Archive for March, 2011

Share via email

By Scott Nyman

I'm calling it! This will be the" World Flag" in ten years.

Over a year ago, Google announced that it would build a fiber optic data network in one lucky city capable of providing 1 Gbps downloading bandwidth (source). That’s 1,000 Mbps to all you non-nerds out there, and should be 1024 Mbps (2^10 bps), as all the nerds will tell you. I should know, I’m a nerd myself. But, no matter what side of the nerd fence you sit on, that 1 Gbps internet connection feeding internet at over 19 Million times faster than a 56K modem is drool-worthy.

Now a year later, the results are in! Congratulations to Kansas City, KS (that’s Kansas, not Missouri). Over 1,100 towns and cities had submitted pleas to become Google’s experimental hotbed of internet connectivity goodness. Although only one was selected in this round, Google’s Milo Medin has stated, “…today is the start, not the end of the project. And over the coming months, we’ll be talking to other interested cities about the possibility of us bringing ultra high-speed broadband to their communities.”

Besides having an absolutely appropriate album cover, Sneaky Sound System produces good music, too.

Those interested in experiencing the benefits of the ultra high-speed internet soon to be experienced by Kansas City would benefit from considering which factors caused the ultimate selection of that city (Hint, hint, Melbourne, FL). The following was posted to Google’s blog:

“In selecting a city, our goal was to find a location where we could build efficiently, make an impact on the community and develop relationships with local government and community organizations. We’ve found this in Kansas City. We’ll be working closely with local organizations including the Kauffman Foundation, KCNext and the University of Kansas Medical Center to help develop the gigabit applications of the future.”

Now I’m just curious to see how many “adult” copyright infringement lawsuits will appear in the U.S. District Court – District of Kansas once the new network becomes live.

Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

Just in case you have somehow forgotten, I am a die hard NC State Wolfpack fan.  As they say, I bleed Wolfpack Red.  When I was going through the dozen of so email updates that I get every day of intellectual property news (yes, I am that boring) my attention was immediately grabbed by an article in the News and Observer (a paper out of Raleigh) indicating that NC State was asserting ownership of the Wolfpack Mascot… that’s right – Mr. Wuf was in peril and NC State was stepping up to defend him.

Apparently, NC State had about enough of Loyola calling their team the Wolfpack.  Attorneys for NC State sent a letter to Loyola informing them that their use of the Wolfpack trademark violated the trademark rights of NC State.  The article did indicate, however, that NC State proposed options to Loyola that would allow Loyola to use “Wolfpack” in connection with Loyola, but not standing alone.  The first thing that came to my mind, however, was the University of Nevada trademark.  Apparently, however, that dispute was resolved already.  Nevada had already entered into an agreement with N.C. State whereby Nevada agreed that it would not use Red and White to show its wolf, and that he wolf would not don a tophat.  <insert several jokes here.>

To figure out the basis of NC State’s claim, I conducted a search using the USPTO website.  This is a hint to all trademark owners, or potential trademark owners out there.  A great place to do some free trademark searching to see if protection for you trademark may be available, or to see what potential competitors may be up to, is the USPTO website.  Anyway, I found two registered trademarks owned by NC State (depicted below, but you have to click on them to really see them).  One is directed to apparel and promoting sports events, and another is directed to merchandise ranging from key chains to decals (many of which I already own but if someone was thinking about getting me a gift for no particular reason, I can always use more Wolfpack gear – as can my kids).  Clearly, NC State uses the Wolfpack trademark in connection with promoting their sports program, as well as the merchandise that goes along with it.

I was absolutely shocked, however, to see the registered trademark below for “Wolfpack” as used in connection with “Educational services in a corporate setting, namely, conducting training, seminars and workshops for others in the field of concurrent engineering to help companies implement concurrent engineering in their manufacturing operations as it relates to the development and improvement of manufactured goods; and distribution of course materials in connection therewith.”  How can this be?  How does someone besides NC State own a trademark for “Wolfpack” for educational services in the field of concurrent engineering?  When I think of the three schools in the Triangle (Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill), there are the other two inferior schools and the Engineering School at NC State!  I guess I was a little surprised to see the NC State attorneys letting that one slide.  This is a product, however, whether or not the trademark owner uses the trademark on the particular goods and services.  For example, in this particular case, NC State must not have been using “Wolfpack” for its educational services.  It’s not as though people run around calling it “Wolfpack Engineering.”

I would like to think, however, that NC State could have a decent trademark dilution claim based on the use of the “Wolfpack” name by someone other than them in connection with educational services.  First and foremost, NC State is an institution of higher learning.  Of course, we all rally behind the sports teams, and the sports teams probably bring in a large chunk of the revenue at the school.  Trademark dilution is a cause of action that is reserved, generally, for “famous” marks.  It is a way for famous trademark owners to stop others from using their trademarks in a manner that would dilute the value of the registered trademark.

I suspect that Loyola will comply with NC State’s demands and enter into an agreement similar to that of Nevada.

On a side note, upon reading finding out about this issue, I immediately tweeted it – you guessed it, I am a tweetaholic.  Twitter has been a great tool for me to keep up to date on intellectual property issues, and to converse with other intellectual property professionals around the world.  Shortly after tweeting my article, I was contacted by an AP reporter writing about the NC State/Loyola trademark dispute.  I conducted a quick interview with Tom Breen and he later posted an article in which I was quoted.  I’ll post an article soon outlining my views on social networking and how you can benefit from it.

Share via email

By Daniel Davidson

In an effort to better the quality of searches as the International Searching Authority, the European Patent Office is stepping out of their Sunday’s best and into their Tom Selleck’s best.  The EPO has announced that they will be seeking “informal” clarification from applicants that file under the Patent Cooperation Treaty.  If the drawings, specifications, or claims are not up to par with the requirements so that a quality search can be made, an examiner will contact the applicant (or applicant’s attorney of record) and ask for specification in any area that may need clarification.

This effort is regarded as informal because the EPO is under no obligation to contact the applicant for clarification and the applicant is under no obligation to respond to such a request, but as I am sure you have guessed or common sense has kicked in and said, “why wouldn’t you want to respond and have a better quality search performed,” it would be in the applicant’s best interest to respond.  The EPO has indicated that the initial communication will be by telephone or by communication, likely through fax.  As would be the case with the USPTO (in an interview summary as the USPTO calls it), the minutes of the communication will be summarized and sent to the applicant.  If no clarification was made during the telephone consultation, a time limit will be indicated in the written communication summary in which the applicant will need to respond with clarifying statements.  Still, there is no obligation to respond to this request.  It will only result in a sub-par search which I’m sure every applicant wants after paying the fees associated with a PCT application.

The EPO has elected to go with the two week response time from the mailing date which can be done either through further telephone conferences or in formal writing, sent via fax.  (I didn’t know people still used faxes?)  Maybe they will catch on to the email buzz I’ve been hearing about.  I hear email is the new black.  Nonetheless, even if an applicant misses the two week deadline but a response to the “informal” request is received, the examiner may still take into consideration any clarification received as long as it is before the completion of the International Search Report.

The EPO has reminded applicants that this is not an invitation to amend claims because that will need to be done later with the International Bureau.  The newly implemented process will be applied to applications filed on or after April 1, 2011 and will also apply to applications that have not yet received an International Search Report.

This is a fine extension of love from our neighbors to the east, and I’m sure will be appreciated, in most cases, because as I iterated above, it is not at all cheap to file a PCT application. 

I wonder if the EPO has participated in Mustache March to prepare for their new attire?  Cheers.

Share via email

by Aaron Thalwitzer

In the second chapter of an ongoing series on human breast milk-related trademarks, I present to you “Baby Gaga”, the ice cream you could actually make all by yourself, ladies! Like, totally by yourself. Without anyone’s help. No, seriously, you don’t even need a cow.

Lady Gaga has threatened an ice cream parlor, called the “Icecreamists”,with a lawsuit. Ms. Gaga’s cease and desist letter demanded that the shop change the name of the ice cream, they’d get sued big time. Only, the Icecreamists can’t. The Man shut down the human mammary milk manufacturers before the letter ever reached the Icecreamists.

The Offending Sherbet

Ms. Gaga accuses the Icecreamists of using her “reputation and goodwill” and says that Baby Gaga is “highly detrimental” to her image because it may be “unsafe for human consumption (owing to the risk of it carrying such viruses as hepatitis).”</shudder>

The Icecreamists are milking this PR opportunity for all its worth. A full page response on their website explains that Lady Gaga cannot claim ownership to the word “gaga” since it “has been one of the first discernable phrases to come from a baby’s mouth.”

The Icecreamists placed upped the ante, practically begging Ms. Gaga to keep alive this moot point: They told Ms. Gaga that to “bring her legal team, we will bring our ice cream.”

Ms. Gaga described the product as ‘nausea-inducing’. The Kermit-cuddling, meat-modeling, mannequin of the main stage apparently thinks the Icecreamists have taken this a step too far. The Icecreamists screamed back, saying, “At least our customers are still alive when they contribute to our ‘art’.” Booyah!

The Icecreamists make their best point here:

How can she possibly claim ownership of the word ‘gaga’ which since the dawn of time has been one of the first discernable phrases to come from a baby’s mouth. This is why we chose the name. She owns no rights in the primal utterances of our children.

I hadn’t thought of that, but it makes good sense. Their problem is that the phrase “Baby Gaga” is so evocative of Lady Gaga. Maybe Ms. Gaga isn’t so popular in the UK. I honestly have no idea. Still, I’d wager she is, although she doesn’t seem to be making headlines so much these days.

To borrow a line from the Icecreamists’ response, “It all sounds and tastes like sour milk to us.”

Share via email

By Scott Nyman

We have all read news reports about lawsuits filed against individuals for internet piracy, the modern day term for the downloading of copyrighted materials. A few years ago, in an effort to thwart piracy, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) started massive campaigns threatening litigation against parties suspected of illegally downloading copyrighted materials via P2P pipelines. P2P is a common abbreviation for peer-to-peer networks, or networks that do not require a centralized server that could regulate and control the content being transmitted between the peers.

One of those threats actually resulted in the highly publicized trial, and two subsequent retrials, involving members of the RIAA and Jammie Thomas-Rasset over the downloading of 24 sound recordings through the Kazaa P2P software. After a damages awards of $1.5 million against the Minnesota mother of four, and staggering legal bills for both parties, the record companies came out looking somewhat like monsters.  As a result, the MPAA and RIAA appear to have backed off from their avid legal campaign against copyright infringing individuals. However, the adult entertainment industry has been taking up the slack in docketing copyright infringement cases, at times naming thousands of John Does per complaint, but that’s a different story altogether.

So, without the impinging threat of litigation (other than for adult materials), is America on track to become the next China for internet piracy? Not according to a report from the NPD group, which claims that only 9 percent of US internet users engaged in P2P downloading in 2010. This figure is down considerably from the 16 percent reported to use P2P networks in 2007. The decreased piracy may be a result of increased ease of access to content via legitimate channels.

But, what can be done to further reduce piracy? In my opinion, the business model needs to change. Instead of focusing on how to sell ownership of more content, groups like the RIAA and MPAA should instead work with distribution partners to develop a way to monetize the leasing of content. And, perhaps most essentially, they should make it so easy that consumers won’t be bothered with acquiring their content via cumbersome, illegitimate channels.

Gone are the days when the best way to get the song you desire is by purchasing an entire album. Even the model of purchasing individual tracks online, cherry picked and constructed into playlists for playback on iPods or smartphones, is a becoming a relic of the past. Always available and easy to access leased content, playable across nearly all of a consumer’s devices, will likely become the future of content delivery.

Microsoft and Netflix both have provided decent solutions using this model, but both offerings are not without limitation. Microsoft’s Zune Pass allows users to download and access an unlimited amount of music as long as they continue to pay the monthly fee, but it’s restricted to Zune branded software and hardware only. Netflix offers access to huge amounts of content, which may be streamed to my living room via a large number of devices, but restrictions on which content is available (as required by the copyright holders) often place the movie I’m craving in the “disc only” category.

What is needed is instant access a nearly complete library of content that can be accessed or played on nearly all devices, wrapped up in an easy-to-use interface. Create this complete solution, and consumers will pay monthly for the convenience alone. If the service begins selectively disabling the availability of songs or movies to make consumers run out and buy a copy, it will only devalue the service as a whole. As for the pirates, some will continue pirate because they just enjoy pirating, but I’m betting a majority of them will also have an account with this proposed wonder-service.


Subscribe

Login



THURSDAY, MAY 23, 2013

Bad Behavior has blocked 15459 access attempts in the last 7 days.