Entertainment Weekly reports that George Clinton is suing hip hop group the Black Eyed Peas for copyright infringement for failing to clear their sample of his 1979 track "(Not Just) Knee Deep" in two remixes of their song "Shut Up."
Funkadelic samples are everywhere in hip hop, notably used by Dr. Dre and De La Soul among many others. I wonder -- maybe George just doesn't like the Black Eyed Peas' music? Just speculating...
All you cooking/public radio enthusiasts out there may have caught the trivia question on last week's The Splendid Table with Lynn Rosetto Casper.
If not, Lynn reveals that the first known patent law was on the books of the ancient Greek city Sybaris. The winner in an annual cooking contest was given exclusive rights to prepare the dish for the whole year.
Listen to the segment here.
Speaking of food, I highly recommend folks check out SFPL's SF Eats exhibition, with programming and displays running through March. I recommend seeing it before New Year's resolutions begin!
The USPTO is implementing a pilot program 'in which an applicant can request a twelve-month time period to pay certain fees and to reply to a Notice to File Missing Parts of Nonprovisional Application."
Read the whole notice here and let them know what you think!
The USPTO's annual performance review is up and available for viewing here.
It looks to me like the pendency is still a bit longer than they'd like it to be, that they cut costs without a major impact on productivity, and that electronic filing a payments now make up nearly all transactions.
Anyone else want to point out your highlights (or lowlights)?
Patent librarian extraordinaire Michael White spins a great tale of patent intrigue that includes political assassination, terrorist attacks, and patent that "disappeared" from the files because of political pressure.
Check it out at White's blog, the Patent Librarian's Notebook.
Great coffee break reading!
The USPTO is conducting a survey on their website and I'd like to encourage anyone who regularly uses USPTO.gov, TESS, PatFT, etc., to please take the survey if prompted.
Hi folks! This blog is going to be on hiatus for November. See you December!
-The Management
It's once again time for the USPTO and InventNow's annual Independent Inventor's Conference.
Registration is open for the conference which will take place at the USPTO's campus in Alexandria, VA, on November 4 and 5.
Get the full details here.
Who's ready for some networking?!
TechCrunch reported this week that Apple has patented a computer program that allows users to censor certain words from incoming and outgoing text messages.
The TechCrunch story focuses on the parental control (anti-"sexting") potential of the patent, which I'm sure will be a big seller for parents who are on the fence about allowing their teenage children to have iPhones. Another potential use involves allowing only messages with a specified amount of content in a certain language, suggesting the possibility of forced language practice through text message restrictions.
I can also see the potential for spam filtering. If text messages become the next frontier for unsolicited advertisements, perhaps one could filter out some key words.
Well, duh, right? But I hadn't realized the extent of the domination of high tech industries in Bay Area patent applications until I caught a glimpse of a list of the top 25 patent recipients in the Bay Area in the Oct. 1-7 San Francisco Business Times.
Of the top 25, only three were not software, hardware, or network companies: UC Berkeley was number 8, Stanford 22, and Genentech just made the list at the 25 spot. The rest of the list features the usual cast of Silicon Valley giants -- Intel, Sun, Oracle, Google, etc.
Also interesting is that none of the companies on the list are headquartered in San Francisco but are mostly in the Peninsula.
You can have a look at the SF Business Times every week at the Main Library and also several branches.
The Hollywood Reporter reported (what else?) Friday that Paris Hilton and Hallmark have agreed to a settlement an alleged TM infringement involving Hilton's catch phrase "That's Hot."
I would recommend, however, that non-heiress trademark applicants do a little research about choosing a strong trademark so that there won't be any questions about the validity of a mark in the future. Here are some tips via the International Trademark Association: http://www.inta.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2008&Itemid=59&getcontent=1.
Whoa! Check out the new "dashboard" site that USPTO just put up: http://www.uspto.gov/dashboards/patents/main.dashxml
The series of gauges offers a visual interpretation of patent prosecution data, things like how long it's taking to get to a first office action, how many examiners there are, and the backlog number. My guess is that the dashboard has been initiated in the hopes that we can watch the backlog and pendency time numbers go down because of new efficiency initiatives.
NC State Libraries' excellent patent and trademark pages include one page addressing a question that I often field at SFPL's reference desk -- do I have to come in to the library, or can I do this at home?
It's a good question, and one that I have a really hard time answering. We do have access to a lot of materials that you cannot find online -- CASSIS, PubWEST, indexes, Official Gazettes, etc. Then again, the amount of patent information available on the web is increasing every day, and lots of PTDLs, not to mention the central PTDLP Office, have published fantastic search guides demonstrating search procedures that can be used on the freely available PatFT, AppFT and TESS databases with great results. Combine that with the increase in quality in free online patent and trademark (mostly patent, really) databases, and you've got an environment where the self-learner can do a pretty thorough patent search from any computer.
That said, I'd like to add to the list offered by NC State a couple of reasons why I invite people to come into the library for patent and trademark information:
CBS News reported yesterday that "The Situation," of Jersey Shore fame, had about as much luck with his trademark application as co-star "Snooki" did with hers. Both marks were rejected because they were found to be already in use.
I think the lesson here is that both "The Situtation" and "Snooki" would probably have benefited from visiting a PTDL to learn how to do a proper trademark search. In their case, the nearest PTDL by mileage from Seaside Heights is at Rutgers, though, for my money, the Philly Free Library might be an easier drive in end-of-summer traffic.
Andrew Leonard, a great writer at Salon.com who normally covers politics, law, and economics, has shifted his gaze to a very serious subject this weekend -- hot tubs.
More specifically, he writes about how a newcomer on the hot tub control design scene is pushing against an alleged giant in the field, and how the latter party's water-tight control of their patent portfolio is an essential part of their dominance in the market.
An interesting reflection on how patent laws can have an effect on, well, some of our daily lives.
The New York Times ran an editorial Sunday discussing the potentially bad news that a full release of a legendary treasure trove of jazz recordings that was recently sold to the National Jazz Museum will be delayed while the Harlem museum figures out how to properly pay the musicians' estates for the recordings.
The recordings in question are hours of recordings made of radio broadcasts in the 1930s and 40s by jazz fan William Savory. Savory captured extended improvisations on classic jazz tunes played by some of the greatest artists of the century -- Duke Ellington, Coleman Hawkins, and Ella Fitzgerald to name three.
So here's the bummer -- until all of the artists' estates can be contacted and give their consent to their release, the music will have to stay at the National Jazz Museum.
At issue is the concept of "orphan works," works that were published after 1923 (and thus are presumably still under copyright) but whose owners cannot be found. The law as it stands does not allow orphan works to be used without permission.
Read more about orphan works here.
And about the Savory Collection here.
USPTO Director David Kappos gave an interesting update on the patent backlog and how they're working on reducing it on Marketplace this Thursday evening. Catch the podcast here.
Good listening!
The Global Intellectual Property Academy, a training arm of the USPTO, has developed an excellent set of online training videos covering key topics in intellectual property in five (!) languages.
There's never been a doubt in my mind that Times Square entertainer the Naked Cowboy (who, despite his name, is about as racy as a pro wrestler) is a genius of self-promotion, a creative entrepreneur, and can probably do a bunch of sit-ups.
T. Markey himself is inviting you to visit the USPTO campus for the 2010 Trademark Expo. This event offers companies with interesting, significant, or really old trademarks to come and show off their marks and to network with other IP professionals. Costumes are, I believe, optional; I've been in DC in the late summer and I would recommend designing some mesh vents into a costume if you're going to go that route.
This looks like a fun event and a great networking opportunity!
David Pogue's online column at the NY Times has brought to my attention an interesting discussion that happened between Broadway composer Jason Robert Brown and a member of an online community that trades sheet music. (Trading in this context has the same meaning as "sharing" in the online recorded music community.)
The story goes like this: Brown decided to join an online sheet music community and send messages to people offering his sheet music to other members asking them to stop offering his songs. He reports that most of the people he contacted complied. One member, named Eleanor, engaged him in an interesting debate about his actions. Here's the post from his blog with a reproduction of the conversation.
This is a good discussion of the moral issues (objectively, I think that Eleanor is breaking the law) surrounding copyright infringement. Any thoughts?
The US Supreme Court ended a busy session Monday by releasing significant rulings on gun control, first amendment rights, corporate accounting oversight, and...patents!
Bilski made its way to the Supreme Court during this session. The Court, which heard the case in November, took a middle path in its ruling, agreeing with a lower court's decision that the Bilski patent application was too abstract to be patented but stopping short of an outright end to business method patents.
So, it looks like folks will be duking this issue out in the courts for years to come.
Check this out: http://www.nytstore.com/ProdInterCode.aspx?prodcode=875&intercode=1172
The New York Times Store, which sells lots of cool, expensive, and often kind of useless decorator goods, is selling off a cache of U.S. patent models. The models are actual models submitted by inventors to the US Patent Office before the model requirement was lifted in 1890.
According to the Rothschild Petersen Patent Model Museum website, one of the reasons the USPTO stopped requiring models was because of space limitations, which is totally understandable and, to me at least, evokes a funny image of someone trying to squeeze another model of a gadget into a crowded garage somewhere in D.C.
Here's an interesting op-ed (via the Balkanization blog) from a Yale Information Society Fellow named Christina Mulligan about modern strict interpretation of copyright in the context of mash-ups and reinterpretations of music videos on the TV show Glee.
Mulligan poses this question: does the law favor copyright holders so much that it impacts people's ability to advance knowledge?
Leave it to budding restaurateurs in the East Bay to come up with a creative way to avoid trademark litigation.
According to her blog Local Lemons, Allison Arevalo, along with her business partner Erin Wade, made a good-faith effort to ensure that the name of their forthcoming Oakland restaurant, Little Mac, wouldn't be a problem to a certain other restaurant that goes by the name Mac.
It turns out the name was a problem, and so it's a good thing that they checked it out. As much as it was probably a pain to have to go back and re-brand the business after building up a local buzz over the past couple months, it could have been devastating to have to change the name after opening.
The lesson? Do your best to think of possible conflicts with a business or product name as early in development of said product or business as possible. The Little Mac folks ran the name by a lawyer who suggested they check in with McDonald's before opening the restaurant. By doing so, they avoided a potentially ugly legal dispute. Read more on developing a strong mark in Stephen Elias and Richard Stim's Trademark: Legal Care for your Business or Product Name (Nolo 2007).
BTW, I love the solution they came up with to their restaurant name problem: they held a contest. Whoever comes up with the best name gets mac and cheese for life. Yes!
The USPTO announced last week that Google will make available, for no cost, bulk data files that had previously only been available through the USPTO for a fee.
What does this mean for us consumers of patent and trademark data? Not much yet -- the data, available from Google in large ZIP files and containing such information as patent images, bibliographic data for patents and trademarks, assignments and fees information, and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceedings -- is available only in unaltered (except for formatting for ZIP files) form.
But there is a potential value for the public in that, by making the data available for free, the USPTO and Google have removed a barrier to third-parties who may take the bulk data and create innovative means of accessing patent and trademark information.
Score one for open access to government information!
The USPTO announced Thursday a plan to change the way patent applications are processed. The proposed plan would give applicants the option of choosing one of three paths for examination, based on their perception of the necessity of a quick examination and willingness or ability to pay extra for a faster examination.
The proposed three-track plan would send applications down one of the following paths:
I'm glad to announce that the library has received several copies of the new edition of Ronald Louis Docie's venerable The Inventor's Bible. Now in its third edition, this book offers up tips for the fledgling inventor on product development, intellectual property protection, licensing, and developing a commercialization strategy; in a word, the nuts and bolts tasks involved in getting a product to the marketplace.
Docie is an engaging writer, with a calm tone and presence of mind that, to my thinking, is very helpful for someone looking to commercialize a product. This book is an essential recommendation for the inventor who arrives at the reference desk breathless, eyes darting around desperately seeking a patent before someone steals her idea. Docie's treatment of the invention development process is holistic, realistic, and not patent-centric.
The circulating copies will be located in the Main Library's Business, Science, and Technology Department on the 4th Floor. Get 'em while they're hot!
First off, I want to apologize to my loyal readers for the slow-down in blogging this month. (Sorry, Mom.) Spring fever? Extra busy at the reference desk? We'll never know what drives our blogging whims here at the SFPL Patent and Trademark Center.
In the meantime, chew on this TM infringement allegation via the SlashFood blog. It seems that Hershey's objects to a Williams-Sonoma brownie pan that makes a pan of brownies in the shape of, well, a Hershey's bar. Follow the link for a picture of the pan, then look below this post to see the text of the Hershey's 1968 TM registration.
A tip o' th' pin to colleagues at Minneapolis PL and University of Maryland Libraries for, respectively, finding the article and digging up the registration.
Goods and Services
IC 030. US 046. G & S: Candy; Chocolate. FIRST USE: 19681231. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19681231
Mark Drawing Code (2) DESIGN ONLY
Design Search Code 26.11.02 - Plain single line rectangles; Rectangles (single line)
26.11.20 - Rectangles inside one another
Serial Number 77809223
Filing Date August 20, 2009
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Owner (APPLICANT) Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery Corporation CORPORATION DELAWARE 4860 Robb Street, Suite 204 Wheat Ridge COLORADO 80033
Prior Registrations 3668662
Description of Mark Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of twelve (12) equally-sized recessed rectangular panels arranged in a four panel by three panel format with each panel having its own raised border within a large rectangle.
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL-2(F)
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
The second issue of the USPTO's new Inventor's Eye newsletter is here. Up for "examination" this month (a little patent humor for you):
Please do read the whole article here and, for information about filing a PPA, have a look at Patent Pending in 24 Hours (Nolo 2010) by Richard Stim and David Pressman. We've got the latest edition available here on the 5th floor of the Main Library.Here are some facts you need to know about PPAs.
- A PPA expires after one year.
- You cannot extend a PPA.
- You cannot renew a PPA.
- A PPA will never become a patent.
- You cannot file a PPA for a design .
- The USPTO does not examine PPAs .
- The USPTO does not conduct a prior art search on PPAs.
- The USPTO does review PPAs to make sure they meet minimum filing requirements.
- PPAs are not published by the USPTO (unless claimed as priority in a later-issued or published non-provisional application).
- You can use the term “patent pending” for the duration of the one-year pendency of a PPA.
For local readers, don't forget that we're having a hands-on introduction to patent searching at uspto.gov tomorrow at the Main Library from 2-3:30.
I'm going to use this space to post the pertinent links that participants will use during the session. If you can't make it yourself, these links will take you to some key sites for conducting a preliminary patent search.
You are cordially invited to a hands-on introduction to patent searching next week, May 1st, at the Main Library from 2-3:30. On the agenda will be a brief introduction to patents, an overview of patent classification searching, and, time permitting, some Q and A. It's the patent-related social event of the weekend and it is happening right here in the 5th Floor Training Center.
See you there!
From UNESCO:
23 April: a symbolic date for world literature for on this date and in the same year of 1616, Cervantes, Shakespeare and Inca Garcilaso de la Vega all died. It is also the date of birth or death of other prominent authors such as Maurice Druon, K.Laxness, Vladimir Nabokov, Josep Pla and Manuel MejÃa Vallejo.(Shakespeare and Cervantes died on the same day?! That's like a 17th century version of the Big Bopper/Richie Valens/Buddy Holly plane crash.)
Two news stories from last week may provide a peek into the future of the way government and corporations deal generally with content on the Internet and more specifically with copyrighted material.
First, last week's ruling by a Federal circuit court that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not have the right to regulate the way Internet Service Providers (ISP) control their networks. The FCC had asserted that an ISP could not restrict or prioritize access to networks based on a users' use of bandwidth; the court ruled that the ISPs can manage their networks without FCC oversight. At issue here is what pundits have named net neutrality, which describes a hands-off approach to Internet regulation that has thus far been favored by the Federal government. A question raised by this ruling is whether ISPs might identify and restrict users who download copyrighted materials. Follow the link for a discussion about the ruling on KQED's Forum.
Across the Atlantic, the British government pushed through legislation that will open the door to tracking and restricting Internet users who illegally download copyright-protected materials. Under the legislation, British telecommunications regulator Ofcom would pursue measures to reduce bandwidth or suspend access to the Internet for copyright scofflaws, should illegal downloads not drop by at least 70% over the next year. BBC News has put together an informative FAQ about the controversial legislation.
The USPTO is on a roll with new resources for independent businesses. You'll remember the new backlog reduction plan and small inventor newsletter.
Next up is the new Trademark Information Network, a series of videos designed to help the novice trademark filer successfully register a mark without wasting too much time or money.
The first in the series of videos, "Newsflash: Before You File" is a lighthearted overview of the very basics of trademark registrations. The video raises important issues -- how to identify the applicant on an application, how to determine goods and services, which filing basis to use, and how long registration might take -- that will be covered in subsequent videos.
Stay tuned in to Trademark News Network this summer for more of these videos.
Do it twice, do it nice? No way, not at the Copyright Office!
I came across this firm but polite reminder to cross your t's and dot your i's on your copyright application while browsing the US copyright registration information mother lode that is the list of copyright circulars and factsheets available at copyright.gov.
I'm sure I've mentioned these publications in this space before, but I can't overstate how useful these things are for helping people at the library find the information they need to know to register a work.
It makes sense, if you think about it. The Copyright Office processes hundreds of thousands of applications each year (and registering new applications is only one of many functions of the office), so it's in their best interest to clearly explain application procedures so that applicants can provide accurate and correct applications on the first try.
The dedication to educating applicants is clear in some of these, not riveting, but let's say helpful titles to circulars:
"The Effects of Not Sending a Timely Reply to Copyright Office Correspondence"
"Blanks Forms and Other Works Not Protected by Copyright"
"Copyright Registration for Multimedia Works"
"How to Make Statutory License Royalty EFT Payments Using Pay.gov"
There are dozens of these things! I'll let you in on a librarian secret: when people ask me about a copyright issue, this is usually the first place I'll go to find information for them.
Tell your friends!
Mary Miller, the widow of the late, great country star Roger Miller, has won the rights to her late husband's 1964 hits, which includes the classic gem "King of the Road."
In a previous case, courts had ruled that Sony Music owned the rights to Miller's songs from 1958-1963 because they had renewed them after the initial 28 year copyright period that was required at the time. Miller passed away before the 1964 songs could be renewed, but the court determined that Sony had an implied right to those tunes. That was the ruling that was overturned this week.
Read more about it in the Nashville Tennessean (where else?).
This is a good real-life illustration of an oft-confusing quirk about 20th Century copyright law in the United States. Works from between 1923 and 1963 that were published with a copyright notice had to be renewed after 28 years. Generally, the big-name publishers (popular books, hit records, movies, etc.) kept very close tabs on their renewals. However, many items were not renewed and thus entered the public domain.
To figure out if a copyright work is in the public domain because of a failure to renew the copyright, first determine the year of publication. If it is between 1923 and 1963, check to see if it was renewed (you can do it at the library or online at Stanford's Copyright Renewal Database.)
"I'm a maaan of means, by no means..."
The independent, garage-based inventor has become a sort of post-industrial age hero in the United States, and you won't have to look any further than the USPTO's rules, regulations, and programs to see that our government has made a commitment to supporting these folks. Small entities enjoy lower filing fees, information about marketing and protecting inventions, and, hey, a nation-wide network of library partners to support free access to patent information.
Another key support system for independent inventors is codified in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. Under MPEP Section 707.07(j), applicants who do not use the services of a registered attorney or agent (called pro se applicants) can expect to get help in drafting their application from their assigned examiner. If the examiner determines that there is "patentable subject matter disclosed" in the application, then she or he should, if the patent is not expertly drafted, help the applicant out by drafting a claim or two to demonstrate the type of claims they are looking for.
This provision gives a leg up to inventors who are unfamiliar with the ups and downs of patent drafting, but who nevertheless have a patentable invention. This section of the MPEP more or less promises that you don't have to be a patent agent or attorney to draft an application.
In a piece in the latest Inventor's Digest, Auburn University Professor Paul M. Swamidass reports that an investigation shows that examiners do not always give pro se applications the consideration that they deserve.
Professor Swamidass, who is affiliated with the Business and Engineering schools at Auburn, subjected himself to a pro-se examination for an invention (inexpensive, pre-fabricated safety strips for the sides of paved roads) whose subject matter was likely patentable.
Long story short, Swamidass had a largely unsatisfactory patent prosecution. He evaluated his experience based upon the criteria laid out in MPEP 707.07(j), and found that his examiner largely failed to meet these obligations. He eventually received the patent in spite of, rather than thanks to, his interactions with the examiner.
Swamidass' research, which he conducted for an upcoming article in the John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law (look for it in Spring 2010) suggests a systemic lack of support for pro se applicants at the USPTO.* There seems to be enormous pressure on examiners to quickly and accurately prosecute patents; to me, the take-away here is that independent inventors and examiners both would benefit from more person-to-person interaction and that there should be a way for examiners to justify the extra time required to handle such examinations. Swamidass recommends separate examiners for pro se applications, which is one possible solution.
Considering the contributions that independent inventors make to technology and the economy, it is certainly worth considering any option to support them.
*As a librarian, I feel obligated to point out that Swamidass' research (one application, one examiner) doesn't strike me as comprehensive enough to use as the basis for a general condemnation of PTO procedures. It is, however, suggestive, and I'll look forward to reading the full paper.
The abridged version of the paper ran in the April Inventor's Digest. It looks like it hasn't been reprinted on their website and there's a couple-month embargo on online access through library databases, so your best bet to read it is to come to the library. It will be on display in the Patent and Trademark Center.
USPTO officials will be on hand to answer questions about patents and trademarks on Tuesday, March 16, from 5-6PM Pacific Time.
These chat sessions are very edifying; though there likely will not be enough time to address every question, it's helpful to see what other people ask. There's a handy archive of chat transcripts, listed by subject, available at the USPTO website here.
It's patents, it's trademarks, and it's free, so tune in on Tuesday!
The New York Times has reported that a Federal judge has 86'd Tavern on the Green owner Warner LeRoy's claim to the restaurant's name.
To recap the case, which I discuss in this earlier post, the LeRoy family, who had operated the venerable Central Park restaurant under contract since the early '70s, clandestinely registered the name of the restaurant as property of the family business. When the LeRoys lost the bid to renew their contract to operate the restaurant, they claimed ownership of the name. Had the LeRoys won the case, the city would not be allowed to continue to use Tavern on the Green as it has since the '30s.
There's a valuable lesson to be learned here: a trademark registration is not a guarantee of continued ownership of a mark! Stephan Elias and Richard Stim spend much of their Trademark: Legal Care for your Business or Product Name discussing how to choose a mark and evaluate its strength.
Anyone registering a mark, from an independent entrepreneur to the City of New York, does well to carefully consider the viability of a mark before registration.
Speaking of entrepreneurs, the Tavern is for sale, name and all.
I came across Queen's University (Kingston, Ontario) librarian Michael White's excellent review of updates, additions, and changes to major online patent databases while I was gathering information to write a post about Patent Lens that I'm no longer going to write.*
I tend to focus mostly on the USPTO's web databases, but this is a reminder that there are plenty of other resources out there. I'd urge any patent searcher to give any of the databases mentioned in this post a try.
*True confession: I always check his excellent Patent Librarian's Notebook to see if he's reviewed a site before I go ahead with my post. Lazy blogging, perhaps, but also efficient information dissemination, right?
Support for small inventors is an emerging theme for the new USPTO administration. The latest evidence of that commitment is Inventors Eye, a recently launched bimonthly newsletter for the independent inventor community.
Judging by the first issue, the newsletter will be a source of tips for inventors, links to resources, and communication about upcoming policy changes within the USPTO.
Of particular interest in the inaugural issue is a piece by USPTO Director David Kappos laying out some key points about proposed patent reforms including reduced fees for small entities, faster turnaround on applications, and stronger patents through a post-grant review process.
Also noteworthy is Inventors Assistance Center boss John Calvert's interview with Pam Turner, inventor of the Spiral Eye Needle, one of those simple yet undoubtedly useful innovations that can inspire us to think differently about every day objects.
Inventors Eye is avaible on the USPTO website, where you can sign up to receive an email version of the newsletter.
The Bay Area Chapter of the Inventor's Alliance, a support and educational group for independent inventors, will host USPTO Director David Kappos at their meeting in Menlo Park this Saturday.
Mr. Kappos is expected to talk about proposed patent legislation reform and will be soliciting feedback, so this is an excellent opportunity to voice your opinion.
This should be a good event: Kappos is pushing some pretty hefty reforms at the USPTO and he seems to be very receptive to comments from the independent inventor community.
Tickets are $15 for members and $25 for nonmembers, and the Alliance's website claims that they will sell out fast.
Alright, independent inventors, here's your chance to connect with the big cheese at the USPTO!
Earlier this month, the Chronicle reported that an Australian court ruled that 80's pop band Men at Work lifted a portion of the melody from classic Australian folk song "Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree" in their hit "Down Under."
A judged ruled that the band used a significant portion of the song for the "flute riff" (one doesn't often see those two words together except for references to Jethro Tull) in the 1983 hit. The song was a big hit for the band and has been used in countless commercials and movie soundtracks.
The songwriters will appear in court again next week to work out how much they'll have to pay the publishing company that owns the song.
"What we had proposed to do was set up a camera on the surface of the moon to observe the Earth and study its hydrogen atmosphere, which extends out to many thousands of miles. Even the space station and the shuttle can't get far enough away to really study the higher atmosphere."Read more about Dr. Carruthers online at the National Inventors Hall of Fame and in these features from MIT and University of Buffalo.
The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore offers a free online intellectual property search tool that could be a real time-saver for quick IP searches.
SURF IP is a portal that allows searchers to send a simple keyword search or an IPC classification search across several countries' patent databases. Though the searches are not comprehensive (they're limited to the parameters of a basic search at a given database; searches at the USPTO, for instance, are limited to post-1976 patents), the interface is easy to understand and the results display clearly. I would recommend this tool for casual patent searchers -- people interested in getting an idea about developments in an area of technology, for instance -- and as a supplement to espacenet.
I used the example of a Frisbee to try out SURF IP:
Last spring Nolo Press released the fifth edition of David Hitchcock's Patent Searching Made Easy, a venerable and reliable guide to conducting a prior art search. Hitchcock's book fills a large, PTDL-shaped gap in the popular patent search literature by including explanations of library resources including CASSIS and WEST. Also look here for tips for basic and advanced searching at USPTO's free PatFT and AppFT databases, an explanation of classification searching techniques and the Index to USPC, free non-USPTO search resources available online, and non-patent prior art sources. Illustrations and examples abound; appendices include examples of a classification search sheet and a nifty visualization tool for brainstorming index terms for a classification search.
We've got several copies here at the Main Library, plus some in various branches. This book is highly recommended for anyone interested in learning how to conduct a thorough patent search.
Intellectual property has become the latest legal battleground in the fight over gay marriage.
The Chronicle's Scavenger blog reported last week that Protect Marriage, a group defending the legality of a 2008 amendment to the California constitution banning same sex marriage, is suing Courage Campaign, a non-profit organization that supports gay and lesbian marriage, for trademark infringement.
Courage Campaign slightly adapted Protect Marriage's logo for use on a website that publishes coverage and commentary about the Federal court case challenging 2008 ballot initiative Proposition 8.
The original logo used restroom sign iconography to depict a man and a woman holding up a banner over some small figures, presumably representing children. Courage Campaign altered the logo so that both of the larger figures were wearing dresses.
Let's have a look at the logos. Here is the original from Protect Marriage:
The Sacremento Bee quoted the ruling of the judge who denied Protect Marriage's motion to stop Courage Campaign's use of the mark:
The judge ruled that Courage Campaign's "use of the mark is protected under the First Amendment, in that the use is relevant to an expressive parody and … is not explicitly misleading."Although fair use is notoriously hard to define, parody has long been considered a worthy "transformative" use of copyrighted material. Here's how Richard Stim defines parody in Nolo's Getting Permission (via Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center):
A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to "conjure up" the original.It's about time we had an intellectual property controversy more interesting that someone suing Apple or the RIAA suing someone!
USPTO Director David Kappos has joined the blogosphere with his innovative "Director's Forum" blog.
Kappos seems like a serious guy, and it looks like he's keeping up his end of the Obama administration's promise of a more transparent and engaged government by posting candid and thoughtful pieces about the administration of the USPTO. Comments are enabled and posts seem to come up about once a week or so.
Join the conversation by visiting http://www.uspto.gov/blog/. It might just be your new favorite IP blog.
