USPTO classes to help with your NY resolutions

Happy New Year! It is that time of year where many of us face up to our holiday excesses and resolve to improve our habits at the outset of the new year.

If you stretch your imagination, you can see that patents and New Year's resolutions have a lot in common -- both represent a step in the direction of progress, a promise of an improved state of being. (Not to mention the not-so-great success rates.)

This year, to improve on that chance of success, I recommend taking inspiration from the designers, scientists, engineers, and home tinkerers whose hard work towards technological innovations has led to improvements in quality of life for many of us.

Like any responsible librarian, I'm a die-hard classification searching advocate, so let's take a look at some classes and subclasses that address common resolutions:

Lose weight/get in shape
Class 482 Exercise Devices

The CDC recommends that adults exercise for at least 30 minutes each day. Dip into 482 to check out what people have done to develop exercise equipment that is safe and effective.

Travel more
Class 206 Special Receptacle or Package

Traveling is a great way to broaden cultural knowledge and a very respectable resolution. Before you pack your bags, have a look through Class 206, particularly under Subclass 278. Maybe there's a suitcase in there that will change the way we pack!

Keep better tabs on finances/pay bills on time/get out of debt
Class 705 Data Processing: Financial, Business Practice, Management, or Cost/Price Determination

Though the future of business method patents is a little unclear after the Bilski decision, you'll still find plenty of financial planning methods listed under Subclass 35 of Class 705. It's a brave new world! Of course, if you want to stick to paper and pen, check out fabulous file cabinet designs under Class D06 (Furnishings), particularly under Subclass 432.

Quit smoking
Class 546 Organic Compounds? Class 514 Drug, Bio-Affecting, Body Treating Compounds?

This one's tricky, and not just because there are a bunch of different ways to quit smoking. No, this one's tricky because I've never been too hot at chemistry. However, it's very possible nicotine replacement therapies fall under one of these categories. Just tell yourself that you'll have a cigarette as soon as you find it. By the time you do, you'll have broken the habit. Oh, and maybe chew some gum, which you'll likely find under 426 Food or Edible Material.

Here's wishing you the best of luck on your New Year's resolutions. Whether or not you find inspiration in the patent files, know that I like you just the way you are.

Happy New Year!

French court orders Google to stop Books project

The LA Times reports that Google has lost its first major court case involving its controversial book digitization project.

A Paris court ruled this week that Google's project violated French copyright law and that Google must pay a large fine and take down French works cited in the case. This ruling comes hot on the heels of a large settlement between Google and a number of US publishers and authors.

Right before the the court ruling, Nicolas Sarkozy pledged 750,000 Euros to support an all-French book digitization project.

The French objection to Google seems to have as much to do with wanting to preserve French culture as it does with disapproval of Google's interpretation of copyright law.

US Customs to Santa: "Don't put fakes in the stockings"

Taking a new direction from their traditional holiday warnings (Make sure that turkey is fully cooked! Make the neighborhood kids shovel the walk if you have a heart condition!), the federal government today issued a warning against buying unlicensed knockoff products as gifts this holiday season.

According to this AP report, US Customs and Border Protection wants to remind everyone that, besides being illegal, counterfeit products may not conform to the same safety standards as the genuine article.

It's worth noting here that a significant benefit of registering a trademark with the USPTO is that customs will work to prevent unlicensed fakes from entering the country. Learn more here and here.

Patent exchange to launch next year

CNN Money reports that a Chicago-based patent exchange is set to launch in February. The exchange will function like a stock exchange by selling and promoting shares of patent licenses.

This is a unique approach to selling intellectual property. Traditionally, patent licensing deals happened behind closed doors; this exchange will publish prices on its website.

According to the article, experts seem to predict that the exchange will either represent a breakthrough in valuing intellectual property or it will result in an uncontrollable tidal wave of litigation. Either way, it will be interesting to watch it develop.

Outstanding copyright tool

Have a look at this terrific copyright term slide-rule thingy created by Michael Brewer and the ALA Office for Information Technology Policy.

Part of the reason I love it so much is that I once spent an entire afternoon trying to make a flowchart to convey the same information. (It's impossible.)

This Michael Brewer guy has made some pretty far-out guides to intellectual property, which you can check out via Stanford's Copyright and Fair Use Center blog here.

USPTO announces that it is now slightly easier being green

In a press release in which the word "green" appeared 12 times, the USPTO announced Monday a new incentive to give a leg-up to inventors who have filed patent applications for technologies designed to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy efficiency.

Under the initiative, applicants who have a pending application in a qualifying technology can petition to have their applications moved to the front of the queue. The first 3000 proper petitions will be given the accelerated examination.

Inventors Digest breaks it down clearly here.

Let the Green Rush begin!

Hot off the Federal Register, USPTO plan to help small entities move patent applications more quickly

During these tough times, it seems everybody's asking "Where's my stimulus?" For some small-entity patent applicants, the USPTO has come through with a Patent Application Backlog Reduction Stimulus Plan.

The USPTO announced in Friday's Federal Register a program that would allow small entities with multiple pending applications to elect to abandon one application and allow one further down the queue to take its place. That means that, for example, if my application from 2006 is no longer of use to me, but I have one from 2008 that's looking promising, I can request that the USPTO dump the 2006 app and move the 2008 up to the older application's spot in line. It's a win-win: the inventor gets a quicker patent issue and the USPTO gets to drop some dead-weight patent applications from their workload.

Read the full announcement here to get the details.

UK pub fined because of customer's illegal filesharing

CNET picked up a scary story from its UK sister site ZDNet UK about a pub (that's English for bar) being dinged because a customer used its open WiFi network to download copyrighted material.

Questions about liability in an open internet connection plague us on this side of the Atlantic, too. Copyright holders have put pressure on Internet Service Providers to police the users on their networks; current copyright law in the US limits the liability of service providers.

It will be interesting to see if Internet cafes (or pubs) will begin to either close their networks or stop offering them altogether as a result of this action.

A holiday-themed trademark search lesson

Many of the folks who visit our reference desk to learn about trademark searching are interested in searching logos, which is why this year I'm thankful that the USPTO has provided us with the ingenious trademark design search code scheme.

Images are an subject where keyword searching often fails us. Here's the relatively simple procedure for finding designs in TESS, the USPTO's trademark database:

1. Point your browser to the Design Search Code Manual.
2. Click the link for keyword search, then type in a search term describing your logo.
3. If there's a match, jot down the number given for your design type.
4. Access TESS by clicking on Search Marks at the Trademark homepage. Choose either the structured search or the free form search.
   
5. Type in the design code number, plus any other search terms, in the search form. (In structured search, choose design code in the dropdown menu for the field you're using; in the advanced search, use the [DC] field code.

Another useful image-searching tip is to click on the blue "Images" button on the TESS results page. This will bring up a table allowing you to browse images.

If you want to practice over the holiday, I recommend trying Design Search Code 03.15.05. Gobble Gobble!

Trademark Intro at SFPL 10/21 3-4

FYI, here's an upcoming class at SFPL on Saturday, November 21 from 3-4 in the Fifth Floor Training Center:

A trademark search can reveal much valuable information for people hoping to protect a business or product name, those who already have a mark and wish to defend, and for those seeking information about new products and services that may be entering the marketplace. In this class, we will discuss basic facts about trademarks; some fundamentals of conducting a trademark search using the US Patent and Trademark Office website; and information about finding and using SFPL trademark resources.

Taking a look at the New USPTO Website: The "How do I?" menu

There's an argument among librarians about whether it is best to identify information sources on websites and in physical spaces by their proper names or to identify them based on the type of questions that might bring a person to that source. Should we put a sign on the reference desk that says "reference desk" or should the sign say "ask?" On the website, should the link say "databases" or should it say "find articles here?" The concern we're trying to address is that jargon, of which there is much in libraries, is a barrier to navigating the library.

The correct answer is probably a combination of the two, based on the situation. (For instance, catalog could be considered low-grade jargon, but it seems to be the best noun to describe what it is, so why not call it the catalog but use the verb search or something along those lines. I'm sure you're all fascinated with this hot debate.)

The new USPTO employs the FAQ-style technique to great effect in the new "How do I..." menu at the right-hand corner of the webpage header. They've taken a list of the most common tasks that people accessing the site wish to complete and linked information about how to complete those tasks. It aids navigation through an enormous site, addresses common information needs, and includes a link to a list of PTDL libraries. Perfect!

Taking a look at the new USPTO website: Patents and Trademarks process

I've eaten the same lunch (peanut butter sandwich and a piece of fruit) pretty much every day for almost 20 years now. I haven't changed shampoo brands (a certain discount brand's coconut scent) since I left for college. I can't say that I have a favorite album, movie, or book, but I've probably listened to Exile on Main Street on average about once a month since I was ten, seen Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome a couple of times a year since about that age, and I've reread East of Eden, flawed though it may be, more than any other book, probably half a dozen times.

I would consider none of these items my favorite in their respective categories; my point is that I have a tendency to find something that works and then get really comfortable with it. So when the USPTO changed their website, I had a brief period of curiosity and excitement followed by a state of confusion. The previous website was certainly far from "user friendly," but, by golly, it was familiar. I had learned the complicated ritual of clicks and scrolls required to get to, for instance, the Index to the USPC, or the Design Code Search Manual.

Here's the point of all of the above navel-gazing: the new website is much better organized, and it has retained some of the best parts of the old while introducing some vast improvements. While I'm gradually getting accustomed to it, I plan to highlight in this space some of the new features (or old features that were previously buried) that work well.

The first really cool new features are two handy lists called Patents Process and The Trademark Process. The folks at the PTO have taken the very complicated processes of applying for patents or trademarks and broken them down into five and nine steps, respectively.

Exhaustive it ain't. But what these lists are is a starting point, complete with links to the relevant tools and search guides. These lists make dealing with the USPTO seem doable, which is very valuable for small entities. For me, this means a new resource for library patrons who are just about ready to dive into the weird and wonderful world of intellectual property.

The iPhone profit pie

Marketplace's Scott Tong had a great piece in yesterday's show about the chain of profits coming from Apple's iPhone.

Japanese, Korean, and Chinese companies pull in varying percentages of the profit from an iPhone by selling parts and, particularly in China's case, labor to Apple during the production of the phone.

The crux of the story is that, though many different companies across the world do much of the work to manufacture the iPhone, Apple still takes in an estimated half of the profit on every $300 iPhone, compared to, say, around $4 per phone for the Chinese companies who build them. From the transcript:

From China's perspective, here's the moral of the iPhone story: the dominant players in the global economy are the inventors and the brand owners: whether it's electronics, or cars, or clothing.

It's an important lesson! Intellectual Property is big money in the modern world, whether it's a patent for an innovative touch screen or a trendy Apple logo. Listen to the whole story here.

LO -- The Internet turns 40 today

On October 29th, 1969, while folks in San Francisco were getting together for events like this, scientists just down the Peninsula in Menlo Park managed to get two computers to communicate with each other.

With that first transmission (the computer tried to display "LOGIN" but crashed after "LO"), the Internet was arguably born, 40 years ago today. Happy birthday, Internet!

The story of the ARPA NET, the Defense Department project that laid the groundwork for the World Wide Web, is quite interesting. Here's a great summary from DARPA themselves, complete with a reprint of what appears to be a cocktail napkin sketch of the Internet, reprinted at the top of this post.

Because of evidence bungle, we may never get a verdict in the Fairey fair use case

Wired reported last week that Shepard Fairey lied to his attorneys and tried to destroy evidence related to his copyright infringement case brought by the Associated Press for his adaptation of an AP photo of Barack Obama.

Quick recap: Shepard Fairey, a visual artist known for his provocative street art, created an iconic campaign poster for the Obama 2008 campaign. Fairey did not reveal the model for the image in the poster, but when it was discovered that the portrait was based on a 2006 photograph taken by an AP photographer, the AP sued Fairey for using their image without permission.

The suit quickly became the basis for a hot debate on fair use, the copyright doctrine that allows for portions of copyrighted works to be used by others under certain circumstances. I've written about the case twice, here and here.

Part of the case was a dispute about which of two very similar photos Fairey based his work on. Last week Fairey admitted that he had lied about which photo he used and had tried to destroy evidence. He claims that it was initially a mistake, but that he continued to lie once he realized his mistake.

Many in the press have speculated that Fairey's ethical blunder may cause him to lose his case before the fair use element can be argued.

That would be a serious bummer. Interpretation of copyright law in the United States is largely based on precedent; a ruling in this case from a Federal judge would have offered some guidance on some very pressing copyright questions.

The case isn't closed yet, so I suppose you could say there's still "hope" that we'll get a ruling out of this after all.

Judge rules that cell phone ringtones are not public performances, teenagers on Muni rejoice

Wired reports that a federal judge has rejected a claim by ASCAP that a cell phone ringtone constitutes a public performance of a song and is therefore subject to royalties.

ASCAP is one of a few performance rights organizations collecting royalties on behalf of music publishers for music recordings that are played publicly, generally on the radio.

Companies selling ringtones must already pay licensing fees to record companies to create ringtones based on popular songs; ASCAP sought the right to seek further royalties, presumably from people whose ringtone-equipped phones ring in public.

As a supporter of reasonable application of copyright laws, part of me is happy about this ruling. I have to admit, though, that the librarian in me suspects that if people had to pay a little every time their cell phone went off in public, this might be a slightly more peaceful world...

In which our librarian considers an improvement to the simple umbrella

It is rainy today! Umbrellas are out in force, which got me thinking -- I wonder if anybody's patented an umbrella with a built in candy or gum dispenser?

Actually, to back up a bit, I began to think about umbrellas this morning on my walk in to work because I saw so many casualties to the wind that accompanied today's rain. We can put astronauts on the moon, but we can't come up with a wind-proof umbrella? (I guess there's no wind on the moon, but still...)

A Google search reassured me that there are plenty of innovative umbrellas on the market that at least claim to be wind proof, so ingneuity is not yet dead. Which got me thinking further -- what other innovations in the world of the umbrella have I missed? Could there be an umbrella Pez dispenser that I don't know about?

A quick search of the Index to Patent Classification shows that umbrella innovation is an active area of technology:

135 is a hot class! Check out all of the different subclasses for umbrellas:


And there are plenty of great patents. I just pulled a few from 135/16, Umbrellas Combined.

Here's an umbrella for a pooch:

This one has a pillow for when you're sleepy and it's raining:



No more watered down beverages when it's raining:




This umbrella's a good listener:




But really, I think many of us want nothing more than to curl up with a good book on a rainy day. Thanks to this final patent, that no longer precludes going outside:




Long live innovation!

Tavern on the Green is broke, but Tavern on the Green is worth millions

Here's a great illustration of how valuable intellectual property can be. The New York Times reported yesterday that Tavern on the Green, the venerable Central Park restaurant that has been in operation since the 1930's, has gone through some tumultuous times this year. New York City's parks department leased the rights to operate the restaurant to the LeRoy family in 1973. The lease expired this year, and the LeRoys lost the bid to renew their lease. However, though the LeRoys have lost the restaurant, the name Tavern on the Green is registered under the family's business name.

That means that the city cannot include the right to offer the business name, which was recently appraised at $19 million (!), to the new operators. The city seems to be preparing to try to retain the rights to the name in court.

$19 million, and that doesn't even include the silverware! That said, it stands to reason that, particularly with longstanding businesses, the brand can be every bit as valuable as the good or service offered. San Franciscans can think about it this way: would you eat at Blue's Coffee Shack?

Check out the USPTO's new digs

http://uspto.gov/

US Olympic Committe is testing the limits of USC Title 36, Section 220506 (d)(3)(c)

As the Olympic torch made its way through San Francisco back in April 2008, I took the opportunity to write a bit about the special intellectual property rights enjoyed by the US Olympic Committee. The long and short of it is that, by act of Congress, the USOC's right to use the Olympic moniker, or

“Olympiad”, “Citius Altius Fortius”, “Paralympic”, “Paralympiad”, “Pan-American”, “America Espirito Sport Fraternite”, or any combination of those words.

is protected under US Code Title 36, Section 220506. For some reason, I found this fascinating, and even wrote a follow-up post linking to funny Wall Street Journal Article about some of the would-be Olympic-style names that have been shut down over the years. Also of interest to me are the exemptions in the law, including some grandfather provisions and a very specific geographic exemption for

business, goods, or services [that] are operated, sold, and marketed in the State of Washington west of the Cascade Mountain range and operations, sales, and marketing outside of this area are not substantial.

Despite my expectation that such narrow exemptions would not make much of a difference to anybody, the AP reported this week that Olympia, WA's Olympian newspaper is the target for the USOC's latest lawsuit for infringement against their mark.

The Olympian has responded by pointing out that it has used the name since 1889 and that it resides West of the demarcation line.

As a brief personal aside, I'd like to point out that this has been a bad year for both newspapers and for the US Olympic Committee. Perhaps the USOC is feeling a bit down and is looking for an easy target upon which to vent...

Disclosure: USPTO freebies abound at SFPL

In light of a recent FTC guideline requiring bloggers to disclose payola, I'd better fess up to all of the free stuff that the USPTO has sent the San Francisco Public Library over the years.

Since 1995, the San Francisco Public Library has participated in the Patent and Trademark Depository Library Program, through which we receive electronic and paper materials and training from the US Patent and Trademark Office. Here's a sample of some of the stuff that we (and by we, I mean everybody in California and beyond who gets easy access to the materials) have gotten through this program over the years:

• Patents, patent applications, trademarks, patent reissues and certificates of correction, Official Gazettes, and bibliographic tools to find all of these documents. (These are available on DVD and CD ROMS here in the library, but lots of this information can be found online via uspto.gov.)
• USPTO annual reports, special reports, fee schedules, and directories.
• Paper copies of all issuing plant patents. (They include lovely color photos, btw.)
• Manuals: MPEP, TMEP, TTAB, ETC.
• PubWEST -- I'll say more about that in a later post.
• Handouts and brochures. (Take a look at the list; we either have them all at the library or we can get one for you.)
• Perhaps most importantly, training and support for our librarians. It is because of this program that you are able to come to SFPL (and many other libraries across the country) and get in-person help.

USPTO working on ways to cut backlog

The USPTO is hoping to improve employee morale and cut back on its not-insignificant patent application backlog by revising the "count system" (a modified GSA pay schedule that includes pay incentives for patent examiners) along with some procedural changes in the examination process.

The Washington Post reports today that top brass on the patent side of the USPTO are working with the examiners' union to increase incentives for examiners to quickly and accurately work through applications. According to the USPTO press release, the changes will actually allow examiners more time to work on applications, but will provide opportunities for examiners to communicate with applicants before they begin the examination. Examiners will also get more credits for acting on an application early and fewer credits for recommending further examination.

Independent Inventors Conference to be hosted by USPTO Nov. 5-6

For all you independent inventors out there who are bummed because you don't get to go to conferences, here's your chance!

The USPTO, along with the National Inventors Hall of Fame, will be hosting the 14th Annual Independent Inventors Conference on November 5th and 6th in Alexandria, VA.

It looks like the conference will be packed with plenty of good information on topics such as patent filing, trademark searching, Patent Cooperation Treaty filings, licensing, and plenty more. Registration is cheap -- $120 -- though lodging in Alexandria can be pretty steep. (At the risk of facing the wrath of the Alexandria Visitor's Bureau, here's a tip: price hotels in the surrounding areas. When I recently attended a conference at the USPTO, I found a room in Washington, D.C. that cost half as much as the cheapest room I could find in Alexandria. As long as you're near a DC Metro, the commute to the USPTO campus is pretty reasonable.)

This conference looks worthwhile if you're an independent inventor and you're interested. In fact, even if you're not that interested in the conference, the USPTO campus is worth a visit.

Follow this link to registration and agenda information via uspto.gov.

Cookbook trademark suit recipe for failure says New York judge

A hat tip to SFPL's resident San Francisco documents/cookbook expert for pointing out the latest culinary intellectual property showdown.

The New York Times reported a couple weeks ago that US Circuit Court judge in New York has thrown out a trademark infringement case brought against Jessica Seinfeld by cookbook author Missy Chase Lapine. Lapine claimed that Seinfeld's recent cookbook, entitled "Deceptively Delicious," was confusingly similar to her own "The Sneaky Chef."

While it's true that both books are about sneaking healthy foods into kids' meals, the judge ruled that there's no likelihood of consumer confusion, which is the primary test for trademark infringement. Judge Laura Taylor Swain's decision can double as a quickie book review for busy parents:

She called Lapine's book ''a dry, rather text-heavy work'' done predominantly in black, gray and shades of brownish-orange. She said Seinfeld's book was ''bright and cheerful, full of different colors and various patterns.'' Consumers who looked at each book were unlikely to be confused, the judge said, tossing out trademark infringement claims.

I wonder which book she liked better? Also, in the interest full disclosure, I'm not aware of the judge actually using any puns in her ruling, including the one from the title of this post.

In all seriousness, though, this story provides a good opportunity to highlight a characteristic about intellectual property that trips many people up: you cannot protect an idea, no matter how good or unique it is. Sure, all intellectual property is rooted in an idea, but the law only provides for the protection of a concrete manifestation of that idea.

Patents don't protect ideas, but rather articles of manufacture or methods for doing something. The article or method has to be expressed in some tangible medium, preferably in a working model. And the protection doesn't work to keep people from using the idea, but rather it keeps people from manufacturing or selling a particular product that is protected.

A copyright might seem like it's protecting an idea, but all that is actually protected is, again, the expression of the idea, in this case fixed in a tangible form. The copyright protecting a book protects the words on the page, not the themes or narrative arc of the story.

Lapine's objection to Seinfeld's book seems to be that Seinfeld stole her idea. I can't say whether that's true or not , but the judge's decision to toss the case illustrates the guiding concept behind trademarks, that two products should not be so similar in appearance or sound as to confuse consumers. Seinfeld's book didn't look like Lapine's, so there's no problem.

BTW, this is the first I've heard of parents sneaking health food into their kids' dinners. I do remember once my Grandma sneaking butter into some broccoli that my mother was planning to serve unadorned, though. Different times, those were.

IP slowdown as economic indicator

In case you still are not quite convinced that the global economy has slowed down quite a bit over the past 20 months or so, here's another piece of evidence of global recession.

WIPO released a study last week indicating that growth in intellectual property filings worldwide slowed down in 2007 and 2008 and that trademark filings may have actually decreased in 2008. I can't imagine this report is surprising to most, but it is nonetheless troubling.

As a purely unscientific aside, I've observed here in the Patent and Trademark Center that independent inventor and small business startup traffic has increased. It's anyone's guess as to why seemingly more people are stopping in, calling, or writing to ask about patents and trademarks, but I like to think that perhaps people who have lost their jobs are deciding that now is the time to act on ideas that they've been thinking about for years but have been too busy to pursue. Hey, somebody's gotta be an optimist...

National Medal of Innovation and Technology Laureates announced, include medical and telecommunications experts

I probably give too much attention to goofy or frivolous patents in this space.

Sure, people come up with some wacky inventions and somehow manage to get them through the patent prosecution process. And sure, those inventions offer a glimpse into the absurd side of American commerce and technology.

But the real value of the patent system is represented by people like this year's Medal of Innovation and Technology recipients, people who put their skill, training, and problem-solving ability to work to develop technologies that contribute to the world's knowledge and, often, incrementally improve the quality of life for people around the world.

Here are the winners, from the USPTO press release (hyperlinks to more info are mine):

• Dr. Forrest M. Bird for his pioneering work in the field of respiratory and cardiopulmonary care including the revolutionary BABYBird®. This device dramatically reduced the infant respiratory failure mortality rate from approximately 70 percent to 10 percent. His more recent medical invention of Intrapulmonary Percussive Ventilation (IPV) ® concepts have reduced pulmonary failure in the most critically injured military and civilian burn patients from about 75 percent to 5 percent. Dr. Bird’s innovations have saved millions of lives.
• Dr. Esther S. Takeuchi for the development of the silver vanadium oxide battery technology which powers the majority of today’s implantable cardiac defibrillators and innovations related to other enabling medical battery technologies that power implantable pacemakers, implantable neurostimulators and left ventricular assist devices. Dr. Takeuchi’s innovations have saved and dramatically improved the quality of hundreds of thousands of human lives.
• Dr. John E. Warnock and Dr. Charles M Geschke for their pioneering contributions that spurred the desktop publishing revolution and for changing the way people create and engage with information and entertainment across multiple mediums including print, Web and video.
• International Business Machines Corporation for the IBM Blue Gene supercomputer, which re-established United States leadership in high performance computing. Blue Gene’s systems architecture, design and software have delivered fundamental new science, unsurpassed speed and unparalleled energy efficiency, which have had a profound impact on the worldwide high-performance computing industry.

Ellen show producers "don't roll that way," get sued for infringement

While I spent last week on vacation back East (investigating important intellectual property matters, of course) I missed the chance to get an early scoop on what will probably be a very expensive case of intellectual property nonchalance.

The Tennessean reports that when producers of Ellen Degeneres' daytime TV talk show were approached by record company lawyers about their failure to obtain permission to use songs for the show's many dance segments they were told that the producers "did not roll that way."

It's terrible form, but I'm going to quote the Nashville Scene blog, who quoted the Tennessean, who quoted the record company lawyers' response to Ellen's producers:

"As sophisticated consumers of music," attorneys for the recording companies wrote in the suit, "Defendants knew full well that, regardless of the way they rolled, under the Copyright Act, and under state law for the pre-1972 recordings, they needed a license to use the sound recordings lawfully."

Let that be a lesson to all of us: regardless of the way you roll, mind your copyright P's and Q's.

I'm just sayin...

September is National Library Card Sign-up Month, and while you don't need to have a library card in order to utilize many of SFPL's patent, trademark, and copyright resources, I can't resist throwing a pitch to those of you who live in the area.

I know that Lawrence Lessig has used a Creative Commons license to make an online version of his latest, Remix, available for free download, but if you find it a pain to read eBooks on Muni, stop by the library and check out a copy for free.

Or, if you're getting ready to delve into a personal venture and are exploring your IP options, why not save your dough for start-up costs and use your library card to access electronic versions of many of the most popular patent and trademark titles from Nolo Press?

Want to hear the source material for the mashup that brought the issue to the foreground? Check it out here and here.

I'll stop with the librarian peer pressure, but, all I'm saying is, a little library card goes a long way.

FW: Is Creative Commons Bad for Copyright?

An interesting editorial from the folks over at copycense...

Should ISP's drop copyright scofflaws?

Here's an interesting bit of news from the New York Times yesterday: British government officials are considering legislation that would require Internet service providers (ISP) to pull the plug on customers caught participating in illegal filesharing. French President Nicolas Sarkozy put forth a similar proposal a couple of years ago in France.

It's not clear whether either country will proceed with such an approach to piracy, and I'm sure that, if lawmakers get more serious about pursuing such a measure, there will be very fierce opposition.

Anyone think something like this would go over in the U.S.? Please feel free to comment below.

Les Paul, the only person to be inducted to both Rock and Roll and Inventor's Hall of Fames

Les Paul, the great jazz/pop guitarist and inventor of the modern solid body electric guitar passed away on August 13th. Paul was 94 years old.

Paul's musical performance career began in the 1930's playing jazz and country music on the radio and touring with a popular dance orchestra. During that period, he began to tinker with guitars and amplification. At the time, electric guitars were a relatively recent innovation, and the guitars available on the market were "hollowbodies," structurally similar to acoustic guitars. Paul found that the tone was weak and the guitars were prone to feedback.

“I was interested in proving that a vibration-free top was the way to go. I even built a guitar out of a railroad rail to prove it. What I wanted was to amplify pure string vibration, without the resonance of the wood getting involved in the sound." Les Paul, quoted in a nice profile on Gibson's website.

That railroad rail evolved into the first solid body electric guitar, Patent No. 3,018,680.

Paul continued tinkering with sound recording and technique over the next 7 (!) decades, always pushing the envelope in terms of both his equipment and his playing style. He was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1988 the National Inventor's Hall of Fame in 2005.

Flickr takes down photo, steps into censorship debate

Last week, popular photo-sharing website Flickr removed a Photoshop-altered image of President Barack Obama from the creator's page, citing a violation of copyright law and, therefore, a violation of Flickrs terms of use.

College student Firas Alkhateeb "Jokerized" a portrait of Barack Obama, taken from an October 2006 Time Magazine cover, using Photoshop. After another person borrowed the image for a postering campaign in Los Angeles and the image began to get some attention, Flickr removed the image from its servers. According to an LA Times profile last week, Flickr contacted Alkhateeb to tell him that the image was removed because of "copyright-infringement concerns."

Flickr's actions have prompted much criticism, drawing cries of censorship from bloggers and newspaper editorialists alike.

The photograph of Obama is protected by copyright, but folks' objection to Flickr's action has centered on fair use. Fair use, as the Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center's website explains, is"a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials forpurposes of commentary and criticism." One significant exception to copyright law is that, under fair use, people can copy a portion of a protected work for the purpose of parody.

The authors of the pieces I've linked to within this post are in a much better position that I am to weigh in on the debate, but I'd recommend having a look at these summaries of parody cases compiled by Richard Stim and try to decide for yourself: was the Obama/Joker image copyright infringement or parody? Interesting stuff...

Re-Mix Culture on Wisconsin Public Radio

To the Best of Our Knowledge is a great radio show from Wisconsin Public Radio (it's syndicated, and you can hear it in San Francisco on both KALW and KQED) that has sort of a magazine format -- they'll address a topic from various angles with a few segments over an hour.

On Sunday evening, I found myself taking my time washing the dishes while I listened to their hour-long discussion of what folks call Re-Mix (or remix) culture.

In the program, DJ Spooky and The World Famous Audio Hacker talk about mashups; Lawrence Lessig makes a plea for reforming copyright laws that, he argues, make an entire generation feel like criminals; and Jason Bittner, an editor at CassetteFromMyEx.com, talks about that site's adventures in bringing the previous generation's remix format to the Web.

It's fun listen, highly recommended!

Fun with public domain

Public domain may be making your summer more fun and you may not even know it.

I've heard from someone I trust in these matters that Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is an excellent read. (The critic in question is an avid reader who counts zombie stories and Jane Austen novels among her top three literary genres. The other one is contemporary Shojo Manga.)

The novel in question, for the uninitiated, is an adaptation of Jane Austen's 1813 novel of manners that has won over many hearts and minds in countless undergraduate literature classes and PBS productions. Much of the plot, characters, and tone are very similar to Austen's. Just, with zombies. Oh, and ninjas.

So, why is OK for Seth Grahame-Smith to knock off Austen's work?

Pride and Prejudice was published almost 200 years ago, which puts it squarely in the public domain. That means that there's no prohibition against reprinting, copying, or, in this case, repurposing Austen's work. (That also means that the book can be made available online, in its entirety, for free.)

Generally speaking, any work published in the U.S. prior to 1923 has entered the public domain. There are some other ways that works enter the public domain, too. Copyright owners can dedicate books to the public domain, for instance, which is pretty rare. Because of the way the law was written earlier in the 20th Century, works published between 1923 and 1964 had to have been renewed in the 28th year after their publication. If the copyright owner failed to renew, the works entered Public Domain. (Stanford University Libraries have created a searchable database of copyright renewals that's available here.)

Unfortunately, legal protection for sound recordings was treated different during much of the 20th Century, which means that, under current law, we won't see public domain sound recordings until the second half of the 21st Century, at the earliest. So you can probably scrap your plan to record "The White Album with Werewolves" or "Milestones with Mummies."

However...Don Juan with Dinosaurs? Yes. Great Gatsby and Goblins? Almost, but not yet.

Another beaut

This one's from Apple.

Special thanks to my neighbor for the tip.

Giddyup!

The best patent I've seen this week. Particularly the drawing.

Small business IP rundown from NY Times

The New York Times ran a nice little intellectual property primer last week, which you can read here. It's nicely written, with an accessible question-and-answer format and plenty of real-life experiences to highlight concepts. Worth a read!

Senate confirms new USPTO chief

On Thursday, Senators on the Judiciary Committee warmed up for that other confirmation vote by unanimously approving the nomination of IBM Intellectual Property boss David Kappos to be the head of the Patent and Trademark Office.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Kappos has pledged to streamline the patent application process, improve the quality of granted patents, and crack down on piracy and counterfeiting. Kappos also inherits a 770,000 application backlog.

Copyright fee changes

FYI for you creative types: the Copyright Office is now going to greater lengths to discourage you from using paper forms to register your works.

New fees went into effect on August 1, with paper filing fees starting at $50 for Form CO, which you fill out using a computer, then print and out and mail. Basic registration using paper that you fill out by hand is up to $65!

For $35, most works of authorship can be filed electronically. This fee is actually lower than the old basic filing fee from before electronic filing became available, which was $45.

I'd say that should be incentive for just about anyone to use the online registration system. If you're in the neighborhood, please feel free to drop by the Government Information Desk to get more information about online registration.

If you or someone you know needs help learning to use a computer, the library's got you covered with regular free computer basics classes. Visit sfpl.org and click on "Classes" to get an up-to-date listing of classes.

On an unrelated note, and, again, if you're in the City (whether physically or in spirit), join in the fun and check out this year's One City, One Book selection, Alive in Necropolis by Doug Dorst.

“Playing with games in this way is not a game, it is criminal”

Thus spoke an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent when asked to comment on the arrest yesterday of an Orange County man accused of modifying video game consoles to enable them to play pirated games.

Wired reports that 27 year-old Matthew Crippen was arrested by Homeland Security officers and charged with violating US copyright law. He allegedly charged customers a hundred bucks to "jailbreak" their consoles, meaning he would circumvent coding in the consoles that prevented people from playing illegally copied games.

Have a look at the story for the details. For the purpose of this blog, two elements of this arrest highlight interesting characteristics of 21st Century copyright law enforcement.

Since the consoles were (presumably) legally purchased by Crippen's customers, weren't they the property of the owners? Why can't they tinker with their own video game consoles?

In 1998, Congress passed The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which expanded the control that copyright owners had over their property. That controversial legislation altered Title 17 (which contains U.S. copyright law) to include a prohibition of "circumvent[ing] a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." If the manufacturer of an electronic product (video games, CDs, DVDs, software, etc.) includes in the product coding that prevents unauthorized copying, it is against the law for consumers to tinker with that code in order to circumvent the copyright protection.

You can probably imagine that this is a controversial law. If you're interested, here are some resources for further reading:

Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center: A top-notch collection of resources, and a great place to start.

Princeton's Center for Information Technology Policy and, specifically, the Freedom to Tinker blog.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, right here in San Francisco.

Copyright Office: Section 12, plus full text of Title 17.

The American Library Association has some resources available here.

And, finally, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency site with information about intellectual property. This last one brings us to the other point of interest regarding Crippen's arrest, which is: Why was he arrested by Homeland Security officers?

According to their website, the Cyber Crimes Center division of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, both of which are under the Department of Homeland Security, investigates intellectual property violations. Here's a blurb from their website:

The CCS has encountered thousands of web sites based in the United States, as well as foreign that are engaged in the sale of counterfeit merchandise (including music and software) via the Internet. The CCS continues to work closely with the National IPR Coordination Center, the Computer Crimes and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) at the DOJ, and industry representatives to identify web sites responsible for the sale of the counterfeit items.

They are not the only agency that investigates intellectual property cases; depending on the type of intellectual property, the Department of Justice, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Commerce, and the Postal Service may conduct an investigation. In fact, these agencies all cooperate at the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center.

If it sounds complicated, that's probably because it is. Traditionally, intellectual property rights have been enforced by the owner. That is, as the owner of a copyright, patent, or trademark, it was generally up to me to bring infringers to court.

Two related things seem to have happened over the last two decades to change that. First, the Internet seems to have facilitated intellectual property infringement by making communication (and file sharing, graphics production, black market sales, etc.) easier. Second, Congress passed the DMCA as a response to new methods of infringement. The agencies mentioned above have all been called upon to investigate intellectual property cases.

Which brings us back to the question: Why Immigration? I'm not sure, but probably because they got the tip -- according to the AP, from the Entertainment Software Association -- and, since it does fall into their mission, they acted upon it.

You can find more information about Federal efforts to stop piracy at StopFakes.gov.

Subversive web comic used to push smoothie chain? Must be an IP controversy!

A recent advertising campaign by juice shop chain Jamba Juice has prompted a lively debate across social media sites regarding its possible co-opting of a popular cartoonist's technique.

In a recent advertising spot on the company's website, Jamba Juice used images taken from clip art to depict two characters talking about taking a vacation in their cubicles by drinking Jamba Juice.

Clip art characters are in the public domain, so there wouldn't have been a problem but for one thing: the creators of the Jamba cartoon used the same two images (out of thousands of available clip art characters) that have been used most frequently by popular web cartoonist David Rees for his strips Get Your War On and My New Filing Technique is Unstoppable.

The general consensus seems to be that, since the clip art is in the public domain, there's no copyright infringement here. George Washington School of Law student Andy makes a convincing case on his blog for this being a trademark or trade dress issue. Many commentors don't see any illegal activity on Jamba's part, but a fair amount of sleaziness in their copying Rees' style, particularly because Rees' cartoons are decidedly anti-corporate. (If this blog were to have an editorial opinion, it might fall into the last category, but we are, of course, objective at the Patent and Trademark Center.)

Anyhow, I'll defer to the wired masses to keep the discussion going at these sites. Please feel free to comment here, as well.

Another live chat with USPTO!

Attention inventors:

If you didn't make the cut last time, tune in to uspto.gov at 10 AM EST (that's 7 AM for you industrious SF locals) on Thursday, July 23rd for another live chat with USPTO officials.

More details here.

Plagiarism op-ed in PW

Siva Vaidhyanathan wrote an interesting editorial in the June 29th Publisher's Weekly about accusations of plagiarism surrounding Wired magazine editor Chris Anderson.

While preparing a review of Anderson's latest book last month, Virginia Quarterly Review book blogger Waldo Jaquith discovered several passages in the book that appeared to have been lifted directly from Wikipedia without a citation of the source. Anderson acknowledged the error and attributed it to rushing through the last edit to remove citations at the request of his publisher.

Vaidhyanathan's focus in the piece is less on the plagiarism (which usually isn't really a copyright issue, but rather an issue of intellectual honesty) and more on the troubling trend of publishers urging authors to not include citations in nonfiction works. Sort of off topic for this blog, but interesting nonetheless.

Oh, and I'd better cite the heck out of it:

Vaidhyanathan, S (2009).Anderson's Wiki-versy. Publisher's Weekly, 256(26), 132.

For all you students out there, check out this website called Son of Citation Machine, which I used to cite the article. You just fill in information about your source and out comes a paper-ready MLA or APA-formatted citation. Laziness is no longer a valid excuse for omitting source citations.

Internet radio, music industry settle on royalties

The LA Times reports that record labels and internet radio stations have struck a deal that should ease the cost of paying royalties on songs played. Proponents of online radio, such as Pandora co-founder Tim Westergren, feared that the fee structure set in 2007 would cause the fledgling industry to fail.

Under the old agreement, online radio stations were to pay a per-song, per-play royalty beginning at around .08 cent and rising to .19 cent by 2010. Under the new agreement, online radio sites pay a slightly lower per-song royalty (.08 cent to .14 cent) or 25 percent of their revenue, whichever is greater. For a company like Pandora, which has 30 million registered users, this could be enough of a push to enable them to make a profit and continue to operate.

Somewhat related, and interesting to me, I heard Wired magazine editor Chris Anderson interviewed on Fresh Air (regular radio, not online). He was talking about a business model known as "freemium," wherein the vast majority of users of a service get content for free, but a very small number of people pay to get access to some premium content. His example was the Wall Street Journal, which allows free access to much of its content but charges for access to some content, presumably the type of information that would be important enough to business people to pay for but that the average news-reader wouldn't consider essential.

Anyhow, it looks like Pandora is giving this model a try. You can currently pay $36 for a year of a slight upgrade from the free service -- no ads, a desktop application to play the songs, and a couple other perks. There's no fundamental improvement over the free service (it won't play different songs, won't allow you to choose the song it plays or download songs), but I suppose that if you listened to Pandora for many hours every week, it may make a difference in your experience. It looks like they're going to also begin charging to listen to Pandora radio for more than 40 hours per month, which, by requiring payment (instead of just offering the premium service), is sort of pushing the "freemium" envelope, as it were.

IP are you okay?

I'm way late with this one, but, as Michael Jackson's funeral commences today, I'd be remiss as a patent blogger to not mention that the King of Pop was a patent-holding inventor.

I heard on Morning Edition this morning that Michael Jackson held a patent for the mechanism that allowed "a shoe wearer to lean forwardly beyond his center of gravity by virtue of wearing a specially designed pair of shoes" during the dance that accompanied his 1987 hit "Smooth Criminal."

There's no better way to remember MJ than by his work:

So will an attorney show up if you garnish with a cherry?

In a piece representing the rare and wonderful collision of intellectual property, cocktails, and popular culture, Jonathan Miles filed this piece for the New York Times last week about a rum producer who aggressively defends its trademarked name for a classic cocktail, the Dark 'n' Stormy.

According to the piece, a Dark 'n' Stormy must contain:

• 2 ounces Gosling's Black Seal rum
• 4 ounces (or so) ginger beer
• a lime wedge garnish

...and nothing else. The Gosling's guy (E. Malcolm Gosling, Jr., no less) says that the company will pursue any company advertising a drink using that name with a recipe that contains any other type of rum.

This is interesting stuff! I've never seen this approach to intellectual property protection before. I can see the logic -- this is a cocktail that's been around for about 100 years, so there is tradition surrounding its execution. The Gosling company is associated with the drink and, if Gosling's is a unique rum (I've never tasted it, so I can't say) then they certainly have an interest in having the drink be consistent.

This seems to get to the heart of the value of a trademark, versus patent and copyright: the company associated with this product simply wants to have some control over the product as it makes its way to consumer. Consumers, for their part, benefit from this because they can expect that if they order a Dark 'n' Stormy, it will be made to the intended specifications. Bars are welcome to make and advertise this drink, so long as they use the Gosling recipe.

USPTO launches beta version of new site

If you're reading this blog then you clearly like to live on the edge. And I can imagine nothing edgier than a brand new beta test for the USPTO's website redesign.

The redesign is pretty dramatic, and my first impression is a positive one. I'm particularly fond of the new "HOW DO I" menu at the right-hand corner of the header.

I'd like to applaud the UPSTO for opening up a forum for public comments (other than, of course, the Federal Register). Users can make suggestions by sending an email or, in a very "Government 2.0" manner, log in to Google Moderator to comment and view the suggestions of others.

Supreme Court to rule on business method patents

The Supreme Court agreed last week to weigh in on last year's landmark Appeals Court ruling on business method patents.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the Supreme Court will hear Bilski v Doll in the fall. Last fall, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., ruled that business method patents, which are a mainstay in high-tech companies' intellectual property portfolios, must meet some very strict standards in order to be valid.

The business method patent debate has polarized interested parties into two camps: one side argues that loose standards for business method patents will encourage innovation; the other argues that the opposite is true.

That being the case, even the best writing about this topic that I've seen on the Web is rife with diatribes, so the blogger in me has to cede control to the librarian, and I'm going to recommend reading the Wall Street Journal's coverage of this topic via a library database.

If you have a library card with SFPL, it's easy: just go to the library's Articles and Databases page, click on "Periodical Finder" towards the top, and punch in Wall Street Journal. Scroll down until you see "Wall Street Journal Eastern Edition," and click the link to Proquest Newsstand. Enter your library card number, and you've got full access: no ads, no pop-ups, and, best of all, it's already paid for. Try using these keywords: "bilski" and "patent." (It's worth noting that you can read the WSJ this way every day.)

If you don't have an SFPL library card, there's a good chance you can get to this stuff via your local public library.

In Praise of: Daisuke Inoue, an inventor responsible for making us all stars

There's a great feature in February's (sorry, I'm a little behind) WIPO Magazine about man who describes himself as lazy but who I think is a genius.

Daisuke Inoue, who claims he took up playing the drums because he was lazy and "all you have to do is hit them," stumbled upon gold when he began taping backing music to popular songs so that people in the party could provide the vocals. It seems that when Inoue found that he was unable to accept an invitation to perform music for a business executive's party in 1971, he decided to send a substitute -- prerecorded music that guests could sing along to. The rest is history.

What's unique about Inoue is that he has never pursued any kind of IP protection for his invention. In an era of patent trolls, endemic piracy, and countless legal battles between corporations, it's refreshing to learn that the person responsible for such a popular invention isn't really worried about the potential millions that he could have made had he pursued a patent.

“I’m not an inventor. I simply put things that already exist together, which is completely different. I took a car stereo, a coin box and a small amp to make the karaoke. Who would even consider patenting something like that?”

I'll make sure I dedicate my next 5 minutes of karaoke superstardom to Daisuke Inoue, the genius behind karaoke.

Court case will test the practice of patenting genes

I came across an editorial in this morning's Chronicle (you can read it without advertisments here if you have an SFPL library card) discussing a lawsuit that a group of cancer patients have filed against a biotech company called Myriad Genetics. The plaintiffs allege that Myriad's patents for two genes that are closely linked to breast cancer and ovarian cancer are invalid.

Myriad's patents enable the company to remain the sole provider of a lab test that can determine an individual's risk of these types of cancer. The test costs more than $3000 and, as the plaintiffs point out, it's impossible to get a second opinion because Myriad is the only company that offers it.

The Chronicle editorial and this earlier feature in the New York Times discuss the question of the validity of gene patents (can you patent something that occurs naturally?) and whether a patent monopoly is the best way to encourage innovation in biotechnology (other companies have widely licensed gene patents, making the lab tests more available and more affordable).

Excellent patent searching tutorial from the PTDLP

The people who run the Patent and Trademark Depository Library Program office put together some of the best patent and trademark guides available. Making this information available is what the program is all about, and you can count on the PTDLP materials to be even-keeled, realistic, and authoritative.

I mean, however tempting it is to believe the late-night TV ads guaranteeing a successful patent application, virtually any novice inventor does him or herself a favor by checking out the explanatory materials put together by the PTDLP. Here's a link to some of their classic brochures.

A few months ago, the PTDLP folks outdid themselves by producing this tutorial. It's an animated, narrated, interactive slide show that covers the fundamentals of a preliminary patent search. It's just right for someone looking to dive in to the USPTO's resources but unsure where to begin. Two thumbs up!

Chat with USPTO officials tomorrow

Talk about direct access to your government!

On Thursday, May 21, inventors can log on to the USPTO website to submit questions for senior officials of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

The theme for this chat will be information for independent inventors, so get your questions ready. The chat lasts from 2 to 3 EDT, but folks can start logging in to submit questions at 1:30.

If you want to see what kind of questions people have asked in previous chats, or make sure that your question hasn't already been answered in an earlier session, check out the chat archives here.

IP Couture, H1N1 Edition: Undergarment/Facemask

The flu has certainly been in the news lately. And while the reports are anything but funny, this invention, filed in 2005, presents a rather amusing solution to the, uh, problem of carrying around a face mask to use in the event of air contamination.


Garment device convertible to one or more facemasks Elena N. Bodnar et al

Book Review -- The Big Bento Box of Unuseless Japanese Inventions: The Art of Chindogu

Actually, this isn't a proper book review, so that post title is misleading. This book, the Big Bento Box of Unuseless Japanese Inventions by Kenji Kawakami, was recently brought to my attention, however, and I want to rave about the excellence of its subject matter, namely the Japanese art/technology combination known as Chindogu.

Chindogu is, for the uninitiated, is the practice of inventing things that do, at first glance, solve a problem but that, upon closer examination, reveal themselves to be practically useless, often for the simple reason that hardly anyone would feel comfortable using the invention in public. Think of it as a sort of Dada inventing.

Falling asleep on the subway, for instance, could present a real problem for a commuter who misses his or her stop. Come to think of it, sleeping on the subway is also usually pretty uncomfortable, what with no head support. A Chindogu artist has come up with a solution -- a helmet with an attached plunger (to support the head against the wall of the subway car) and a sign displaying the passenger's destination and a polite request to shake the wearer when the train arrives. Brilliant! Uh, but I'm not going to wear that thing...

There are ten tenets of Chindogu, which you can read here.

To see more Chindogu, check out the book or the International Chindogu Society's website. Highly recommended!

IP Couture: Smoker's hat

I file this under Great Idea in Theory, But I Don't Think Anyone Would Wear Such a Hat in Public. Patent Number 4,858,627, the Smoker's Hat, patented in 1989, is sort of a medieval torture device that allows a person to enjoy a smoke without the smoke irritating others. I think it's sort of becoming, in a Black Knight kind of way.

Smoker's hat Walter C. Netschert

IP Couture: "Gelatin Slim" diet pills

This is a bit of a departure for IP Couture, but this image from the San Francisco History Center's I. Magnin records collection is too excellent not to post:

(Image courtesy of I. Magnin Records (SFH2), San Francisco History Center, San Francisco Public Library)

That's right, shopper's at high-end (and now defunct) San Francisco Department Store I. Magnin and Co. could, if they were unhappy with the way the garments were fitting, buy a pack of these diet pills. According to the trademark registration, Gelatin Slims were produced by the Gelatin Plus Corporation of Santa Monica.

Does anyone else think of Cathy cartoons when they see this?

DVD-ripping software debate goes to court in SF

U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel (of Napster case fame) is hearing a case today between RealNetworks, a company from Seattle, and the Motion Picture Association of America regarding a DVD-copying software product briefly released by RealNetworks back in September.

According to the Chronicle, RealNetworks had a notion that their software, which allows users to circumvent copy-protection coding in DVD's to make one (an only one) copy of a movie, would draw a lawsuit from the MPAA, so they filed a preemptive lawsuit against MPAA. That suit, in turn, drew a counter suit.

I wonder why RealNetworks didn't skip the preemptive suit and just let MPAA sue them? I guess that's why I'm a librarian and not a lawyer.

My lack of legal knowledge notwithstanding, I'm interested in this case because it's providing an opportunity for close examination of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the controversial 1998 law that expands intellectual property rights for copyright holders and that many folks argue gives copyright holders the lion's share of rights. Among other provisions, that law makes it a crime to circumvent anti-piracy code in commercial products.

We may be waiting a while for a verdict. I'll keep you posted.

Shepard Fairey goes after AP for reprinting pictures of HOPE poster

You know that old saw about how the best defense is a good offense? Well, artist Shepard Fairey appears to be giving that approach a try with his recent suit against the Associated Press, alleging that AP reprinted his now-iconic HOPE poster without his permission.

The AP, if you recall, recently filed suit against Fairey alleging that he infringed their copyright by basing the HOPE poster on an AP photo without permission.

IP Couture: Initiation Apparatus

I say! Those chaps holding up that gent in the middle both have concerned looks on their faces. Now that's the kind of fraternal sentiment intended to come from the use of patent 819,814, invented by Milton Sebert of Pekin, Illinois! The Initiation Apparatus is appears to be a pair of shoes connected to an electrical source that will shock the wearer, presumably envisioned as a high-tech alternative to The Gauntlet. Bully!


INITIATION APPARATUS MILTON SEIBERT