Ex-Senator Bob Kerrey And The MPAA Call It Quits

National Journal - Tech Daily Dose: Ex-Senator Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., figures prominently in a recent news story covering his bid to work at the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Juliana Gruenwald reports on the rumored pairing in her topical piece, Kerrey, MPAA Part Ways. She writes:

The MPAA issued a brief statement Thursday saying that the movie industry group and Kerrey "have agreed to end negotiations regarding the position of chief executive officer of the MPAA. The search process for a new CEO will continue."

Kerrey released his own statement that said: "An agreement could not be reached and both sides agreed it would be best to break off discussions."

Kerrey will still have his day job as president of the New School University in New York, according to Gruenwald, which should keep him in the green until he can find a different post to fill, if one opens that both he, and they, find amenable.

MarketWatch: Anheuser-Busch InBev, despite fighting for its right to use the "Budweiser" name in every market on Earth, learns that sometimes, you just can't win, no matter how hard you try, even if you have a top-notch legal team. William Spain reports on A-B InBev's recent loss of the right to the name "Budweiser"  not only in the the Czech Republic, but in a much bigger market (read: more lucrative) that might crimp their profits (not to mention their style.) Here are a few of the pertinent bits from Spain's related A-B InBev loses Budweiser trademark battle in E.U. court:

The Budweiser brand is sold by AB InBev in about two dozen European countries, including the U.K., where both companies are allowed to use the name. But in Germany, Budvar will continue to have it all to itself.

The two have been feuding about the Budweiser name in courts across the globe for decades.

"This judgment has no effect on Anheuser-Busch InBev's business in Europe or our existing Bud and Budweiser rights, which remain strong and intact," said Marianne Amssoms, a spokeswoman for A-B InBev.

She added that the court battle was an attempt "to further expand our extensive trademark rights and gain additional protections that we continue to believe are rightfully ours," she added.

And, sadly, the EU does not agree with Ms. Amssoms (nice last name, don't you think?), which could keep A-B InBev from putting on the crown of world-wide Budweiser beer domination. Check out the rest of Spain's topical piece for the more of this true tale of beer name litigation.

ZDnet - Linux & Open Source: Dana Blankenhorn & Paula Rooney jointly present their views on Why patent consortia are a good thing with a special focus on the benefits non-practicing entities have for open source software. From the blog entry comes these thoughts:

Open source is a shared enterprise. Its purpose is to organize really big ideas, ideas so big they can’t advance under the control of any one company, no matter how big.

Today’s software is something like the Egyptian pyramids we see today, or Machu Picchu as tourists see it today. That’s not what its builders saw. That’s what was underneath. It’s a foundation.

Critics of open source like to talk about how it doesn’t innovate. To some extent that’s true. But that’s not the point, my friend.

Without a sound foundation, software with billions of lines of code in it could never be written, or delivered bug-free at a profit to the world. It’s an organizing principle that works, within the framework of a free society.

Wow. Those are some serious comparisons and suppositions: open source software is like the pyramids and Machu Picchu. But can't we have Eiffel Tower-like applications without open source influences? Why yes, we can. Maybe the two, open source and protected software programming, can play nicely together while still retaining the fundamental principles that make them independently possible?

Bloomberg Businessweek: A sparkling wine showdown ends with the maker of a very high-end product winning over the maker of a much-more recent, and modestly-priced, entry into the marketplace. Don Jeffrey reports on the bubbly bout in his article entitled Champagne Louis Roederer Wins Cristal Trademark Case.

Champagne Louis Roederer, the maker of Cristal, won a trademark infringement case against J. Garcia Carrion SA over the labeling of sparkling wine.

Roederer began making Cristal champagne after being asked to produce a wine for Tsar Alexander II of Russia in 1876 and has been selling it in the U.S. since 1937. Reims, France-based Roederer sued winemaker Garcia Carrion in 2006, saying the Spanish company began importing Cristalino sparkling wine into the U.S. long after Cristal was introduced in the country.

Garcia Carrion and distributor CIV USA must restrict the use of the “Cristalino” brand on the products they sell in the U.S., U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen in Minneapolis said in a July 27 order.

Never having enjoyed a glass of Cristal, I can't make any claims on the brand's drinkability, or price-to-value rating, but I can happily say that Cristalino is a great buy for celebrating everyday with a high rating at a very reasonable price. In a blind taste test, I imagine the average palate would be pleasantly surprised when the brown paper bags are removed!

Bonus IP piece o' the day: UPDATE 1-Court reverses Tyco loss to Becton in patent fight by Diane Bartz at Reuters.com.

Cisco Throws Its Hat Into The “I Love Victoria Espinel” Ring

Cisco Blogs: Mark Chandler, General Counsel and Secretary for Cisco Systems, weighs in on the White House's intellectual property enforcement plans in his topical piece entitled Cisco welcomes launch of first ever U.S. National IP Strategy. He is especially impressed with the newly-appointed IP Czar, Victoria Espinel, who is taking her role seriously:

Ms. Espinel has brought to life Senator Leahy’s vision with her efforts to drive  to crack down on those who would steal intellectual property and create counterfeit goods which undermine the lifeblood of our economy by denying enterprises the fruits of their labors, and who would endanger national security by providing fake goods.  Already she’s making a difference in working to improve Department of Homeland Security efforts to intercept fake goods at our borders.

Cisco welcomes suggestions in the report to improve coordination among all levels of law enforcement and between the private and public sector, and  supports the Administration and Congress in their implementation of its recommendations.  Ms. Epinel’s commitment to interagency coordination has resulted in a comprehensive, mutually-reinforcing plan to address all aspects of intellectual property theft which costs our economy billions of dollars each year and poses risks to our economic and national security.

As one of America’s most innovative companies, we at Cisco look forward to working with the Ms. Espinel and her team as they implement this plan.

Chandler & Co. at Cisco are clearly happy with the much-awaited plan to fight piracy on many fronts that Espinel has created as her first step towards a stronger intellectual property enforcement regimen both in the United States and abroad in an attempt to stop IP theft in foreign countries.

NetworkWorld: In a separate, unrelated piece, Cisco figures largely as a significant loser in an intellectual property infringement lawsuit with Network-1 Security Solutions, a non-practicing entity (NPE), over the use of Power over Ethernet (POE) technology. Jim Duffy has additional details on the case for the gentle reader in Cisco to pay up to $112 million in Power-over-Ethernet patent case. He writes:

The settlement calls for approximately $32 million up front with up to approximately $80 million in royalty payments from Cisco alone over the next nine years. Adtran, Enterasys, Extreme and Foundry have also agreed to enter into non-exclusive licenses for the Remote Power Patent, according to Network-1.

Under the terms of the licenses, the companies agreed to pay to Network-1 an aggregate upfront payment of approximately $32 million and have also agreed to license the Remote Power Patent for its full term, which expires in March 2020.

In addition, Cisco agreed to pay royalties, beginning in 2011, based on its sales of PoE products up to maximum royalty payments per year of $8 million through 2015 and $9 million per year thereafter for the remaining term of the patent. The royalty payments are subject to certain conditions, including the continued validity of Network-1's Remote Power Patent -- the actual royalty amounts received may be less than the caps stated above, according to Network-1.

And there's no telling what Chandler & Co. think about the ruling and resultant fine, as Duffy reports that "Cisco declined to comment." The IP in question, The Remote Power Patent, still has lots of life in it as the protection isn't going to expire until March 2020, at which time Network-1 patent portfolio should be considerably larger if it invests some of its 112 million dollar boon in new IP.

PatLit: Patent appeals that you can afford by Jeremy Phillips highlights a summer booksale by Oxford University Press, including an IP-relevant volume, Patent Appeals: the Elements of Effective Advocacy in the Federal Circuit by Mark Simon Davies. Strike now while the iron is hot to pick up this book for 1/4 of its original 60 pounds Sterling price by clicking through and reading Phillips' entire piece.

Intellectual Property and Sustainable Development: Assorted experts of the medical, and access to medicine, varieties met recently to pen a document destined to be released this Friday at the
joint WTO, WIPO and WHO "Technical Symposium on Access to Medicines." According to Amy Kapczynski,
Assistant Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley Law School, the draft document includes this opening paragraph which boldly spells out the feelings of a wide variety of signatory organizations:

All people have the right to access the medicines they need to be healthy. As public health groups, humanitarian and inter-governmental organizations, experts and academics that work on access to medicines, we gathered at the University of California at Berkeley to analyze the serious threats that recent "intellectual property enforcement" initiatives pose to this right.  The enforcement agenda threatens the last decade of efforts to achieve access to medicines for people in low- and middle-income countries, and compromises the attainment of health-related Millennium Development Goals. We make this Declaration to call upon policy makers in governments and international organizations to reject the cynical and dangerous efforts that have been made through this agenda to prioritize commercial interests over the right to health.

Of special note is the paper's concerted focus on the White House's comprehensive intellectual property enforcement plan that would increase the likelihood that medicines transiting international borders would be subject to new search-and-seizure laws. The signatories feel that these changes in the policies of the US, and other nations who adopt them, towards medicines being transported out of mostly First World nations and into developing ones would cause the loss of life to those citizens most in need of access to cheaper medicines.

ArsTechnica.com - Law & Disorder: In another story related to medicines in poorer countries, Jacqui Cheng offers coverage on a group of groups who are protesting the United States Trade Representative's (USTR) Special 301 Report sanctions that are keeping the Obama Administration from following through on its promise to help fight AIDS in the developing world. Cheng's aptly-titled Human rights groups slam Special 301 Report sheds light on the subject:

The groups include the Health Global Access Project, the Foundation for AIDS Rights, and the Deli Network of People Living with HIV, and are being led by the American University Washington College of Law's Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property (PIJIP). PIJIP associate director Sean Flynn said that the groups plan to file a complaint over the Special 301 report on Tuesday, at which time a press conference will be held at the Media Center at the International AIDS Conference 2010 in Vienna.

According to Flynn, President Obama promised to "break the stranglehold that a few big drug and insurance companies have on these life-saving drugs," but has failed to take sufficient action, as evidenced by the 2009 and 2010 Special 301 reports. "This complaint will allege that the continuation of Special 301 attacks on policies promoting access to affordable medications abroad violates international human rights obligations," Flynn said in a statement.

The complaint will likely get some attention in the world media, but whether or not it gets its due consideration from the Obama White House remains to be seen. With so many other key issues fighting for the administration's attention, it's not unlikely that the complaint will be shelved with so many other like it in lieu of more immediate, palliative action.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: Is Famed Trademark Troll Leo Stoller Trying To Stealthily Reclaim Bogus Stealth Trademarks? by Mike Masnick at TechDirt.com.

US Supreme Court Bilski Ruling Gets More Op/Ed Love

PC World: David Worthington offers some thoughts on the US Supreme Court's Bilski ruling in his not-yet-stale piece, Supreme Court Decision Raises Software Patent Questions. He writes on why his source thinks that the highest court's decision is far from clear cut and may create some difficulties for those seeking to patent their software programs in the future:

...the Supreme Court handed down a long awaited decision on a patent case that could have changed how or whether software patents are granted. Ultimately, little changed, except that the Court’s decision was at odds with 150 years of patent law, says a legal expert.

[Richard Field, a past chair of the American Bar Association’s section of science and technology law] found it bizarre that the Supreme Court’s majority was willing to allow a lower court to outline a new test while simultaneously chiding it being too activist. The minority suggested that the Court use the established test and said, “Let Congress cover those new technologies. Don’t ask us how new technologies should apply to old words,” he noted.

The Court was clearly struggling with its opinion on whether business method patents were good or bad, Field acknowledged, but sent mixed messages in its decision. The likely result will be a surge in applications for business process patents. “What a patent examiner is supposed to do…I have no idea.”

Unlike Field, I am not a lawyer, but I cannot help but think that the Court’s decision may make it more difficult for new technology to come to market. In that case, consumers lose.

The real proof of the pudding will only be revealed once lower courts have a chance to try some business method and software patent cases and come out with their new tests for patentability. Once some precedence has been established, there might again be a case brought to the SCOTUS for yet another round of pondering and ruling.

Capital Public Radio: In a brief piece, John Sepulvado highlights how the Bilski ruling could favorably affect California's growing bio-genetic business. From his topical Bio Tech Could Get Boost With Assist From SCOTUS we learn more:

Alex Hadjis is a patent attorney with Morrison and Forrester in Washington D.C. He says under current practice , most types of gene therapies cannot be exclusively owned by a person or company. Or as he puts it, “laws of nature and physical phenomena are not patentable.”

Yet, in Re Bilski, the U.S. Supreme Court has now ruled that the current standard for evaluating patents is outdated. That could be a boon for California’s bio tech industry, which has seen several potentially profitable gene therapies rejected for failing to meet current patent standard. Hadjis, along with other patent experts says lawyers, Congress, inventors and companies---even those inventing new genes--- have a new opportunity.  Adds Hadjis, “The Bilski decision, this opens the door to broader patentability.”

New opportunities and new wealth to be made. But by who? That's the question that has yet to be answered. Read the rest of Sepulvado's work for more details via the linked piece above.

TechCrunch: The recent efforts by Federal authorities to shut down a number of domains that host illegal files, and of great interest in these examples, movie files, have a new threat to contend with: offshore movie file streaming domains. Erick Shonfeld's aptly-titled TV Shack Flouts The Feds By Moving Video Piracy Site To Offshore Domain sets the stage for the gentle reader:

Last week, the Feds shut down nine video sites for piracy and copyright violations. The enforcement was a combined effort by the Department of Justice, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and a the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center under the Department of Homeland Security. It is the new Intellectual Property Police, and they are fighting to save Hollywood.

But the battleground for the war on illegal move file sharing has moved to a more defensible position that might cause a bit of heartburn for those trying to squash them. Here's another related passage by Shonfeld:

Of course, it only took a few days for at least one of the sites to reappear at a different domain. TVshack.net, for instance, is now at TVshack.cc. There you can watch full streams of bootleg versions of The Twilight Saga:Eclipse (filmed in a theater with people standing up and casting shadows on the screen, see below), Toy Story 3, True Blood, and other movies and TV shows. The .cc domain is administered by the Cocos Islands, which is a territory of Australia. The company is based in Stockholm, Sweden. Another one of the shuttered sites has reappeared at www.watch-movies-tv.info, but it no longer offers streaming movies.

There is a price to pay for this "free" movie streaming stuff: pop-up ads and terrible quality. But that won't stop some hardcore pirates from pursuing these unlawful movies, where ever they may be found. I wonder if ACTA's passage would help to knock out more of these nests of pirated movie files?

Ghana News Agency.org: Intellectual property protection and enforcement efforts are spreading quickly and like any hot topic, Africa is bound to be an eventual participant. Enter: Ghana, stage right. Our unknown guide to Ghana's new program on helping bring IP law to a more modern level offers additional insights via a recent post, Ghana is set to transform management of intellectual property rights. He or she reports on this Swiss-funded plan:

Ghana on Tuesday set out structural indicators for modernisation of the country's Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regime in conformity with international best practices.

These include the provision of transfer of technology among key stakeholders on operations of IPR, create avenue for innovation to enhance productivity and facilitate trade and industrial competitiveness.

Along with those tidbits come these additional nibbles:

...the project was to ensure that National Intellectual Property Policy was articulated, explore avenue for enactment of legislation in all areas of TRIPS Agreement and make it fully operational, updated and completed.

It also has a component for increasing public awareness and understanding of intellectual property issues, continuous sensitisation of the Judiciary on IP issues, establishment of efficient automated industrial property management system and institutionalisation of electronic Copyright Register.

Great news from an unexpected corner and with Swiss involvement, the new project is bound to run like, well...a Swiss train.

MetroCorpCounsel: Looking for an IP-related event to attend? Look no further! The good folks at The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel website inform and entertain your wishes with this, their latest IP meeting announcement:

On Wednesday, July 14, the Practising Law Institute and the Pennsylvania Bar Institute will host a seminar for all practitioners who would like gain an understanding of patent law.

The goal of the sessions will be to demystify patent law for the general practitioner or those looking to expand their intellectual property focus. The seminar will take participants through all aspects of patent law, from the filing of a patent application all the way to infringement issues. Attendees will learn the touchstone of patentability, the basics of filing a patent application, how long it may take from filing to issuance, what the details of patent prosecution involves, the costs involved in patent prosecution, and filing and infringement issues.

One need not be a specialist in IP to attend, no sir, just have a hankering for some no-holds barred, "all aspects" IP fun. You can find out how much the event costs and where/when it will be held by clicking through and reading PLI Philadelphia Conference - The Basics Of Patent Law.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: The Bottom Line on Bilski: Good or Bad for FOSS? by Katherine Noyes at Tech News World.

US Copyright Group Scores Small Victory In Court Hearing

ArsTechnica.com: The P2P file-sharing lawsuit filed by Dunlap, Grubb, & Weaver, aka the "US Copyright Group," was awarded a small victory in court but had to also make a concession with the judge ordering the creation of a new notification letter to be sent to the growing pool of "John Doe" defendants. Nate Anderson reports on this give-and-take proceeding in his related post, Judge "rejected all of the EFF's arguments" on P2P cases. He writes:

Judge Collyer was "very thoughtful about the issue" said EFF attorney Corynne McSherry when I spoke to her yesterday after the hearing. Collyer considered the concerns of everyone involved and eventually decided on a "creative solution," in McSherry's words: ISP subscribers will soon receive an additional notification letter agreed to by all parties. The letter will better explain their rights and the grounds on which they or their lawyers can object to the subpoena.

While Collyer's order won't put an end to the subpoenas in process, it will call a halt to subscriber notifications in two of the main cases until all parties can agree on the notice text. Tom Dunlap tells Ars, "Until the court has approved the notice, in the two cases before Judge Collyer, the ISPs will not send notices to their subscribers." (The other cases are being heard before different judges in the same court.)

A Pyrrhic win, in some ways, but one that shows a willingness of the court to mix things up a bit in light of the wide-ranging geographic locations of the John Doe defendants and the difficulties involved with proving whether or not a given individual has indeed downloaded one of the movie files in question from a P2P filesharing network.

The 271 Patent Blog: Senator Patrick Leahy is pulling out some of the stops in his efforts to get patent reform passed before the Congressional summer recess starts. Peter Zura provides some coverage of Leahy's particular efforts in his topical article, Leahy Post-Bilski Comments and Patent Reform. Here's a relevant passage that quotes Leahy on the subject of how the patent reform bill can undo what the SCOTUS Bilski decision didn't do:

In Bilski v. Kappos, the Court unanimously affirmed the judgment of the Federal Circuit that the application for a patent on a business method should be rejected.  The Court’s opinion, joined by only five of the Justices, however, needlessly left the door open for business method patents to issue in the future, and I am concerned that it will lead to more unnecessary litigation.

Since the debate over comprehensive patent reform began many years ago, the Supreme Court has demonstrated an increased interest in patent law cases.  The Court’s decisions have moved in the direction of improving patent quality.  While today’s decision will take time to analyze and may not have advanced the law and created the stability and certainty that it could have, it appears to continue this trend, which is consistent with the goal of patent reform legislation pending in Congress.  The courts, however, are constrained by the text of our outdated statutes, and it is time for Congress to act.”

Zura also provides a bit of coverage on the "manager's amendment" that Leahy says will be passed quickly. The Senator goes on to assure the reader that the patent bill would be passed "in just three days" if it could only get floor time and a vote.

National Journal - Tech Daily Dose: The US Trade Representative (USTR) has weighed in on the on-going ACTA negotiations. Juliana Gruenwald's related piece, USTR Provides Update On ACTA Talks, has more details for the gentle reader. She quotes from a statement released by the USTR onThursday:

"While ACTA aims at establishing effective enforcement standards for existing intellectual property rights, it is not intended to include new intellectual property rights or to enlarge or diminish existing intellectual property rights," the statement said.

USTR also said ACTA would be consistent with the World Trade Organization's Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement and also would not allow border officials to search traveler's baggage or personal electronic devices for infringing materials.

Scott Flynn, who asked a number of questions of the ACTA negotiators in their most recent meeting while they debated the act's contents, offered some of his thoughts on the matter. Again, Gruenwald provides clarification:

"There seemed to be little desire to remove or narrow considerably the Internet chapter. There was a desire by some delegates to ensure that DMCA-like protections are in the ACTA Internet chapter," [Flynn said.]

According to the USTR, the next round of talks will be held in the United States at a time not yet announced to the general public.

Bonus ACTA piece o' the day: ACTA slouches on, will be final within 6 months by Nate Anderson at ArsTechnica.com.

Salesforce.com Countersuit Targets Microsoft

PCWorld: Microsoft's recent lawsuit against Salesforce.com for patent infringement has been met with a similar motion in reponse. Chris Kanaracus of IDG News, provides more details on Salesforce.com's recent riposte in his topical article, Salesforce.com Sues Microsoft for Patent Infringement. Kanaracus writes:

Salesforce.com has sued Microsoft for patent infringement, making a move in response to an intellectual property suit Redmond filed against the on-demand CRM (customer relationship management) vendor last month.

A number of Microsoft products, including its .NET platform and SharePoint collaboration software, are in violation of Salesforce.com patents, according to the complaint filed Thursday in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Microsoft has willfully infringed on Salesforce.com's intellectual property, the complaint adds.

In addition to the lawsuit, Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff called the company an "alley thug" and "patent troll" during the course of a routine business call, which is a bit harsh. Your move, Microsoft!

Telegraph.co.uk: China has long been seen as the primary flouter of international intellectual property laws, but recent changes to the country's IP enforcement regimen have made it more attactive to outside concerns, who are filing protective paperwork in large numbers. Andrew Cave reports on the sea change for China's IP prospects in his related piece, Intellectual property in China. Here's a takeaway passage:

...[A]s China continues to develop its economy rapidly, intellectual property experts say the nation is also starting to clean up its act on this issue.

“We think that China is becoming the new Japan in relation to intellectual property issues,” says Morag Macdonald, partner at leading intellectual property law firm Bird & Bird.

“These are still early days in terms of China turning around its position, but it is now possible to enforce intellectual property rights in China.

Among those Western companies that have successfully prosecuted IP cases in China, Cave points out that "3M, Kenwood, BASF Agriculture and electronics group Philips, have all pursued and won patent infringement cases in China, while Starbucks and Yamaha have won trademark cases." Encouraging news for businesses hoping to enter China's burgeoning consumer marketplace without fear of losing their profits to IP theft and piracy.

The Washington Times: The release of the White House's first-ever intellectual property enforcement plan has garnered plenty of media attention and a wide range of opinions from people who stand to lose or gain should the suggested changes in the document be implemented. One subject area expert, Marshall Phelps, a former corporate vice president for intellectual-property policy and licensing at IBM and Microsoft, offers his opinion on the importance of a stricter, and more robust, national IP enforcement strategy:

As the pace of innovation accelerates and the world economy becomes more competitive than ever before, the value of intellectual property becomes an even more critical part of a nation's economy. If America is to continue leading the world in innovation, it's imperative that the federal government make intellectual property protection and enforcement a top priority. The first-ever national intellectual-property enforcement strategy, to be presented soon to Congress, is a significant first step, and Congress should give it thoughtful consideration. Anyone who's concerned about maintaining an environment of innovation and creating high-paying jobs for the future should pay close heed.

Congress has lots of business on the table at the moment, but IP Czar Espinel's comprehensive IP plan should definitely get its day in the spotlight if America hopes to continue being the recognized champion of innovation and ideas. Be sure to read the rest of Phelps' thoughts on the value of IP rights to the United States' economy in PHELPS: Slamming the door on idea thieves.

Patent Baristas.com: Ever vigilant of their intellectual property rights, the lawyers at FIFA brought additional attention to a small problem by having a group of orange dress-wearing soccer fans arrested at a World Cup soccer match for violating South African intellectual property laws. Stephen Albainy-Jenei reports on this "tempest in a tea kettle" event that would better have been left unprosecuted in his timely post, Orange Miniskirt Debacle Less Filling.

FIFA officials took issue with a (very) small “Bavaria” tag on the side of the dresses, which they said infringed the rights of official partners and sponsors who paid millions of dollars to advertise exclusively at World Cup venues.  The dresses had been available free with a pack of beer at gas stations in Holland.  This raises the question:  How visible must the mark be in order to violate the Act?

Obviously the mark can be very small, in the case of the Orange Miniskirt kerfluffle, but, interestingly enough, a group of other Dutch fans, dressed in orange airline pilot and stewardess uniform, went unmolested, so FIFA must not have been entirely against fan solidarity, just the idea that some might try to interrupt their contractual agreement with the chosen beer provider for the World Cup, Budweiser. The rest of Albainy-Jenei's post contain read-worthy passages on South Africa's anti-"ambush marketing" laws and other similarly tasty tidbits.

Guardian.co.uk: Nobel prizewinning scientist John Sulston spoke at an event in London, England celebrating the 10th anniversary of the human genome's decoding and came out strongly against any efforts to lock up human genetic code under IP protection. Alok Jha reports:

...[B]iologist John Sulston said scientists and lawmakers must resist attempts by corporations and individuals to patent human genes.

In the US, for example, it costs a woman between $3,000 and $4,000 to be tested for familial breast cancer because a corporation owns the patent for the two genes involved. "The fact of the matter is that many human genes have patent rights on them and this is going to get in the way of treatment unless you have a lot of money," said Sulston. "And it's going to get in the way of research."

Sulston said he was particularly concerned about the intentions of scientists such as Craig Venter, who made headlines earlier this month when he unveiled work described in the media as "the world's first artificial life form".

Sulston is concerned that any intellectual property rights given to companies who sort out various portions of the human genetic code will end up hurting research and medical breakthroughs. These discoveries should be used to benefit greater humanity and would otherwise increase human suffering due to restricted access to genetic therapies and medicines that would not be affordable with IP protections. Read Jha's Human Genome Project leader warns against attempts to patent genes for more on open source genetics and related IP policies.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: Google triumphant, beats back billion dollar Viacom lawsuit by Matthew Lasar at ArsTechnica.com.

Patent Defense Lawyer Switches Teams

Bloomberg Businessweek.com: A high-powered patent defense lawyer is switching teams in a bid to bring in big dollars for his new venture, Round Rock Research LLC, a business that falls squarely into the category of a non-practicing entity (NPE). Carlyn Kolker provides more details in her topical article, Billion-Dollar Lawyer Desmarais Quits Firm to Troll for Patents. She writes on John Desmarais' new day job:

The move is a leap from one side of the patent world to the other: from big-firm lawyer to small-firm chief, and from a champion of companies that makes real products to leading one that simply owns patents.

“It’s a huge change,” said Desmarais, who withdrew from Kirkland’s partnership and the firm’s management committee in December and left in May. “I never just get my toes wet doing something different. I jumped in with both feet.”

Desmarais is now the second largest NPE patent holder with the number one spot going to Nathan Myrhvold's Intellectual Ventures effort. According to Kolker, Desmarais' patent portfolio is comprised mainly of technology holdings with a special focus on radio frequency identification and includes patents on chipmaking, search engines, and photo imaging. Be sure to read the rest of the article for additional background on Round Rock and John Desmarais.

Intellectual Property Watch: Catherine Saez' recent piece, US, China Weaving Closer Trade and IP Cooperation; Focus On Innovation, highlights a recent memorandum of understanding (MoU) between China and the US that aims to increase cooperation between the two countries' intellectual property organizations. Here's some of the relevant passages:

According to the Treasury Department fact sheet on the “Joint US-China Economic Track,” both countries agreed that it was “critical to follow” the WTO rules strictly “when initiating trade remedy investigations and imposing trade remedy measures, to prevent their abuse.” The two countries also confirmed that their innovation policies would follow the principles of “non-discrimination, support for market competition and open international trade and investment, strong enforcement of intellectual property rights; and consistent with WTO rules, leaving the terms and conditions of technology transfer, production processes and other proprietary information to agreement between individual enterprises.”

And in the near future, additional meetings are scheduled to increase mutual understanding of what lies ahead for the effort to build IP protections that suit both countries' sensibilities:

Intensive expert and high-level bilateral discussions about innovation policy will be held this summer, according to US government sources. The meetings will be held under the auspices of the Sino-US Joint Commission Meeting on Scientific and Technological Cooperation, according to a recent fact sheet from the US Department of the Treasury. “These meetings will include all relevant US and Chinese agencies,” it said. “The United States and China will take into account the results of these discussions, in formulating and implementing their innovation measures.”

With any luck, the US and China can have a meaningful dialog, resulting in real changes to intellectual property enforcement efforts to the benefit of both American investors in China's burgeoning consumer market and for Chinese products that are sold to the tech-hungry masses in the United States.

Intellectual Asset Management Magazine: Although Chinese patent filings continue to increase at the significant rate of 24% per year, there are other alternatives for those wishing to protect their intellectual property in the world's most populous nation. A topical piece by Bob Stembridge, manager of customer
relations for the IP Solutions business of Thomson Reuters, helps explain how this particular kind of filing can help provide prior art when the times come for the pursuit of more serious IP rights. Stembridge writes:

...[W]here applicable, utility model patents offer the same protection (albeit for a shorter time span) as invention patents. However, they are quicker and cheaper to obtain since a utility model receives only preliminary examination rather than the full substantial examination of an invention application. For products with a relatively short lifecycle such as electronics or communications devices, utility model protection offers an excellent alternative.

And Chinese utility patents have greater strength than some of their parallels in other countries:

Utility models have real teeth in China. In a celebrated case, Chinese company the Chint
Group was awarded approximately US$45 million in damages for alleged infringement of its utility model patent protecting a miniature circuit breaker by the French headquartered Schneider Electric company (although Chint later settled for a lower amount of approximately US$23 million). Chinese prior art cannot be ignored. Given the dramatic increase in the number of patent applications emanating from China, it is good practice for every company operating in China to review Chinese patent prior art.

Check out the rest of Stembridge's Chinese utility models –a lesser-known IP strategy for more on how to use the Chinese patent system to your advantage.

Syded: There's a new publication worth a few minutes of your valuable time. WTO-Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights is its name and here's its game:

With the WTO TRIPs-Agreement, intellectual property issues has become an integral part of the world trading system. The Agreement probably represents the most significant and controversial development in world trade law. The Agreement is comprehensive in scope and contains standards for protection of a number of intellectual property rights as well as rules on the enforcement of such rights

Check it out the related article here. And if you're interested in purchasing the work, be sure to bring a large stack of dough with you...

Melodika.net: A number of summary judgments by a group of legendary musicians is being heard by US District Judge James Selna and might have significant implications for copyright protection and First Amendment rights. Details from Federal Court Ruling Likely to Set New Precedent Governing Use of Copyrighted Works for the gentle reader:

On June 1, 2010, US District Judge James Selna will hear oral arguments related to summary judgment motions filed by music legends Don Henley, Mike Campbell, and Danny Kortchmar, on the one hand, and United States Senate candidate Chuck DeVore, on the other hand. The case concerns DeVore’s use of two well-known songs, “The Boys of Summer” and “All She Wants to Do Is Dance,” in campaign advertisements. Henley and the other plaintiffs have sued DeVore for copyright infringement and violation of the Lanham Act, the federal trademark statute. The case hinges on largely unsettled legal issues, and the court’s ruling will help define the scope of copyright protection and First Amendment free speech rights.

Stay tuned for more on this pivotal freedom of speech case as it develops.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: Morning Line: Inventors invited to weigh in on patent reform by Tom Brown at Burlington Free Press.

Content Rightsholders Seek Goverment Enforcement Aid

ArsTechnica.com: Nate Anderson's Rightsholders tire of takedown Whac-A-Mole, seek gov't help offers some insights into recent difficulties encountered by content owners as they try to control the spread of intellectual property theft and misuse. Anderson writes on Universal's on-going battle with the mostly defunct video sharing website, Veoh:

"[Universal] must incur the enormous expense of constantly monitoring Veoh's internet site to identify infringing content and request its removal in order to protect their property. And the task is not limited to monitoring Veoh alone. Rather, it is geometrically larger since thousands of comparable websites must also be monitored. The task is ultimately Sisyphean; because Veoh's site, like others' is dynamic and changes day-to-day or hour-to-hour as users upload more material, the task of identifying and sending notifications requesting the removal of copyrighted works would amount to an unending version of the children's game of 'Whack-A-Mole' [sic]."

One afflicted content owner pleaded with Uncle Sam for help with this over-the-top cry:

"Nothing could be more important to US economic security and competitiveness than deterrence of rampant IP infringement."

Sounds like a bit of hyperbole, and yes, taking down illegal file-sharing or videos posted to YouTube is a worthy pursuit but I'm sure there are some who would argue that it is *not* the most important thing facing the United States today.

ZeroPaid: The Songwriter's Guild of America (SGA) is also getting into the act of pleading with the US government for resources to increase policing efforts to stop music/file theft. Jared Moya details the situation in his topical post, Songwriters Guild: Use FBI to Target “Most Egregious” File-Sharers. He writes:

In a letter submitted to the govt’s new Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC), Victoria A. Espinel, as part of the public comments phase of the Coordination and Strategic Planning of the Federal Effort Against Intellectual Property Infringement, the SGA wants the FBI to launch criminal investigations against the the “most egregious” offenders, and prosecute them with criminal violations of copyright laws.

“Criminal investigations under existing law should be opened by the FBI against the most egregious online copyright infringers,” it says. “These investigations should be followed up by prosecution of those found to have clearly violated the criminal prohibitions at 17 U.S.C. § 506.”

Jumpin' G-men, Batman! The interesting part comes further on in the piece:

“There are numerous economic crimes of much lesser magnitude (such as bank robbery) that are routinely and fully investigated, for which law enforcement agencies such as the FBI have significant resources,” it says. “By contrast, online copyright piracy dwarfs bank robbery in causing economic losses, yet the FBI has limited criminal investigative interest and no civil mandate whatsoever to pursue this devastating economic harm. This inequity must change.”

There are currently a variety of laws and enforcement methods to deal with illegal P2P file-sharing that could be used to similar advantage without calling in the A-Team to round up the bad guys and render them to Egypt for "intense interrogation." Cooler heads should be called on to prevail should Espinel take the suggestion to use the FBI to prosecute file-sharing cases seriously.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Much to Boeing's probable delight, Ron Kirk, the US Trade Representative, is using his persuasive powers to try to convince Europe not to help Airbus launch its long-suffering mega-jetliner, the A350. Here's the meat of the matter:

U.S. officials are pushing European governments not to follow through with promises of launch aid to Airbus' A350 XWB program, and the upcoming public release of a World Trade Organization ruling could help move negotiations, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said in Seattle Monday.

"We have sent as direct and strong a signal as we possibly can that we think it would do nothing to help us with a resolution of this long-standing conflict if the European Union were to move forward with another round of launch aid," Kirk said after speaking to a forum on U.S. trade with Southeast Asian nations.

The WTO has found the European subsidies of the Airbus program in violation of a number of trade rules meant to maintain a level-playing field for airplane producers at home and abroad. Be sure to check out Trade rep.: U.S. pushing Europe not to subsidize Airbus A350 by Aubrey Cohen for more on this dispute.

Technollama(Yet Another Technology Law Blog): Andres Guadamuz, law lecturer at the University of Edinburgh, presents his thoughts on ACTA from the other side of the Big Pond in his recent article entitled Why ACTA? The shifting international IP political scene. Guadamuz helpfully parses the stances of involved parties for the gentle reader in one of the concluding paragraphs of the linked story:

Is ACTA needed? From an IP exporter perspective, the answer seems to be a resounding yes. The current system is not producing the desired results, namely to stop counterfeiting, and most importantly, the current international system seems not to be denting Internet file-sharing. So if you want to enhance protection in other trading countries, what you do is bypass the international institutions, and negotiate an agreement with chosen strategic partners. The list of countries negotiating ACTA is very indicative of where things are going. The U.S. is the obvious mover, the EU is interested in enhancing IP protection because as a whole it is close to being a net IP exporter, if it is not one already (I have to check the figures again). New Zealand seems to be an odd choice, but it is a country that has close links with Hollywood. Japan and South Korea are also countries that are on the verge of becoming IP exporters, if they are not already. Mexico and Canada are acting mostly in their role as NAFTA trading partners of the U.S. Singapore and the UAE are very conservative countries with strong IP protection and enforcement, so it seems like they would favour strong-hand approaches to IP. I have no idea about Morocco though, its presence sticks out a bit. Australia has been conducting a strongly pro-IP policy since the Howard government, even if one could argue that it has done so against its own interest.

This suggests that IP exporters, like the US, stand to gain from the implementation of the ACTA legislation, while other nations who are still developing their content protection laws might find the additional administrative overhead costs more than they want to voluntarily bear. Nice to get a look at the issue from a new angle, nu?

The Moscow Times: Russia once again finds itself among the top-ranked finishers on the USTR's Special 301 report, which is not a good thing, but might be less serious than it appears at first glance. Maria Antonova's U.S. Faults Russia for Weak Protection of Intellectual Property has more details:

Russia has made little headway on its pledges to defend intellectual property rights, while new forms of piracy continue to emerge, the Office of the United States Trade Representative said Friday.

The office, Washington's main trade negotiator, announced the findings in a global report based on consultations with foreign governments and stakeholders who are harmed by violations of intellectual property rights.

The findings highlight one of the long-standing disputes that has slowed Moscow's start-and-stop, 17-year bid to join the World Trade Organization. In March, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said during a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that "only three [trade] issues remain … [and] they aren't of any serious importance to the U.S. economy or to our economy."

Secretary Clinton seems to be of the opinion that Russia's lagging IP enforcement laws aren't very serious but the USTR's view is necessarily a bit more strident given their mission of leveraging trade partnerships to encourage laggards to get on the US IP enforcement bandwagon. Plenty of other insights await the brave reader who clicks through to the rest of Antonova's article.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: Apple Draws Scrutiny From Regulators by Thomas Catan And Yukari Iwatani Kane at The Wall Street Journal.

A New Way To Protect Intellectual Property

IP Prospective: In a world fraught with an ever-increasing number of intellectual property infringement lawsuits, what is a patent holder to do for protection against expensive legal claims? Why not try an insurance policy? In his topical piece, Intellectual Property Insurance: Changing the IP Litigation Landscape, Ian D. McClure, a corporate & securities and intellectual property law attorney with Wyatt, Tarrant, & Combs, LLP, features an interview with Chuck Baxter, General Counsel and Senior Underwriter for Intellectual Property Insurance Services Corp, and learns more about the options available for those seeking IP insurance. He writes:

IP Abatement Insurance may afford a stronger negotiation position and may increase licensability of IP assets because it (1) creates the potential to reduce the pressure to settle due to a limited resource of funds, (2) could discourage potential infringement by demonstrating the financial ability to enforce intellectual property, (3) could help maintain market share by allowing for quicker decisions and actions with respect to potential infringers, and (4) could increase the value of intellectual property because that value is intrinsically tied with the quality of intellectual property, which is inherently tied to enforceability.

Because such policies are relatively new, their merits can not be fully assessed until they have had more time to be examined after being brought to bear in IP litigation proceedings. McClure also points out that if one side has an abatement insurance policy, the other side might have the counterpart policy for defense against such actions. Caveat emptor!

Notes from Steve - Observations from Off the Beaten Path: In a recent blog post, Steve Hinch takes a peek inside corporate R&D policies and highlights the need for accurate intellectual property inventories and special considerations to keep innovators doing what they do best. Hinch's The Fourth Tenet of Innovation includes a first-hand cautionary tale of lost IP and untold related proceeds:

Several years ago I was asked to review a large portion of our company’s patent portfolio to see just how well we were using our intellectual property. The task was challenging and it wasn’t always easy to tell whether older patents had ever found their way into products. But one thing was clear. Somewhere around half of the company’s patents had been filed, granted, and put on the shelf, never to be heard from again. Not used in a company product. Not licensed or sold to others. Not enforced against others or used as a defense when others tried to assert patents against us. The time, energy, and expense to obtain these patents were simply wasted. It was a wake-up call that forced management to re-think and improve our whole intellectual property strategy.

Hinch's piece also includes some of his well-thought out approaches to ensure intellectual property creators are allowed to flourish and aren't swept under a rug by some well-intentioned middle manager, who in a misguided attempt to boost short-term profits, stops innovators from pursuing ideas that might pay huge dividends over time.

Intellectual Property Watch: India and the European Union are trying to hammer out a mutually-agreeable free trade agreement but a few sticking points remain to be resolved, among them, patent term extension. EU-India Trade Talks Resume Under Cloud Of Concern For Public Health by Monica Emert has more information on the impact patent extensions have on the health of people in poorer countries, and offers some quotes from various involved parties, including this one from an Indian patient rights activist:

“Our life is not for trade,” said Loon Gangte, president of the Delhi Network of Positive People (DNP+), who had travelled to Brussels to voice the concerns by patient groups and activists in India. The FTA has been negotiated behind closed doors, but leaks of the text did confirm the push from the EU for a series of higher IP-standards antagonistic to flexibility in enforcement of IP-standards, according to Childs of MSF. Gangte said: “It is undermining our right to life, and this is not acceptable to us. We will keep fighting,” Gangte said.

A strong stance on the issue of extended patent terms that include pharmaceutical products needed in large, cheap quantities by Mr. Gangte. The EU, for its part, is working to allay fears that the free trade agreement would end up causing public health care troubles in India.

“The Commission would like to give full reassurance that negotiations on intellectual property rights (IPR) are taken forward in the spirit of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health,” Commission officials wrote. “The Commission has made it very clear that the provisions on IPR, in particular those on patents, must be implemented and interpreted in a way that does not impair the capacity of both parties to promote access to medicines in the developing world.”

Read the complete piece for more views from NGOs and at least one petition to the committee submitted by Brazilian sympathizers.

Microsoft News Center: HTC and Microsoft have come to an agreement regarding disputed intellectual property. Microsoft Announces Patent Agreement With HTC has more details for the gentle reader:

Microsoft Corp. and HTC Corp. have signed a patent agreement that provides broad coverage under Microsoft’s patent portfolio for HTC’s mobile phones running the Android mobile platform. Under the terms of the agreement, Microsoft will receive royalties from HTC.

The agreement expands HTC’s long-standing business relationship with Microsoft.

“HTC and Microsoft have a long history of technical and commercial collaboration, and today’s agreement is an example of how industry leaders can reach commercial arrangements that address intellectual property,” said Horacio Gutierrez, corporate vice president and deputy general counsel of Intellectual Property and Licensing at Microsoft. “We are pleased to continue our collaboration with HTC.”

Also included in the news release is a passage on Microsoft's commitment to licensing its intellectual property to interested companies. A strange turn of an events: a Google-based product finds itself under an IP-licensing agreement with Microsoft but HTC had to do the right thing or suffer the wrath of a potential ITC injunction.

PatentlyBIOtech: A collaborative effort is underway to work together for better healthcare science as the Hamner Institutes For Health Sciences forged a bond with Chinese and Norwegian researchers. Among the items to be shared are technologies related to biosciences, including intellectual property. From :

Collaboration among the world’s top biotechnology hubs is not only strategically sound, but critically necessary, and the BIO international conventions provide organizations worldwide with an annual opportunity to develop and strengthen results-driven partnerships. At BIO 2008 in San Diego, leaders from The Hamner met with representatives from China and Norway and began to discuss ways to work together. These BIO meetings were followed by a series of visits to each other’s respective headquarters and the signing of new agreements.

The Hamner’s partnership with China Medical City, located north of Shanghai, led to formation of a joint institute and an increase in research and business opportunities for Jiangsu Province and North Carolina. The new Hamner-China Biosciences Center has also signed subsequent agreements with six other major Chinese science parks and four leading research institutions. Collaborations with the Oslo Cancer Cluster are opening up additional research and technology-development opportunities between NC and northern European cancer centers.

This partnership could lead to increasingly effective treatments for cancer, among other diseases, and foster better understanding of the value of working together and sharing knowledge for the benefit of healing one's fellow man. Check out Collaboration: The Key to Success by Margarita for additional text.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: "Fair use" generates trillions in the US alone by Nate Anderson at ArsTechnica.com.

Ford And Geely Move Forward On Volvo/Intellectual Property Sale

DetNews.com: The Ford/Volvo/Geely deal is finally solidifying in a meaningful manner and there's plenty to learn from the long, careful process that allowed the Chinese automaker to purchase the Volvo marque and a cornucopia related intellectual property (IP) from a major American car manufacturer. Christine Tierney has details on the lessons learned in her topical piece, Ford-Geely deal spells out tech sharing. She writes:

With the acquisition of Volvo, which is expected to close before October, Geely will obtain a research and development operation comprising 3,000 engineers -- about as many as Ford inherited when it bought Volvo in 1999.

Ford, meanwhile, retains access to technologies jointly developed with Volvo, according to people familiar with the accords.

In any industrial transaction of this size, technology agreements are bound to be complex.

But negotiators are particularly wary when dealing with companies from China, which has a poor record of protecting intellectual property, such as patents, copyrights and trademarks.

And there's the rub: China has a legendarily poor record on intellectual property protection issues and Ford has a valid reason to be concerned, since the technologies they sold to Geely with the Volvo deal are still part of Ford's US-based product lines. But in light of such cases, past problems have generated a new way to bring IP protection to bear in cases of lax enforcement or theft: "Increasingly, companies such as Ford are reinforcing their claims by specifying sanctions or penalties incurred in any breach of intellectual property in the sales contract." Such stipulations are written into sales contracts with Chinese companies because local courts are "subjective" in their judgments of what constitutes IP theft when the property is from a foreign source.

The Atlantic - Climate Desk: China is also scooping up large amounts of IP from a different, and legal, source: clean-tech energy production deals. And they're turning these deals into the potential to rule the world in green energy technologies with the stated goal of becoming net exporters of solar panels, wind turbines and related products in the near future. Via Slate.com, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nord present their thoughts on China's increasingly dominant energy production position in their topical piece, The Revolution Will Not Be Patented.

[T]he greatest barrier to a much needed energy technology revolution is neither patent law nor the absence of a global climate treaty but, rather, a kind of collective amnesia born of a single-minded neoliberal orthodoxy. Americans have largely forgotten the role of public support in our development. We look at our dams and imagine they were built by private utilities. We credit Google and Apple with the global communications revolution without any awareness that they would not exist had the government not spent billions on microchips, computer-science scholarships, and that white elephant invented in a government laboratory, the Internet.

In fact, such efforts were enabled by the injection of taxpayer dollars into R&D programs at universities and start-up companies that fortunately enough ended up resulting in usable intellectual property often enough to justify the large investments, the authors argue. The article notes plenty of instances of the dominance already enjoyed by China in the solar and wind energy field, happily enabled by market-hungry international companies hoping to get in on the ground floor of what they hope will be the next big thing, so be sure to read the entire piece and see what conclusions you draw from Shellenberger and Nord's thought-provoking work along with some good comments by fellow, gentle readers.

ArsTechnica.com: There should be plenty of lively banter over at the ArsTechnica SoapBox in the coming week with the release of the contents of the ACTA legislation and three related discussion threads already gathering much attention from interested parties. Here's the premise of the ArsTechnica 's effort to get a few ACTA-related conversations started:

After years of secrecy (and the occasional leak), a draft of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) treaty has finally been released by negotiators. We've delved deep into the treaty, highlighting its numerous problems. Indeed, there's a lot not to like about the treaty: Internet disconnections, anticircumvention prohibitions, and even the ability for rightsholders to get injunctions if they can show infringement is imminent.

For the rest of the week, we're going to open up the Soap Box to host the Ars Technica Colloquium on ACTA. We will start the discussion off with a handful of discussions on various aspects of the DMCA and invite you to weigh in.

I'm certain the forums will attract a number of strongly-voiced opinions on ACTA and should prove to be a good hunting ground for viewpoints representing many sides of this contentious and previously secretive international agreement and presents an excellent oppotunity for you, the gentle reader, to weigh in with your very own sentiments. Read Ars Colloquium: the official ACTA treaty draft and your reactions by Eric Bangeman for the beginnings of three threads and join in the community.

TechCrunch.com: Google is at it again. A recent purchase by the world's leading seach engine/online advertising provider is aimed squarely at angering Steve Jobs and the crew at Apple. MG Siegler explains how a handful of chip engineers who used to work for Apple have jumped ship and created a tasty target by the name of Agnilux for Google's seemingly-unlimited tech acquisition appetite:

Some of the chip engineers Apple gained in its purchase of PA Semi appear to have already left the company. According to partial records on the job networking site LinkedIn, at least half a dozen former PA Semi engineers have left Apple and turned up at a start-up called Agnilux, based in San Jose. The company was co-founded by one of PA’s leading system architects, Mark Hayter.

And what exactly Hayter and crew are offering that was worthy of being purchased by Google is still somewhat of a mystery:

What is Agnilux? No one knows for sure, but the New York Times thought enough of it to profile it a few times — and still wasn’t able to find out any more other than they may be doing something with servers.

Check out Siegler's topical post, Battle Cry? Google Buys Stealth Company Founded By Guys That Spurned Apple for the rest of this on-going fight between Google and Apple.

Cnet News:  More analysis and commentary on the recent GAO report on IP piracy continues to roll in and Greg Sandoval's timely article, Feds hampered by incomplete MPAA piracy data, offers some thoughts on why he believes the music industry still needs to polish up their facts and figures a bit to gain the support of Uncle Sam. He writes:

[T]he GAO received a lot of pressure from Congress to do its own study but leaders there concluded it just wasn't feasible. They focused on mining the available research for answers. He said the GAO was concerned that many of the most widely used numbers about the size of piracy in the United States were "wildly inaccurate."

"I think you can do a pretty good job of measuring piracy on a product basis," Yager said. "But from there to go to an industrywide problem you have to make assumptions. And from there to go to a national number...I think that may be impossible."

The GAO said the problem of quantifying piracy over multiple industries across broad geographic boundaries has stumped great minds in Europe as well.

Fred von Lohmann, senior attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, has this to add to the picture:

"I think this shows the film industry is unwilling to stand behind their numbers when they are called into question," von Lohmann said. "I thought the GAO's report was very well done because it was willing to admit this kind of data is hard to get. The GAO didn't say that piracy didn't cause any harm. They just said the data was pretty inadequate. It's a much harder problem to solve than copyright industries have pretended."

So it's not that the MPAA doesn't have a leg to stand on, it's that the GAO couldn't extract the evidence to support what are most certainly valid claims of run-away piracy and billions of dollars in damages. After all, the charter for the GAO's report was clear: "The GAO's study on piracy was a result of a congressional plan to help improve antipiracy efforts. The GAO was there to help groups such as the MPAA and Recording Industry Association of America." There is also a lively comment section accompanying Sadoval's piece, so take a few minutes and consider leaving your own contribution.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: Pirate Party membership plummets post Pirate Bay verdict by Chris Foresman at ArsTechnica.com.

Federal Court Decides Big Pharma Needs To Tighten Up Patent Language

ArsTechnica.com: John Timmer recently reviewed and analyzed a recent patent case that could have significant implications for future pharmaceutical innovations. Timmer's Appeals court strikes down another generic biotech patent explains how a US Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit decision has redefined the requirement to describe in specific terms how to perform the patented idea as needing more details.

Last week, the full US Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit upheld an earlier ruling by a partial panel, invalidating a biotech patent that originated in research at MIT and Harvard. The patent covered any of three ways to disable a signaling pathway involved in the immune response, and would have enabled its licensee, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, to go after companies that already have drugs on the market. The court held, however, that simply specifying different ways of interfering with a protein without any written description of how to do so constituted insufficient grounds for granting a patent.

As luck would have it, the patent in question "didn't include a sufficient description of an actual invention" and the holders of the patent were unsuccessful in their bid to sue a number of companies who had already created drugs that disabled one of the signaling pathways in question. This finding means that future pharma patent applicants will need to include detailed instructions on how to perform a method to enact their idea instead of just generally describing a process or function. Read more about the importance of repeatability and careful patent application language in Timmer's complete piece above.

TechDirt.com: Mike Masnick sent his thoughts on intellectual property enforcement to IP Czar Victoria Espinel last week and provides a much-needed look at a the opinions of a variety of stakeholders who have also expressed their ideas to the White House in his recent post, Must Read: CCIA Sets US IP Czar Straight On Intellectual Property. In it, Masnick writes:

A few days ago, I posted the letter I submitted to the White House IP Czar, Victoria Espinel, concerning her request for comments on the strategic plan for IP enforcement. It was a bit troubling that the questions asked in the RFC focused solely on increased enforcement and the amount of harm done by infringement -- as if it never even occurred to folks that increased enforcement might not be best for culture or the economy, and that there may also be mitigating benefits to infringement. I tried to make that clear in my filing, and it was great to see folks like Public Knowledge and the EFF submit comments as well -- but the really wonderful filing came from the NetCoalition and CCIA, which we discuss below. First, though, it's worth noting that the entertainment industry also made its demands...

If you know anything about Masnick, it's that he isn't convinced of the need for IP protection and actually believes that such measures keep him (and others) from fully enjoying the fruits of their labors. Take a few minutes to read some of the stance of Big Media before settling down for a long trip down Anti-IPR Lane via Masnick's linked piece. Buckle your seatbelts, tho', because it's going to be a bumpy ride!

ArsTechnica.com: But wait, there's more! This time from Nate Anderson, who offers up his thoughts on Espinel's call for input into her IP enforcement policy in Big Content: stopping P2P should be "principal focus" of IP czar. Anderson provides a bit more analysis than Masnick with a special focus on some of the words being used in the submissions to the White House. Here is one catchy paragraph describing some of the filings:

The language varies wildly between the apocalyptic ("menace to our economy, society, and culture") and the melodramatic ("The motion pictures, television programs, and music that our industries create are a representation to the world of our freedoms, our culture, and our diversity. They are woven into the fabric of our culture and are part of our national heritage. Generations of craftspeople, film and recording artists, and creators have learned from and build on the creativity of generations before them—and they have built industries that are like no others in the world.")

I mean, really? Are we writing the script to a soap opera that features Big Media as the misunderstood tycoon standing on the edge of a money vault, prepared to jump in if they don't get their way or are we trying to pen a useful and honest IP enforcement policy that will drag old school content creators into the 21st Century? Sure, there will be some kicking and screaming, but change is never easy and almost always ends up being for the better.

The Register: Things are still heating up in the smartphone patent wars, this time with a big player in the non-practicing entity (NPE) game taking center stage. Here's a description of the "obscenely broad" patent that is sure to be a giant thorn in the side of many smartphone producers:

Entitled "Method and apparatus for controlling a computer system," the patent was filed in July of 2006 and granted this March 16. While those dates may sound too late to be of any worry to smartphone makers, the patent is essentially identical to one filed in March 2001 and granted in December 2004 entitled - you guessed it - "Method and apparatus for controlling a computing system."

Behind the scenes is none other than Nathan Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures, with indignant claims of fair play ruling the day. IV has gathered up thousands of patents in its "invention portfolio" and is selling rights to their treasure trove to all takers if the price is right. IV will even sell a specially-prepared package of offensive patents to those wishing to mount an IP attack against a competitor, and then sell a defensive package to the attacked to defend itself. Kind of like arms-brokering, isn't it? Find out the details of the messy business of playing both sides of the IP "cold war" game in Rik Myslewski's topical article, Mammoth patent troll holder snags smartphone threat. Extra word score points to Myslewski for using "sobriquet" in a sentence.

The Dallas Morning News: Speaking of thorns in one's side, a Dallas, Texas, law firm has taken it upon itself to be just that for Redmond, Washington-based software giant, Microsoft. Cherly Hall reports in her related piece, Patents and patience pay off for Dallas law firm McKool Smith, that McKool Smith PC is revved up by the possibility of more lawsuit victories:

The folks at Microsoft Corp. have to be more than a little ticked at Mike McKool and his law firm.

In the last year, McKool Smith PC has won nearly $400 million in two patent infringement victories against the Redmond, Wash., software giant. It just filed a third suit, hoping for more of the same.

Kevin Kutz, Microsoft's director of public affairs, says his company will continue vigorous efforts to reverse these decisions and will challenge the latest legal assault. Beyond that, Microsoft isn't talking.

The law firm works partially on an hourly basis and rounds out its case load with contingency work that is a bit riskier but holds the possibility of damage awards in the tens of millions of dollar range should the outcome be favorable.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: The Medicines Company Files Lawsuit Against U.S. Patent and Trademark Office at TransWorldNews.com.