broaden them instead, so that they can argue that it is too broad and request for invalidation. Samsung's efforts were, however, rejected by the court, and it seems like it will get much harder when going for the trial next year to dispute infringement, because of the claim construction.

21. Another win for Apple

Apple has won an invalidation of 3G SEP of Samsung in Germany. This serves as a huge win for Apple, which definitely damaged the relationship between the two companies further. Earlier last week, Apple had lost the slide-to-unlock patent against Google's Motorola, and it was a huge blow to Apple. However, I would think that Apple would prefer this trade-off, being able to damage Samsung, who is his main competitor, and suffer a defeat from Google, than to have the status quo. The german court has ruled to invalidate in its entirety, the German part of Samsung's EP1005726 on a "turbo encoding/decoding device and method for processing frame data according to QoS", which is a patent Samsung had declared to be essential to 3G wireless standard.

This defeat could also be viewed as a consequence for Samsung being too greedy. Previously, it had withdrawn all its SEP-based injunction against Apple, but still continued to sue it for damages. This outcome might not have happened if the relationship between Apple and Samsung was better.

It seems like invalidation of patents, although sounding like a huge and uncommon issue, is indeed common. This makes me wonder about the reliability in the process of applying for patents. If most cases can be invalidated, why should it even be issued initially? Does this not reflect bad on the issuing agency that they were negligent on their part previously?

20. Apple's Slide-to-unlock invalidated

It is interesting that Apple's recent battle with Samsung and Google's Motorola supports what we learn in class regarding the options that a company has when it is told that it infringes a patent. One of the options mentioned was to invalidate the patent, and this is exactly what Samsung and Google did to fight against Apple.

The slide-to-unlock patent was invalidated in Germany as it fails to meet the technicity requirement under the European patent law. This is because the court felt that the swiping gesture for the purpose of unlocking a device, which is the new invention, is not technical enough, and it has to solve a technical problem with a technical mean to be eligible for a patent. This being said, the exact same patent will be perfectly fine in US because of the difference in the country patent laws.

This case just proves that each country is very different from one another, and that a patentable idea in one country might not work in another. This brings about a fundamental problem for inventors and innovation because their ideas can never be fully protected worldwide, and if they do not know the ground rules in the various countries, such inventors could easily be 'eaten' up by the local competitors
in the country.

19. Google vs Microsoft

Google seems like it is having a tough battle against Microsoft's Xbox. In this battle, it involved the actions of Motorola, which Google had bought over previously. It is mentioned that Motorola had not anticipated the ruling outcome of another lawsuit between S3 Graphics and Apple, which was the fundamental reason why it is unable to win the case against Microsoft. It failed to realize the difference between a method claim and product claim. It also failed to form a case around indirect infringement and focused too heavily on direct infringement.

Has Google made a wrong move by buying Motorola, which it could not leverage on with its patents in this area? It seems like Google's position is not very favorable for winning this battle for an import ban, but it still has other options apart from the ITC. This case might be looked upon as a learning experience for all of us, including Google, in its next company buyout. I had never knew about how focusing on method claim or product claim could make or break the litigation. In addition, I never knew about what indirect infringement is, and it is even more surprising to me that Microsoft could even use its marketing campaign as a way to support its case of not inducing infringement. Marketing and infringement of patents seem to not overlap in my mind, but apparently it does so by marketing Kinect as a way to control the Xbox without using a game pad.

18. Google Being Generous, Maybe?

Google has just promised not to assert 10 of its patents against open source software. This has created lots of publicity for Google, as they seem like the nice and generous people. However, the truth is not as bright as that. In 2005, some companies had done similar things and pledged not to assert select patents against open source softwares. However, it was not effective and those pledges had not changed anything because those select patents were really limited and small. The 10 patent that Google had promised comprises of an extremely small percentage of Google's patent portfolio. In fact, it is one of the most 'stingy' companies involved in such acts, where it pledged less than a percent of its portfolio. Having said that, it is still possible that such open source companies maximize the use of such patents to produce something amazing for consumers. Google may be having that in mind, and trying to promote innovation by making those open source companies make do with what they have to come up with something useful. The future is unknown, and it is interesting to see how things might turn out.

17. Apple Wants More

Apple had previously gained $600 million in damages from Samsung over 2 of their phones in a lawsuit on March 1st. However, Apple does not seem satisfied with this ruling because they wanted an initial damage amount of $1.05 billion. This $450 million gap has made Apple unhappy, as they try to reduce the gap by claiming that the jury has made an error in accounting for the damages, amounting to $85 million.

This may seem like a valid move by Apple because they can maximize their claim on a single lawsuit. However, I personally feel that it might be counter productive because of the additional effort needed to be put in, and the risk of the lawsuit. Apple is fighting a strong opponent, and risk strong retaliation if the compensation amounts too huge. In addition, winning a lawsuit is already tough and time consuming enough. Having another round of lawsuit to increase the damages will take more time and drain more resources of both parties. In the end, most of the additional damages might go to the lawyers instead of Apple, if Apple even wins the next round.

16. Ericsson a troll?

Samsung has felt that Ericsson behaved like a patent troll, and is now retaliating and countersuing them with 8 more patents in Texas. Samsung has claimed that "Ericsson seeks to dismantle the standard-setting framework with unreasonable and discriminatory license demands from a willing license under threat of product exclusion." It is surprising to many people that Ericsson would be considered as a troll, especially since it was involved in the mobile phone business previously and was relatively successful. Reading about this retaliation also made me wonder if the negative connotation that patent trolls have causes companies to resort to more extreme measures to 'punish' them. Would Samsung have done the same retaliation if Ericsson were still in the business and not assumed to be a troll? Why is raising the licensing demands wrong to begin with, especially since the patent does give the right for owners to receive royalties?

15. World War

Recently, Apple and Google are appealing Judge Posner's dismissal of a two-way Apple-Motorola lawsuit in Chicago on patent infringement. This appeal have not only affected the two companies, but have also caused many other companies to be involved, just like what happened in World War I and II. Instead of countries taking sides, it is companies taking sides this time. Qualcomm and BlackBerry is on the side of Google, while Intel and Microsoft are on the side of Apple. This tight relationship between all the different technology giants posses a huge potential for things to go wrong, and for a disaster to happen if a cyber war breaks out. It is also not just these few companies that are involved, The two sides have their group of 'followers' who are not directly involved, but still provide support and stand sides.

It is also interesting to note that BlackBerry officially supports neither party, but is clearly opposing Judge Posner and substantively siding with Google. This is because no matter which side wins, the categorical rule against injunction will harm it either way.

The huge number of companies involved in this one battle is incredible, reflecting that this lawsuit is an extremely important one. The ITC is thus under huge pressure to ensure that their decision is the right one, as a lot is at stake.

14. 4G LTE Dispute

In class, we had learn about the structure of wireless communications, from the base stations, to the various units involved. It then interested me to see that Adaptix Inc. had alleged violations of infringement on its patent regarding certain wireless communications base stations and components thereof. With this, the ITC has instituted an investigation and has identified Ericssons as the respondent. These base stations and components thereof are being used in the next generation wireless communication technologies like 4G LTE, and presents a huge market opportunity. Winning this case would allow for Adaptix to gain a huge market share of this industry and profit from it as imports into the United States, and sale of such base stations and components thereof to be banned, and I am thrilled to see what the decision of the ALJ would be.

13. Too Big To Fail?

Many of us have heard the phrase "too big to fail" with regards to the financial crisis and banking situation that happened. It is used to refer to banks and organizations being too huge that failing would cause much more harm than if the government used up their resources to support them. Like wise, an article I recently read regarding the battle between Apple and Samsung has made me rethink whether Apple is at that stage. In the article, it is mentioned that the ITC is considering the impact of a sales ban on the iPhone and iPad, and the initial thought of such a scenario would be that it will cause a lot of outcry and mess among consumers and the public. In this situation, I would say it might be too big to fail, and it has even garnered the support of the public to help minimize the damage that litigation can do to it, even if it means infringing patents. On another hand, I will also like to consider the economic impact of the sales ban. Given that Apple is a US based company, having a sales ban would only damage the US economy because local consumers transfers their money to a foreign company like Samsung instead of retaining it back in the country by transferring to a local company. It is then not in the countries' interest to ban its own product from selling in its very own country. This, I would say, is one of the ITC's greatest fear as they are trapped either way, to be fair and harm the home country, or to be bias and help boost local economy. This may be one of the reasons why the battle between Apple and Samsung has always been dragged out and postponed. It is the innocent consumers and the public that suffers the most in this battle.

12. Prevent production, or prevent sales

The ITC differs from the US Federal Courts when it comes to patent litigation because of the different options of actions that they can take. Specifically, Federal Courts impose a more direct method to compensate the victim. It can come in the form of compensations, injunctions, ban of production or sales. The ITC then comes in when the international component is involved; when products are sold overseas. The ITC can ban imports, causing products to not exist in the US, which then prevents sales in the US. The ITC serves as an alternative form of addressing infringement, and is mainly used because of its efficiency. In the case of Apple vs Samsung, Samsung has tried hard to fight Apple with its patents in federal courts, but have lost battles for almost a dozen of its patents. It is also trying to get an import ban against Apple as an alternative through the ITC because it will serve similar purpose, and is awaiting the decision. ITCs definitely do play a huge role in patent litigation, especially by having the authority to enact import bans, which is country-wide. Having an import ban is considered one of the most powerful protection that a company can have against another, with sales of a certain product not being allowed to exist in the local market. This makes the ITC a great alternative to approach regarding patents, especially with their efficiency compared to Federal Courts.

11. Double Checking

I read on an ITC blog that the ITC sometimes have different opinions than the ALJs. This mechanism in place is beneficial to the people because it allows for a second check, and a second opinion of whether an action infringes on a patent. In fact, in this particular post, it is said that the ITC had backed four patent decisions, but has disagreed with one. It is also interesting to note the limited power of the ITC. The dispute which was disagreed on, was regarding the violation of the patent involving certain wireless communication devices, portable music and data processing devices, computers and components thereof, involving complainant Motorola and respondent Apple. The ITC did not rule any particular decision, but just reverse the previous decision by the ALJ. Regarding another separate patent, the ITC also remanded investigations to the ALJ. This process, in addition to the second eye, is also really great as the decisions will not change drastically immediately as it is still dependent on the ALF. This allows the parties involved to take the potential for changes into account, by providing them early warning. Although not powerful enough to overwrite the previous decision, the ITC has enough power to voice its views to make ALJs reconsider cases and sometimes, it is just this second chance of review that and change the ultimate decision.

10. Ideas and Reality

I came across this phrase "a patent application is no guarantee that a technology will ever make it into a real product" while reading an article and it really struck me. Often, people blur the lines between the patent and product, assuming that the product is in existent because there is a patent for it. In this article, Google is said to patent an application which allows users to control the tablet with one hand. Buttons will adjust according to where the hand is on the screen. It is a brilliant idea, but whether it is possible to be done is another matter. This leads to me thinking that some people can use patents to prevent innovation, contrary to popular beliefs that it encourages people to innovate. Since almost anything can be patent, one party might just apply for a patent without following through to the implementation and development stage, and no others will want to take over to develop and implement the idea because the patent is already approved to the original inventor, unless they buy the patent over.

9. Deciphering the Patent

For those who do not already know, it can be hard to read and understand law agreements because of their language and phrasing. However, for those who find that challenging already, patents are another level above those. It is even more difficult to understand a patent because of the additional technical language in it. Understanding the details of a patent then requires someone with both the knowledge of reading law language as well as technical language. The combination of skill set required then makes people who are well-versed in both areas to be in high demand. This is especially so since every word in the patent is essential and have to be carefully crafted because infringement requires all elements in the claim to be satisfied. With this said, I hope that everyone will be able to have such valuable skill sets so as to be more marketable.

8. Watch the Watch

On a similar note to my last post with Google Glass, Apple is also trying to innovate and do something new. Apple has begun its initial phase of the iWatch. Just like earlier mentioned, I believe that this move towards the iWatch is to move away from the fierce battle that is currently ongoing in the smartphone market space. The iWatch also functions as a smartphone as it is designed to be a wrist sized companion to the smartphone. The watch market is huge, and bringing this 'smart' element to a watch is never done before. However, just like the google glass, its uses may be good, but whether consumers will purchase such items is a totally different issue. While the concept of the iWatch is great and novel, a lot remains to be seen when further developments take place and we should definitely keep watch on the watch.

7. Is the Glass shattered?

There has been a recent hype about Google glass, and videos of it are on youtube. The technology itself and the idea is really unique and refreshing, resulting in huge amounts of patents involved in the process of making this product. Despite this huge step that Google has taken, its success have yet to be seen. The design of the glass might not be appealing for now, as it just makes people look weird, but this might be changed in future. Since design and usefulness are things that consumers care about, it is really hard to say how well received the glass will be. It will definitely be interesting to see how Google will change the design, to fit consumers' wants. Developing the glass is definitely a strategic choice which Google has made. With the smartphone market still growing, but with many battles among different companies, Google will be the first to enter the glasses space. This will then promote Google's name and might even allow them to compete better in their smartphone market. The risks are high, but the returns are also high. Whether or not the Glass is shattered or shatters remains to be seen.

6. Patents Across Borders

I have always heard about the different patent litigations around the world, between the same companies like Apple and Google. However, I have never connected the dots and realized that patents are not international but are only applicable within the country it was applied in. This fact was really shocking to me, as I felt that it was counterproductive for a firm that is international to file the same patent in every single country in the world. To me, no one in the world should be copying the inventor's ideas. I was really puzzled by the fact that inventors are alright with the fact that someone else in another part of the world will be able to copy their idea until I learnt that not every country has the right market and circumstances to use the product the same way. These differences can then prevent others from effectively stealing the idea. Having said this, I feel that there are still loopholes in this, and these will provide opportunities for people to 'copy' ideas from overseas and implement them in their 'home' country as their own idea instead.

5. Enemy or Friend?

As I talked about in my previous post, Apple is winning battles against Samsung, but not the war. A recent article I read talked about the love-hate relationship between them, and suggested that maybe cooperating with each other might be the right way to go, and I think that might not be a bad idea after all. Apple hates Samsung as a competitor in the smartphone industry, but needs it as its supplier. Samsung then has this 'bargaining' chip until Apple has another alternative of supplier. From this angle, it seems like Apple is on the losing side, even if it is winning the patent battles. Overall, both are huge companies and they depend on one another to do even better. Instead of kicking the other person out of the game, why not allow both to enjoy the game together and share the enjoyment? Greed might cause the downfall of both companies if they continue to fight each other. Both will lose resources, and the winner might still be worst off because other players will be able to take advantage of the situation.

4. Intellectual Property: To Share or Not?

Most companies have Intellectual Properties(IPs) to prevent competitors from 'eating' them out. They have IPs to grow their company in ways which their competitors cannot. However, on the flip side, growing by preventing others from gaining access is not the only solution. There is a possibility of sharing, where everyone who cooperates are better off, like the situation of a prisoner's dilemma. Many companies are built on the idea of sharing, and it is interesting to see how the idea of sharing has helped to grow the company. Facebook is a great example where people share their information and everyone is better off with more knowledge because of better connectivity. Could we then somehow incorporate sharing into the equation? IPs, although essential to protect investors, are just means that hinder development and growth of the world by restricting complete access to information. Overcoming this prisoner's dilemma is then key to improving the world.

3. Winning a Battle, Losing a War

Most people think that winning battles will automatically lead to winning the war. However, it is not always true. In fact, winning the battle but losing the war happens quite often. I recently came across an article about the battle between the two leaders in the smartphone market: Apple and Samsung. It explained how Apple was in this particular situation, where it is winning battles against Samsung, but still losing the war because of its huge sales. The article took an interesting approach by mentioning that the huge sales that Apple is getting from the iPhone is in fact causing it to lose the war. This perspective, although shocking, has some truth in it. As the article mentions, Apple is losing this war because it cannot obtain a sales ban against Samsung and a huge factor is because they have not shown that they suffered huge financial losses due to high iPhone sales. Without this ban, consumers like us will then have these two options still, causing us to be aware that Samsung is around and in the market, thus influencing our preferences and future purchases. It seems like Apple has to take a different approach to eliminate its main competitor.

2. Learning: Class or Pass?

As mentioned in my introduction, I am a person that really likes to see and experience new things. This has led me to explore the various courses that Berkeley has to offer me during my last semester, especially with the luxury of time as a senior. After searching for potential classes, I then had my internal debate of whether I should take classes to learn more things or if I should give those classes a pass and enjoy my free time. Patent Engineering then stood out to me because of the entrepreneurship nature of the course, and also because I know that I will be reading up on it even in my free time. Entrepreneurship is something that always interested me, because entrepreneurs always come up with new ideas. It then made me wonder how these entrepreneurs are able to prevent other more established competitors from 'eating' them out by them imitating what these startups are going to do. I then felt that Patent Engineering might answer those questions I have, and provide me the foundation to have a startup of my own in future. In the duration of the course, I do hope that I will be able to discover the usefulness of patents, learn the process of obtaining one, and also learn strategies to manage competitors in the absence of any patents.

1. Me, Myself, I

My name is Jerel, and I am currently doing my last semester of my undergraduate degree in Economics at UC Berkeley. I was born and raised in Singapore, and only came to the States for my college education. Since then, I have really enjoyed my time in the Bay Area. and am intending to remain here for work after graduating. An interesting fact about myself is that I was in the air force prior to college, and I was part of two rescue missions. 

I really love seeing new things as they always make my day. Each time I encounter something interesting and new, I feel happy that I am surrounded by brilliant people who are able to think creatively and come up with something amazing. Traveling around the world has contributed hugely to satisfy this interest of mine, and I definitely encourage all of you to experience the world as well if you have the opportunity.