Intellectual Property, Technology, and the Law
I’ve been meaning to blog about a number of interesting intellectual property related issues, stories and opinions I’ve read over the past week or so, but haven’t had the time until now. I am going to dispense with any clever segues and just post them along with some comments.
Have you seen The Hangover? If you have, you’ve probably seen the Hangover 2 trailer. Check this out — a tattoo artist is suing Warner Brothers over the design of the face tattoo he provided to none other than Mike Tyson, whereas said tattoo was used in The Hangover 2 by Stu Price, the dentist who lost his tooth in the original. Any time intellectual property gets crossed with a bachelor party, you just gotta write about it. You dig?
Among a plethora of stupid things our Government is doing, one of them is cutting the USPTO budget. Well, to me, few things make as much sense as the USPTO having a satellite office in one of the world’s most active innovation volcanoes, the Silicon Valley. But the Government isn’t going to do it. And that’s too bad. Job creation, better patents, more innovation, more investment… ah, the heck with it. You’re right. It makes too much sense. Click here for the link.
Here is a good one from one of my professors in law school. It is quite clear to me that the plaintiff has some serious chemical imbalances above the shoulders. BTW, if you read this article, you automatically assent to an obligation to send me $500 cash. Muchas gracias.
During the course of my responsibilities, I frequently train my company’s employees on IP basics. One of the main topics is discussing patents and trade secrets as major forms of intellectual property protection, and I describe the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. If I had more time, I hope I would explain it as well and as succinctly as this paper. While I still believe nothing is stronger than a patent, there certainly are fact patterns where trade secret protection would be a better choice, and these fact patterns are more common than one would think.
There have been oodles, or a googolplex, of articles written on Google’s loss to Bedrock Computer Technologies, the latter of whom is a patent troll (which I strongly believe should be distinguished from legitimate non-practicing entities, or NPEs). But I like this one because it’s got a humorous lean to it, and I like the blog in general for many of the same reasons. And hey, if you didn’t know about this decision, this is a good place to start.
I agree with the FOSS Patents blog on this one — Barnes & Noble’s answer to Microsoft’s infringement suit is quite… lame. Is that the best they could do? Really?
Very cool — the top 10 celebrity patents. This link only shows 5, but it has a prominent link to another 5. As a tease, here are some of the celebrities: Steve McQueen, Christie Brinkley, Harry Connick Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Michael Jackson and yes, Charlie Sheen! Unlike most of us licensing practitioners, I am guessing Charlie doesn’t have exhaustion issues.
The Licensing Executive Society (LES) published an entry about how one should apply a business approach to the intellectual property life cycle. While most IP pros will say “duh” (and perhaps, “winning”), I did like the visualization of the process. I developed something similar for my company in the past but I admit it wasn’t as quite as good as this one. Check it out here.
This is an interesting situation where a third party successfully protested the impending grant of a patent application. I think the irony is that most people would think this approach is a good one, yet it isn’t kosher per the rules.
I have frequently dealt with scenarios where my company and another jointly develop intellectual property to some extent. And while these situations are often “no brainers” with management, business development and engineering folks, as IP professionals, there are some important issues to consider. This article summarizes some of them quite well.
Enjoy the weekend, and GO SHARKS!