Roger Miller's widow (Queen of the Road?) wins rights to classic songs

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..."

Does the PTO treat non-attorney applicants fairly?

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.

Mark your calendar: USPTO live chat Tuesday, March 16 from 5-6PM Pacific

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!

Tavern on the Green Update

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.