IP Rights and Government Contracting—Same Strategy
Let’s assume that you’ve made the strategic decision to break into the vast government market. What you may not realize is that once you’ve done so, you will have created some new intellectual property (IP) ...
Non-practicing entity Sues Google For Online Advertising Method In Eastern Texas
TechDirt.com: Another non-practicing entity (NPE aka 'Patent Troll') is hunting for profits using the "sue to win" business model but might have picked the wrong tech giant to mess with. Mike Masnick has more details ...
Software Pirates Revel In Notoriety: Software Manufacturers Not So Much Anymore
ArsTechnica.com: What's in a word? Well, if the word in question is "piracy" as it relates to copyrighted files and those that use them in unlawful ways, plenty. In a recent piece, Nate Anderson takes a look at the vilification of file copying by rights owners and the strong identification with the term "pirate" by those who believe they have every right to copy their files, such as music, in any way they see fit. From Anderson's "Piracy" sounds too sexy, say rightsholders we learn how sailing the seven seas of the Internet while flying the Jolly Roger is changing:
Some of those concerned about online copyright infringement now realize that they may have created a monster by using the term "piracy." This week, at the unveiling of a new study for the International Chamber of Commerce which argued that 1.2 million jobs could be lost in Europe as a result of copyright infringement by 2015, the head of the International Actors' Federation lamented the term.
"We should change the word piracy," she said at a press conference. "To me, piracy is something adventurous, it makes you think about Johnny Depp. We all want to be a bit like Johnny Depp. But we're talking about a criminal act. We're talking about making it impossible to make a living from what you do."
Translation: we should have chosen a less-sexy term.
Might be too late to put the genie back in the bottle, me hearties. And yes, we would all like to be a little bit like Johnny Depp as long as it doesn't involve affecting a terrible Keith Richards-esque accent and slathering on a bunch of messy black eyeliner. Arggh!
The Jakarta Globe: Indonesia continues to struggle for removal from the US Trade Representative's list of International IP Rogues, and is hoping that an upcoming visit by the president of the United States can make it happen. Indonesia Seeks to Exit US Intellectual Property Blacklist has more information on Indonesia's high hopes for better IP relations with America:
Gusmardi Bustami, the director general of international trade cooperation at the Ministry of Trade, said the government asked the USTR to look into the issue last month.
In 2008, the USTR took Indonesia off the priority list and placed it in the regular watch list in recognition of the government’s crackdown on copyright theft.
But Indonesia was put back on the priority list in May 2009 as US authorities determined that Indonesia was no longer providing an adequate level of copyright protection or enforcement.
The USTR has estimated that the US music and film industries lose more than $205 million every year due to copyright infringement in Indonesia.
“We hope we could improve from the status during the Obama visit,” Gusmardi said during an international trade forum on Thursday.
Indonesia is a somewhat significant import/export partner with the US coming in at #28 with close to 22 billion dollars a year in trade. Indonesia is reportedly "serious about tackling the problem" but whether or not such claims are enough to influence President Obama to remove them from the USTR's list remains to be seen.
ipeg: In IP news from across the big pond, the Benelux countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg) feature prominently in their generous tax law provisions for those corporations seeking a place to headquarter their operations for the greatest intellectual property benefit. The topical and aptly-titled piece, Patents and Tax Planning in Benelux, provides some background on this advantageous circumstance.
Belgium, Netherlands and Luxemburg have introduced tax laws that were officially aimed at improving innovation but of course with the strong intention to attract companies to place their patent portfolio in a Benelux based entity with the incentive to provide lower tax exposure. The big difference between the Benelux countries is which patents qualify for the tax regime. Are these only patent applications filed by their resident company as a result of own R&D, or can also acquired patents (e.g. sales from another patent owner, or patent aggregator or patent investor).
Also included in the piece is a helpful chart showing the various benefits to companies wishing to chose among the 3 Benelux countries with Luxembourg seizing the top position handily. And if the Benelux doesn't suit, the article also mentions Hungary and Ireland as competitive nations to host your company's intellectual property assets while helping to relieve that oh-so-unnecessary, and pesky, tax burden.
CNet News: HP has finally come to the conclusion of a huge lawsuit against imitation printer cartridges for its very popular line of printers. And wouldn't you know it, they won big. Lance Whitney reports:
Last September, the tech giant--arguably best known as a printer maker--had filed its latest complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), claiming that several makers of cartridges for use in inkjet printers were infringing on HP patents by importing and selling their products in the United States. Following an investigation by the ITC, 11 different companies were found to have violated patents related to HP's 02 inkjet cartridges.
Among the 11 companies charged with patent infringement, InkPlusToner.com and Comptree Ink reached settlements with HP. Both have paid HP an undisclosed amount in damages and have promised to stop selling the compatible 02 cartridges in the U.S. HP added that it expects to reach a similar agreement with SmartOne Services.
Other infringing companies have had the bejusus scared out of them, and are pleading with HP and the ITC to call off the dogs if they stop producing cheap, knock-off replacement printer cartridges. "The ITC also approved the request of another company, Zhuhai Gree Magneto-Electric, to stop the investigation into alleged patent violations as long as it promises not to import or sell future compatible inkjet products in the U.S." Read Whitney's HP settles inkjet cartridge patent complaints for the rest of this juicy story.
TechDirt.com: Nathan Myhrvold's non-practicing entity (NPE) Intellectual Ventures is becoming strong enough that tech industry giants are starting to take notice of its "sue to profits" business model. Mike Masnick explains how Kodak has come out swinging in response to a recent IP infringement lawsuit, and how the company wants to know what they're getting into before they sit down at the negotiating table. And rightfully so. Here's what one subject-area expert has to say about the situation:
"Kodak should be accorded the right to sit down across the table from IV as well as PFI, so that it can inquire as to IV's intentions," Jones Day lawyers write. "It should come as no surprise that Kodak's attitude towards settlement may be affected by learning whether or not this case is the first of a series of patent litigation salvos to be launched against it by IV, whether directly or through a proxy like PFI."
PFI is reputed to be nothing more than a shell company that is acting as a front for IV's assault on Kodak's IP. Or at least that's the claim. But until Myhrvold and Co. come to the table and turn over at least one card in their hand, Kodak will be playing blindly with a whole lot of loot in the pot. Read Masnick's complete piece, Kodak Says Intellectual Ventures Behind Patent Lawsuit Filed By Shell Company, and find out all the dirty details.
Bonus IP piece o' the day: NBP: Time for a new copyright notice! by Nate Anderson at ArsTechnica.com.
Why Aren’t Genetic Sequences Protected Like Radio Frequency Bandwaves?
CNN Money - Fortune: While doing his best to harvest traffic via Google by mentioning a superstar pop figure, David Ewing Duncan also manages to address an item of greater importance: patenting human genetic sequences. In his catchily titled piece, What DNA, Patents and Lady Gaga have in common, Ewing Duncan writes on why genetics should be treated more like radio frequencies than better mousetraps:
When radio was invented in the late nineteenth century by the likes of Marconi, Edison, and Tesla, government and industry faced a conundrum. Who would own the limited band of electromagnetic frequencies that made this new invention possible?
By the 1920s the decision was made that the public would own the airwaves, with the government leasing frequencies to companies that were required to follow certain rules.
But the model for human genetic information has taken a different turn, and one that groups like the American Civil Liberties Union aren't too happy about. Ewing Duncan explains:
Instead of a public ownership model granting licenses, the U.S. Patent Office has spent the last twenty years awarding patents to companies, universities and others who discover genes -- with over 20% of human genes already claimed.
And why is this a bad thing, you ask? Read on.
According to the ACLU and a long list of plaintiffs that includes research and patient advocacy groups, the U.S. Patent Office (also listed as a defendant) was wrong to issue these patents -- and by extension all genetic patents.
"Genes are naturally occurring entities, like air or gravity," says ACLU attorney Chris Hansen, "and therefore under the law they are ineligible for patenting."
Of course, companies using their patents on human genetic sequences claim they would fail without the protections afforded them by a patent monopoly. Much like radio stations were never developed without patents on the frequency bands for broadcasting their material/advertisement. Oh, wait. They *were* developed and profitable.
The TTABLog: Any fan of automobiles will surely be aware of Carol Shelby's iconic AC Cobra supercar and his proclivity to sue the living daylights out of anyone who dares create imitation kit cars. But how does this play into modern day intellectual property news, you ask? John L. Welch has the answer:
The TTAB will visit Boston on the afternoon of April 9th to hear final argument in Factory Five Racing, Inc. v. Carroll Shelby and Carroll Hall Shelby Trust, Opposition No. 91150346, as part of a program co-sponsored by the Boston Patent Law Association and Boston University Law School. The hearing will be held in the Stone Moot Court Room at the law school, at 765 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215.
Factory Five Racing sells a Cobra look-alike kit car based on the popular Ford Mustang 5.0 liter platform and Mr. Shelby is looking to block their products. This isn't stopping the folks at Factory Five, though, as they claim Shelby's Cobra has fallen prey to "genericness, abandonment, fraud, failure to function as a mark, and collateral estoppel." Be sure to read Welch's "TTAB Comes To Boston" - April 9th at Boston University School of Law for more information on what is sure to be an exciting case.
Photo Attorney: Photography attorney Carolyn E. Wright takes some of the mystery out of "free use" in her topical piece entitled The Fuss About Fair Use. She writes:
Surprisingly, the purpose of copyright law is not to protect the work of creatives, but, as stated in Article I, section 8, clause 8, of the United States Constitution, it is “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Copyright law attempts to achieve a balance between public interest and the rights of authors/artists so that artists will be encouraged to create and the public will be the ultimate beneficiary. In many ways, the priority leans towards public concerns when there is any conflict in those interests. As a result, the law may not seem fair or just to the copyright owner.
Wright then delves into the more technical, legal aspects of copyright law as it applies to fair use before releasing the take-away for the gentle reader:
It is always a judgment call until a court gives a final ruling whether the use of a photograph is fair. But if you find your work has been used without your permission and the defense is “fair use,” don’t be too quick to accept that answer.
I hope Ms. Wright will consider my quotes from her excellent piece to be "fair use" but in any case, please click through to the original article to read her complete text.
Washington D.C. Intellectual Property Attorney Blog: Innovators-Network contributor Raymond Millien recently posted a blog entry detailing the difficulties a business can encounter when brokering a deal for intellectual property without making sure all the details are carefully attended to during negotiations. He writes:
Entering into a corporate transaction without a careful review of the intellectual property (IP) involved can have negative consequences on your enterprise’s future IP strategy. This is especially true when IP owners do not adequately supervise their corporate attorneys who may not appreciate or be aware of the unintended consequences of the language typically employed in merger, acquisition, joint venture, financing and other corporate transactional agreements.
Millien then goes on to provide further information of how things went awry in one particular deal before leaving the gentle reader with this pertinent thought: "Care must be taken to make sure that the IP that is transferred (or licensed, exempted, etc.) is clearly identified and no unintended consequences result with respect to the involved parties’ future IP strategy." Indeed! Read the rest of Are Your Corporate Attorneys Harming Your Future IP Strategy? and learn what *not* to do when transferring corporate IP.
IP Asset Maximizer Blog: And finally, a look at how checklists can help those in the business of patents be all they can be and avoid potentially expensive mistakes in Jackie Hutter's Checklists Could be the Key for Managers to Understand Whether Their Company’s Patents are Worth the Paper They’re Written On. She writes from personal experience on how checklists have played both hero and villain in her career:
...I lost my in-house counsel position in December 2007. While there were many reasons why I was let go, the growing economic crisis and my high salary being major factors, I have to acknowledge that the head of the patent department and I clashed repeatedly about about my view that we needed to establish processes and procedures to ensure that the patent work product our group pushed out was not flawed. One way I suggested to do this was to have checklists, which I had used at the prestigious IP law firm where I had been trained. To me, it seemed so obvious that we should follow established procedures, but my boss disagreed vehemently and even seemed offended that I would suggest that he and his team could not do their jobs without checklists.
...the department head rejected my suggestion, saying “it is the attorneys’ responsibility to make sure they are doing their jobs right.” This was magical thinking: without proper training and/or proper procedural safeguards, no attorney can do his or her job correctly. Speaking for myself, I certainly possessed a high level of training after working for many years at a prestigious law firm, and yet I knew with virtual certainty that mistakes were being made by me and my support staff on a regular basis. Put simply, there is far too much minutiae in patent practice for anyone to keep up with in the absence of a checklist. And, since my lawyer colleagues possessed much less training than I did, one can come to their own conclusions about whether mistakes were made throughout the department.
Whoops! Hutter might have been right about checklists and how they can ensure quality patent processes, but she also admits that her surety regarding their application caused much concern in her unsure boss who reacted by blustering and pooh-poohing her vehement exhortations. Tread carefully, gentle reader, but better to be able to wake up in the morning and be able to look oneself in the mirror squarely, nu?
Bonus IP piece o' the day: Students and photocopiers require reforms in intellectual property law at The Costa Rica News.
Well-established IP Legal Firm Throws In The Towel
The Wall Street Journal: According to a recent piece by Nathan Koppel, a venerable New York-based intellectual property law office is closing its door for good. From Koppel's Darby & Darby, New York IP Firm, Is Shutting Down, come more details of another victim of the current economic downturn. He writes:
Darby & Darby has been stung of late by partner defections to BigLaw, according to a source with knowledge of the firm. It has been hard for Darby to compete with the sort of monster pay packages that AmLaw 200 firms these days are willing to lavish on IP talent. Gone, it seems, are the glory days of the IP boutique. While some still exist — Finnegan Henderson and Kenyon & Kenyon are two notable examples — others have either disbanded or been subsumed into larger firms.
After 100 years of providing top quality IP legal services, Darby & Darby says "many of the factors frequently cited in demise of other firms’ have made a similar impact on us" are the fundamental reasons for their closing up shop.
AfterDawn: Looks like Apple and HTC are locked in a death spiral of lawsuits but will have to wait a *long* time for their day in court. James "Dela" Delahunty explains:
According to details in a court filing, Nokia Corp. and Apple Inc. will seek a U.S. court hearing in a patent infringement case in mid-2012. The detail shows that both sides expect the mobile patent feud between them to continue for quite some time. Nokia has already moved to have a case brought against it by Apple dismissed in the meantime.
Just wait until Google joins in the IP smartphone foofarah: there will surely be plenty of blood and carnage unless some kind of sanity prevails and the major players get together to create a kind of smartphone patent pool that they can all pay to use.
The TTABlog: A string of legal faux pas has injured the chances of a company's bid to keep a similarly-named business from using their good will and trademarked brand. John L. Welch's recent piece Glitch-Filled Battle Over "COMPUTER GEEKS" Mark Lurches to Split TTAB Decision explains how too much confidentiality and too little likelihood of confusion made the judges give Computer Geeks' claim the thumbs down.
You might expect a TTAB battle over the mark COMPUTER GEEKS to include a few glitches, right? Sure enough, the parties to this consolidated opposition/cancellation proceeding staggered to a split decision regarding rights in that mark for various computer-related goods and services. Computer Geeks, Inc. v. Compgeeks.com, Oppositions Nos. 91167886 and 91170726 and Cancellation No. 92046567 (March 4, 2010) [not precedential].
In the end, the decision left much to be desired for the plaintiff, who certainly would have been greatly pleased had things gone their way. Next time, the preparations will more likely be in fine order as opposed to this freshman, and unsatisfactory, effort.
MarketWatch: Those particularly particular chaps at the US Patent and Trademark Office have deemed it acceptable to grant a pair of patents to Ecosphere Technologies, Inc. for their water treatment methods. And it didn't even take very long for the company to receive their fancy documents, suitable for framing!
In December 2009, the company filed two patent pending applications under the new USPTO's Green Tech Fast Track program. The goal of the USPTO's new patent program was to shave as much as one year off the process, which now takes an average of 30 months for an initial action from the USPTO and 40 months for a final decision. Ecosphere Technologies is one of the early Clean Tech companies to benefit from this program as well as to have patents approved under this program to aid the energy exploration companies to eliminate chemicals from their fracturing and stimulation process.
It seems that the Green Tech Fast Track program has given birth to at least two patents that should make the proud parent company, Ecosphere Technologies, very happy. Pass out the cigars, boys!
Caribbean Net News: Lawyer and IP subject matter expert Abiola Inniss takes the gentle reader on a journey to warmer climates and complicated intellectual property rights in her topical piece, Caribbean Intellectual Property; The concept of Fair Usage. Inniss tells how the concept of fair use is one that is much more fluid in the tropical island nations of the Caribbean and why there need to be special considerations given to the region when crafting relavent IP policies.
At almost any time that the issue of Intellectual Property is discussed the concept of fair usage must be adumbrated and placed within the context of the WIPO outlines on Intellectual Property. While such a topic would undoubtedly require at least a chapter or more for proper discussion, a useful outline can be provided here. The term fair use or fair dealing, where it exists in Intellectual Property Law is used to describe the defences under English law (Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) to alleged infringement of copyright or, if preferred, it describes permitted acts.
Dealing in this sense means that someone has made use of the work and not an implication of any arrangement between the parties. In fair dealing under the Act the following are permitted:
1. Fair dealing for the purpose of research or private study
2. Fair dealing for the purpose of research or criticism
3. Fair dealing for the purpose of reporting current events.
Because many of the Caribbean islands don't have formalized protections for local intellectual property and their fair use, Inniss suggests a more vernacular style when attempting to codify related rules. She writes: "A regional approach that promotes the idea of fair usage and explains the law will go a long way to creating the cordial nexus between the end users and holders of copyright." A good start, certainly, and any law that is to remain meaningful and useful must take the local culture into consideration, nu?
European Parliament Delivers Possible Coup de Grace To ACTA
ArsTechnica.com: The United States is losing momentum with its much maligned and secretive Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). The most recent blow to ACTA's potential as a real live international policy was dealt by the European Parliament who voted overwhelmingly for openness and transparency before they will even considering the contents of the legislation. As ever, Nate Anderson has his finger on the pulse of national and global IP events and covers the developing ACTA story in his topical piece, Europe trashes ACTA as Obama praises it.
Earlier this week, we noted that the major parties in the European Parliament had all agreed on a resolution trashing the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and the secret process that has been hashing it out. That resolution has passed Parliament by a huge margin—633 yes votes, 13 no votes, and 16 abstentions.
Anderson then explicates the demands of the EP for the gentle reader:
The resolution demanded complete access to the ACTA negotiating texts, and it threatens a lawsuit if the European Commission fails to turn them over. Parliament was particularly miffed that the process has taken place in such secrecy, when major international IP treaties have in fact been negotiated much more openly at venues like WIPO and the WTO.
Fascinating, Captain. The EP is prepared to sue the EC if they don't fess up the ACTA documents but isn't that a little like the US House of Representatives suing the Senate? Or maybe it's simply that the French want their own secretive policy that will be named "FACTA" and have convinced their fellow legislators to strike a blow for liberty and freedom against US IP enforcement hegemony? In any case, three cheers for having a backbone, members of the EP, and good luck with the lawsuit, should it go that far. And it looks like the EC is in league with the EP, any who. The EU Commissioner for Trade, Karel de Gucht, reassured concerned parties with this statement: "Let me be very clear on this, so there is no room for ambiguity... The EU does not support and will not accept that ACTA creates an obligation to disconnect people from the internet because of illegal downloads."
Think-Buzz.com: Uganda is realizing that a deal with the European Union that gave 5 millions Euros to the country's trade ministry comes with an unexpectedly steep price. From Kampala, more information of why the exchange of Euros for increased Ugandan copyright protections might mean the illness or deaths of a large number of its citizens.
The European Union (EU) is funding the drafting of Ugandas controversial Counterfeit Goods Bill, a proposed law that has caused an outcry as it threatens access to life-saving generic medicines in this low income East African country. Some 90 percent of medicines used in Ugandas health-care system are imported, of which about 93 percent are generics.
IPS received information that part of the five million euros that Ugandas ministry on tourism, trade and industry received from the EU in a financing agreement signed in July 2009 was to finance the drafting of this contentious bill that has consistently been criticised as a threat to treatment.
Some opponents of the legislation voice their concerns that the overly-broad definition of what is considered to be counterfeit, or fake, products will include life-saving drugs that are much needed in Uganda.
...[A]ctivists have been puzzled by the Ugandan governments willingness to adopt a law that defines counterfeiting so broadly as to criminalise the production and importation of generic medicines, thereby placing affordable and legitimate medicines outside the reach of millions of people in a country struggling with HIV and AIDS and malaria.
Influence for money is not a new game but maybe Uganda doesn't have the tools it needs to successfully negotiate a favorable position, especially in light of the value 5 million Euros has to a cash-strapped and stunningly-poor nation. Read the rest of the details of why the European Euros for IP enforcement deal is not in the best interests of Ugandan citizens in EU Supports Law Threatening Access to Medicines.
PRNewsWire.com: Big pharma will soon have a new tool to help them protect their valuable intellectual property. New York City-based CT, a Wolters Kluwer business, released news on their CT Coresearch software program recently and say their product will help eliminate wasted time and effort spent trying to negotiate both FDA and USPTO bureaucracies. From CT Corsearch Announces Trademark Search Capabilities for the U.S. Pharmaceutical Market:
The new CT Corsearch pharmaceutical trademark search combines key components in the clearance process that cover both standard trademark clearance and name safety components. The result is a big step forward in pharmaceutical clearance that incorporates the FDA's Phonetic Orthographic Computer Analysis (POCA) and summarizes unwieldy name safety data like Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS), Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) into an easy-to-review summary format and overall, synthesizes name safety into the clearance process.
"Branding is a complex and potentially game-changing task for the pharmaceutical industry, where a particular name can generate millions and even billions of dollars in annual sales," said Stephen Anderson, manager of content development for CT Corsearch. "Our new pharmaceutical trademark search addresses the two-pronged search capabilities required to help these companies be successful in clearing compelling brand names and identities quickly and effectively, so that they can focus on the task of bringing their products to market."
Increased focus is always good when it comes to pharmaceutical products and if CT's trademark search engine can help drug companies leverage their areas of expertise while leaving the nitty-gritty of securing IP rights to subject-area experts, everyone wins. That's what it's all about, after all. Winning.
The Seattle Times: Staff columnist Brier Dudley takes a look at the front of the house dealings among the major players in the smartphone business with his timely article entitled Seeing is believing when Microsoft talks nice about former foe Apple. Dudley writes on Microsoft's lead counsel, Brad Smith and his bizarre public display of affection for market rival Apple:
Smith welcomed Apple's lawsuit as the opening salvo in a bigger effort to sort out who owns the technology used in smartphones and start collecting a standard set of royalties. License holders have been talking about this behind the scenes for some time, and Apple brought it out in the open, he said.
Dudley then asked Smith to comment on the possibility of Microsoft's future involvement in Apple's on-going lawsuit against smartphone manufacturer HTC.
Smith said Microsoft has "always worked closely" with Apple lawyers and knows them well, especially since former Intel lawyer Bruce Sewell became Apple's general counsel.
"We have a lot of close ties and good relationships," Smith said. "It doesn't mean we always agree on everything. But it means we have the ability to talk and understand what we're each trying to accomplish."
War makes for strange bedfellows and imagining Microsoft and Apple sharing a twin-sized mattress is just about as strange as it gets.
Intellectual Property Watch: The title Brazil Starts Public Consult On Retaliation Against US IP Rights foreshadows the coming discord between growing trade nation Brazil and intellectual property enforcement giant, the United States of America. Here's the skinny:
The Brazilian government today announced the start of a process of public consultation on suspension of concessions or obligations of intellectual property rights from the United States. The government on 15 March published a resolution of the Chamber of External Trade (CAMEX) launching the consultation, according to a Brazilian government press release.
This follows a WTO dispute settlement ruling in a US-Brazil dispute on cotton subsidies where the US was found in non-compliance with international trade rules. The decision gave Brazil the authorisation to suspend its obligations on US goods including IP rights. On 8 March, the Brazilian government published a list of US goods that will be subject to higher import taxes when entering Brazil (IPW, IP Burble, 8 March 2010).
Turn around *is* fair play, it seems. Read the rest of the news via the above linked story and prepare yourself for a trans-equatorial battle royale.
Bonus IP piece o' the day: Infosys looks at IP for boosting revenue by K. Raghu at LiveMint.com.
IP Revenues Help Return Businesses To Profitability
BBC News: Looking for incremental income to add to your business' books on the long road to recovery? Why not throw intellectual property into the mix? Julian Nolan has just the thing to help refocus any business on their IP in his topical piece, Intellectual property is not a luxury. He writes:
When it comes to developing new products, many large international companies, such as Procter & Gamble and Nestle, actively acquire some of the technology needed for new products from third parties.
Small companies can, however, also benefit by adopting a similar "in-licensing" approach for technology that has been researched at third party research and development laboratories, such as those at universities, companies and government research institutions.Very often this allows new products to be brought to market more quickly, and at less initial cost, than might otherwise be possible, and perhaps be used to compensate for any reduction in your product development budget during the recession.
At the other end of the product lifecycle spectrum, mature or legacy products can sometimes take up a disproportionate amount of business management and engineering time.
That doesn't mean you should give up on these older products, as they create a reliable and steady flow of income from an established customer base. If you're totally fed up with maintaining them though, there are other options to keep monetizing them without intensive hand-on involvement.
One idea to consider is whether the IP behind these old products can be licensed out, and perhaps combined with a related supply agreement so you are able to support your customers.
This approach can help to free up management, engineering and production resources as well as sometimes producing a nice boost to related margins.
Finally, if you already have licensing deals for some of your IP, then consider whether repeat deals may be possible.
Multiple licenses with the same customer generally cost less to execute and are less risky.
Every little bit helps, in any case. So, keep a stiff upper lip, maximize your return on R&D investments through the judicious use of patents to create revenue streams, and most of all, whatever you do, read the Innovators-Blog each day for the very best in IP news and commentary.
PR Web: Ocean Tomo, a leading intellectual property auction house, released information on its plans for an upcoming IP event, the IP Think Tank event on March 24-25, 2010, in San Francisco, California. From the news release, ICAP Ocean Tomo Announces IP Think Tank Track: Developing a National Intellectual Property Economic Infrastructure, come more details of this note-worthy development.
ICAP Ocean Tomo, the intellectual property brokerage division of ICAP plc (IAP.L), today announced one of four program tracks for the upcoming IP Think Tank event on March 24-25, 2010, in San Francisco, California. The tracks are focused on exploring the next generation of intellectual property (IP) development.
“The concept of developing a national IP infrastructure is extremely relevant and thought-provoking,” says Dean Becker of ICAP Ocean Tomo. “Thought leaders from IP and corporate finance communities will benefit from discussing the components necessary for building such an infrastructure. They will be offering constructs for standards, patent ratings and trading to facilitate asset transactions and corporate liquidity.”
And not the three-martini lunch kind of corporate liquidity you might be thinking about, constant reader. Following Ocean Tomo's presentation will be a look at the future of IP economics. Here are a few tidbits on that subject:
The National IP Infrastructure track will follow ICAP Ocean Tomo’s well-received IP Think Tank conference model, beginning with panelist presentations on subject matter, including valuation standards, policy leadership, and standard contracts. The program then continues with a collaborative panel and audience discussion on the future of IP economic infrastructure development, wrapping up with a presentation of the session by moderator.
In a separate PRWeb.com piece, USPTO Director David Kappos' upcoming speech in New York State to future IP lawyers takes center stage. The following is a short synopsis of what's to come:
In his talk at the Law School, he will discuss the future of the patent office, as well as the issues it currently faces, including patent quality, long waiting times for patent examination, and a 770,000 patent application backlog.
“In order to assist the businesses, innovators, and inventors that create American jobs, the USPTO must be a model in the world for IP administration and protection,” Kappos said. “We must lead in application pendency, examination quality, as well as protection of IP rights globally. To cut long wait times, and reduce the backlog, the USPTO is working diligently to increase examination capacity and gain process efficiencies. To ensure the highest quality patents the USPTO is reengineering its quality management program from top to bottom.”
This event is free and open to the public.
If this kind of thing is your ball of wax, be sure check out the related news release, Director of the USPTO, David Kappos, to Speak at New York Law School on the Future of the Patent Office.
Bloomberg.com: Pink Floyd recently won a bid to secure additional royalties for the sale of its fantastic and famous albums. James Lumley and Erik Larson report:
The ruling gives Pink Floyd leverage to seek more royalties if the band decides to allow single-song sales in the future, said Ian Karet, an intellectual property lawyer with Linklaters LLP in London, who isn’t involved in the case.
“At the time the contract was signed, it is unlikely they were foreseeing online sales,” Karet said today in a phone interview. “Everybody in the music industry is looking to extract whatever value they can at this point.”
EMI, owned by Guy Hands’ Terra Firma Capital Partners Ltd. private equity group, was granted a request to have part of the judgment relating to royalties given without the media present.
Pink Floyd claimed it owned the rights to all of its music, and not just for 'albums' which was the niggling detail that spawned EMI to try to muscle in on the digital download booty. As far as the contract with Pink loyd goes, "EMI’s lawyers claimed it only applied to the 'physical product' such as compact discs and vinyl records" which is to say, they were being a bunch of weasels. There's more for the taking: just click on this title: Pink Floyd Wins Contract Suit Against EMI in London (Update1).
TechDirt.com: Mike Masnick poses a number of interesting questions concerning a book featuring derivative works from a child's monster drawing in his related piece, How Does Copyright Apply To Your Kids' Monster Drawings? He writes:
Justin Levine has an interesting blog post up about a book I hadn't heard of, called The Monster Engine. The author, Dave Devries, took children's drawings of monsters, and turned them into paintings that use the identical line structure of the kid's drawings (he projects them on the wall and then draws over them). Apparently, Devries' work is quite popular, and people have talked about it on the internet for years...
Of course, the interesting part of Masnick's post is the comment section, which is his usual modus operandi. A few of the comment posters bring up the issue of child copyright protection and the validity of contracts signed by minors or children under the age of majority.
Bonus IP piece o' the day: i4i Review Redux by the Patent Hawk at The Patent Prospector.
Blu-ray Patent Pool Hopes To Rake In IP Royalty Loot
RegHardware: Four major players in the media market space have teamed up to create a joint portfolio of Blu-ray-related intellectual property patents with hopes of squeezing some additional royalty money from any and all Blu-ray products. Tony Smith has more details of this recent development in his topical piece, Toshiba prices up Blu-ray Disc patent portfolio. He writes:
Consumer electronics and entertainment companies Mitsubishi, Thomson, Toshiba and Warner Bros have together begun charging for their intellectual property that is "essential" to Blu-ray Disc players, drives and recorders.
The four firms' pooled technology also extends to Blu-ray kit that incorporates DVD functionality, including hybrid BD/DVD media, they said. It also covers components that decode and encode the data stored on Blu-ray discs - and the discs themselves.
Looks like they've covered all their bases for maximizing the value of their collective Blu-ray IP, nu? Smith comments on the group's new royalty collecting and licensing branch:
Licenses for the patent portfolio will be available for products that comply with the Blu-ray Disc specifications as maintained by the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA), the four said.
Individually, the fees are not large, of course, but they are likely to amount to substantial revenues for the four companies and their BD4C Licensing Group offshoot, which will collect and share the royalties.
A few million dollars a penny at a time or so adds up to real money eventually. Or even better, "the group "reserves the right to adjust the rates as necessary to encourage the broad participation in the programme by interested companies with essential patents", which might mean gouging but generally means if they start losing sales of related Blu-ray products, the royalty and licensing fees will drop, too.
StandardNet: In a strange (misguided?) move to capitalize on Utah's unique blend of dirt and microbes, a Utah senator is introducing a bill to require registration by any who use dust, dirt or microbes from the state for eventual inclusion in a licensing fee plan. Joe Pyrah reports:
We are Utah, right down to the single-cell organisms living under 6 inches of salt on the flats.
A bill is alive and well that would force companies who take advantage of Utah's unique biodiversity to pay up.
"If they're using Utah organisms, we think Utah as a state should benefit from royalties. Like a patent," said Sen. Lyle Hillyard, R-Logan.
Hillyard's bill would require that people who remove single-cell organisms for research or commercial purposes register with the Utah Geological Survey. It is expected that, in the future, another law would require those who turn that material into a commercial product pay royalties to the state.
Not to be left out of the "land" grab, one official at Utah State University jumps on the "Utah has special bugs" bandwagon. "USU Vice President Ned Weinshenker said organic material -- even of the same variety -- differs subtly state by state. As such, the state should protect its potential revenue stream. 'It may be a unique resource to the state of Utah,' said Weinshenker, a doctor of organic chemistry in charge of the university's strategic ventures and economic development." Will other states follow the lead of the Beehive State or will they come to their senses before they patent everything in sight as a potential revenue stream? Read Pyrah's Senate bill would make state's biodiversity pay off for the rest of this silliness.
Milord & Associates PC: Coca Cola has been slapped with a lawsuit claiming "a declaration of no trademark or design patent infringement" by a rival beverage maker. Milord A. Keshishian explains:
BT Beverage Company sued The Coca Cola Company for a declaration of no trademark or design patent infringement. BT sells beverages in bottles that are shaped like sports balls including baseballs, basketballs, soccer balls, and golf balls. BT has filed numerous trademark applications with the USPTO to register its various bottle designs.
The folks at Coke think BT's round bottle infringes on its intellectual property and "sent a cease and desist letter charging infringement of the trade dress bottle design and Design Patent No. D554,523. BT responded by using Coca Cola’s previous stance against it by denying that Coca Cola had an exclusive right to round shaped bottles for beverage products. The parties’ inability to resolve the dispute resulted in this lawsuit." Can this one go the distance or will Coke and BT kiss and make up with an IP cross-licensing agreement? Check out Keshishian's lengthily-titled Design Patent and Trademark Lawsuit Filed Against Coca Cola Over Sports Ball Shaped Beverage Bottles and find out more.
Some exciting patent news in the form of a disposable razor-blade life-extending product courtesy of Rachael Gallagos at the Iowa City Press Citizen:
Now with an approved patent, Ron Christensen Sr. sees the products he's created to increase the life of razor blades really taking off.
The owner of Game Day Iowa started developing two Revolt products in 2003 and said they greatly lengthen the life of razor blades and reduce skin irritation from shaving.
The Revolt Lubricating Liquid is for storing razors and spare blades, preventing the rust and corrosion that occurs from contact with water and oxygen. The razor and liquid are put together in a glass, and the user only needs to add a couple drops each time they shave to maintain the liquid level, Christensen said.Instead of only getting five shaves per $3 blade, with the Revolt, Christensen said he now uses the same razor blade from Jan. 1 of one year to Jan. 1 of the next.
Maybe the people at Gillette would be willing to pay Mr. Christensen a tidy sum to purchase his new patented razor-saving technology? Read Man gets patent for razor blade product for more on this edgy topic.
FierceWireless: Apple and HTC are going to have a court-mandated cooling-off period according to a recent piece by Phil Goldstein. In Goldstein's Judge halts Apple-Nokia patent spat for now, we learn of this stumbling block to both companies' patent lawsuit plans.
A federal judge in Delaware has put competing patent-infringement claims between Apple and Nokia on hold while the U.S. International Trade Commission tries to resolve the dispute.
The order staying the proceedings covers both Nokia's claims and Apple's counterclaims, and means that nothing further will happen until the ITC makes a decision on whether to ban U.S. imports of products from either company. Nokia started the round-robin of litigation in October by claiming that Apple's iPhone infringed on 10 Nokia patents. Apple countersued in December, arguing Nokia was infringing on 13 of its patents.
So the ITC will have the first option of deciding the fate of claim and counterclaim with the Delaware judicial system playing second fiddle, if it comes to that. One would figure that Apple and HTC could come to some kind of mutually-agreeable arrangement but maybe there's more to these suits than meets the eye...
Bonus IP piece o' the day: Patent reform bill close to passing? at Inventors Digest.