Intellectual Property - Prof. Noveck

Copyright -- Sampling and the collective music unconscious

Very interesting mini-documentary/history of the use of the "amen break" in popular music culture from hip-hop to electronic music. The "amen break" is from a 1969 recording by a group called the Winston Brothers which has probably become the most widely sampled 5-seconds of music... 

This movie talks about the history of it and the copyright implications that have followed from its sampling over the years. Take a look...

http://www.nkhstudio.com/pages/amen_mp4.html

Patents on Plugins

The University of California filed for a patent in 1994 that seems to cover the venerable plug-in architecture that most web browsers rely on to enhance the web browsing experience. The licensing for the patent is handled by Eolas Technologies, who sued Microsoft in 1999 and was subsequently awarded over $500 million.

This loss prompted Microsoft to muse about changing the working of its browser, Internet Explorer, so that it would no longer infringe the patent in question, while at the same time causing a potentially large number of web pages to stop functioning. Concerned about this possibility, the W3C asked the USPTO to reexamine the patent and offered some prior art examples of its own, in the form of early drafts of the HTML standard. There was also a movement across the web to find prior art with which to contest the novelty of the patent. The USPTO agreed to reexamine. On September 27, 2005, it issued a reexam certificate, which effectively affirms the patent's validity in the eyes of the USPTO.

Microsoft has been awarded a new trial after its appeal, but the USPTO's decision reminds us that there is a good chance they will loose ultimately. Of course, Microsoft's browsers are not the only ones affected, as practically all modern browsers implement the technology covered in the patent. If Eolas contines to press these claims, there could be a very tumultuous period ahead after browsers are changed to avoid infringing, thus rendering a significant percentage of the existing web pages inoperable until their developers re-code to whatever new approach takes root.

Philips wins patent case for CD-R media

http://www.digitimes.com/systems/a20050928A6027.html

Philips first wanted to stop two Taiwanese manufacturers exporting CD-Rs to the US because they infringe on Philips CD-R patents.  This went in front of the United States International Trade Commission.  They found for the Taiwanese manufacuturers - they asserted a defense of patent misuse and succeeded.  Philips appealed and won in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 

Does anybody use CD-Rs for data or music?   I myself have an MP3 player and USB-mini hard drive.  I use SD disks for my digital camera.  Technology has moved beyond CD media, and yet there are still patent infringement cases regarding a media.  DVD media is still alive with Blu-ray and HD DVD on the horizon.  DVD-RW drives are almost standard on all computers, practically replacing the CD-RW drive.

I have not read the opinion yet, but it may have some value for the future of DVD and Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, even if its an opinion about the nearly dead CD media.    The article suggests that it will help Philips have a stonger stance reagrding future royalties from DVD media. How about predictability of law with regard to future litigation of new media?   

Funny Patents

I could not find www.sillypatent.com or www.sillypatents.com but I did find this one: http://www.patentoftheweek.com/

Some of them are pretty hysterical. For example, this one

http://www.patentoftheweek.com/patents/currentframe.html

is a keyboard that includes the emotions/smiley faces and abbreviations (such as brb for "be back later") that people type on AOL Instant Messenger.  I dont know who would buy this when you can type them out but its definitely funny to look at.  Also on that web site, they have a sample patent form so anyone who hasn't seen one yet, take a look.

creative accusing apple of infringement

It seems like the little guys (in the mp3 player business, comparitvely) is going after the giant.  Creative is accusing Apple's iPod with a patent infringement.  Specifically, the patent has to do w/ a software for the user interface.

Apple's UI (user interface) seems to be pretty much the same as the one created by Creative a year earlier.  In January 2001, Creative applied for this patent; in October 2002, despite this prior art, Apple too tried to patent it.  Of course, they were denied.  It doesn't seem Apple could argue that they had the idea first since in Jan. 2001, the concept of iPod was not developed to a functional form.

Creative is going to try to look at other manufacturers of mp3 players to see if they are infringing as well.  According to the article, one of the few ways Apple could do anyting about this is trying to have the patent re-examined (by showing that prior to Creative's patent application, there was prior art).

Though of course we do not know all the facts, it seems Creative has a legitmate chance.  They could either bar Apple from using the UI, or they could get licensing fees.  The latter seems much better since the iPod seems to be the hottest gadget to have...

Here's the full article: http://www.windowsitpro.com/windowspaulthurrott/Article/ArticleID/47566/windowspaulthurrott_47566.html

Congress to legislate file swapping?

http://www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_2100-1027_3-5884824.html

Athough we will not get to copyright and the Grokster case until next week, I found an interesting article in the NY Times on the subject.  The Grokster case deals with file sharing on the internet (i.e. Napster) Intellectual property protection "can't function in a country where the high-tech services become such that you can't protect copyright," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, said Wednesday at a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.   The issue of file sharing presents the struggle to balance the rights of artists to protect their work and the right of the public to access art.  As any college student knows, there are plenty of websites that allow for illegal downloading.  While iTunes and other legal downloading sites are certainly making it easier to download music legally, there is still a long way to go.  The article suggests that the problem lies in an "antiquated approach to licensing copyrights."  The article also raises the question, who is in a better position to regulate downloading, Congress or the Court?

Calling All Cars - Research Help Friday

Want to enlist your help with a short term research project on patent reform this Friday, September 30.

As you may know, Wired published an article about the Peer to Patent proposal, which I described in a posting to the Cairns Blog this summer.

Star Power

STAR POWER: THE SCIENCE AND ART OF A SUCCESSFUL CELEBRITY CAMPAIGN
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2005
11:00AM – 1:00PM
REUTERS BUILDING
3 TIMES SQUARE, NEW YORK CITY

AN INVITATION
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz brings together some of the leading experts of the celebrity endorsement world to discuss whois succeeding, how they struck their deals, and how they’re taking celebrity endorsements to the next level.

Two ways to register:
E-mail mhandelman@fkks.com
or visit www.advertisingweek.com/register.php.
This event is free to the public. Seating is limited.

Speakers Include:
Brad Fogel
Chief Marketing Officer
24 Hour Fitness

Jae Goodman
Co-Executive Creative Director
Publicis & Hal Riney

Peter Hess
Agent
Creative Artists Agency

Danielle Korn
Executive Vice President &
Director Broadcast Operations
McCann-Erickson USA, Inc.

Moderated by
Brian G. Murphy
Partner
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz

Google Suit

I know I'm jumping the gun a bit with a copyright issue, but I came across this article in the NY Times, and thought it would spark some interesting conversation.  It seems Google is attempting to put all printed books on its website, infringing on authors' copyrights.  Personally, I've always thought it a good idea to put books online, but not at the expense of authors losing their right to gain a profit from their hard work.  Here's the link to the article. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/21/technology/21book.html

When patent litigation threatens national security: the power of secrecy

An article from this month’s Wired News detailed the struggle between patent holders and national security. The invention in the middle of the debate was the Crater Coupler, and the patent holders worked with Lucent Technologies to develop an airtight connector for fiber-optic cables designed to operate underwater. After a year, the invention passed the tests. The inventors were then told by Lucent that the company was protected by secrecy and did not have to pay for use of the patented invention.  The inventor’s filed a federal lawsuit alleging, among other things, patent infringement.

The then-secretary of the Navy intervened in the lawsuit, invoked the secrecy privilege and claimed that permitting Crater to pursue the lawsuit could cause "extremely grave damage to national security." The Crater inventors were blocked from obtaining any information about the use of the device, and the federal appeals court upheld the "state secrets privilege" – the executive power that lets the government effectively kill civil lawsuits deemed a threat to national security. This power is used to dismiss infringement claims without a hearing.

It appears from this article that the government’s secrecy privilege may be invoked to take away the rights of the patent holder.

What is the appropriate balance between patent protection and national security? When national security is at stake, are there judicial procedures in place which would ensure secrecy and patent protection? Do inventors who develop weapons, surveillance and anti-terror technologies for government contractors have protection against this secrecy privilege?

The full article is at http://wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68894,00.html