Stumble it!

The requirements for qualifying in Australia seem similar to those in Israel, with two years training and an experienced licensed practitioner being required. In Israel, we do not have an ongoing training requirement, but it seems a good idea.

That said, I would imagine that most Israel patent attorneys do attend conferences or seminars in Israel or abroad. Indeed, the seminars we organized this past year were well attended by patent attorneys working in industry or for the smaller firms.

One of the advantages of the merger between Fa(c)tor Patent Attorneys and JMB & Co. is that the combined workforce will be large enough to make  internal training seminars feasible.

Sony has announced that it will offer a software update to enable the latest version of its Reader e-book to display content from other e-booksellers, Web sites and public libraries. The move is a departure for Sony, which previously limited Reader users to Sony's own 45,000-title online bookstore. The Washington Post/Associated Press (7/24)

Samsung is readying its latest home theater in a box featuring Blu-ray technology. The 5.1-channel HT-BD2E, which is Samsung's third Blu-ray HTiB, is scheduled to hit store shelves in August. Samsung also is rolling out new HDTV models in its Touch of Color line. TWICE (7/23) , Pocket-lint.co.uk (7/23) , Pocket-lint.co.uk (7/23)

Counterfeit "Calvin" stickers pimping religion, or expressing disdain for something.

First of all, Bill Watterson never licensed Calvin & Hobbes for any merchandising, despite the prospect of literal tons of money he would have stood to earn from it.  That's why there are no legitimate Calvin & Hobbes t-shirts, coffee mugs, or other trinkets.  Any Calvin & Hobbes sticker you see out there is intellectual property theft, plain and simple.

Second, the messages implied on those stickers are totally not in the spirit of the cartoon.  There's nothing in the entire ten-year run of Calvin & Hobbes that even hints at Calvin's religion, or his preference in automobiles, and seeing Bill Watterson's creation take a leak on a Ford/Chevy/Dodge logo or kneel before a cross in prayer just rubs me entirely the wrong way.  (Not that I mind people displaying their religious convictions on their personal vehicles, but is intellectual property theft really a great way to show piety and advertise your faith?  I could have sworn there was a Commandment that says Thou Shalt Not Steal...)

I know it's a very minor thing to get all bent out of shape over, but it's one of the little things that matter.  If you bend Calvin & Hobbes for propaganda, brand loyalty statements, or proselytization, you're not only a thief, you also display that you have no clue about the spirit of the cartoon.  It's an act of defilement of someone else's creative work...a small and largely insignificant act, perhaps, but defilement nonetheless.

But with the predominantly impersonal nature of the Internet where there is not face-to-face interaction, the sharing and 'communing' of ideas is the only thing that seems to maintain the human element of community when online.

So to supersede the arguments surrounding patents and intellectual property, I decided to look at some of the ways in which intellectual property is shared on open source platforms. The most interesting form that I found is the social knowledge collaboration tool of the 'wiki'.

Officially (as in according to the ever helpful Wikipedia and Oxford English Dictionary Online) a wiki is a website that people can contribute their own information to. Wikipedia itself is currently the most used wiki. Official statistics show that at the end of 2006 there were 151934 people a day visiting the website.

(Although it is very interesting to note that Google is in the process of establishing an expert-contributors-only wiki website called Knol)

But the benefits of wikis are not just limited to a database of interesting information. They can also provide support for professionals in particular fields, helpful 'how to' information and sources for class projects (although no Wiki is allowed at University... I wonder how Knol will be received??). But it is also good to see that wikis in general contributing to the social and sharing nature of Web 2.0.

For more cool stories about specific wikis and open source ideas that aren’t just software or hardware... watch this space! :)

via Chris Brogan

Where do you stand?

Personally, I don't like it. A win for Universal here means that big copyright holders can go around issuing takedown notices willy-nilly with no possibility of repercussions, and in the 1/10 times that someone calls them on it, they can just say, "oh, oops, no harm done." Except harm has been done--to the 9/10 other situations in which the people involved didn't have the knowledge or resources to fight back. Of course, that's pretty much what's happening now (you can ask all of the fanvidders who have had their work yanked from YouTube and have done nothing about it), so maybe it's just the status quo.

I don't like it, but I can can at least see the merit in the argument. Kind of like JKR v. RDR, which still has no verdict. Between these two cases, there's the potential for some huge changes for the face of fair use very soon.

Less romantic but still intellectually titillating is the idea exchange between expert communities. Renowned problem solvers can collaborate by sharing non-competitive ideas that mutually benefit both parties. This is the model behind Innocentive, which I've mentioned in several previous posts - the service connects problem solvers with companies seeking solutions, anonymously exchanging a preset reward for the best idea and its intellectual property. Here's a short story from an article in the New York Times:

John Davis, a chemist in Bloomington, Ill., knows about concrete. For example, he knows that if you keep concrete vibrating it won’t set up before you can use it. It will still pour like a liquid.

Now he has applied that knowledge to a seemingly unrelated problem thousands of miles away. He figured out that devices that keep concrete vibrating can be adapted to keep oil in Alaskan storage tanks from freezing. The Oil Spill Recovery Institute of Cordova, Alaska, paid him $20,000 for his idea.

I'm enamored by this sort of cross-pollination of ideas. Innovation is yet another stepping stone that connects inventors to funding.

Inventor - Idea - Innocentive

Inventor - Patent - Ocean Tomo, Intellectual Ventures, etc.

The rewards are correlated according to what you put into it - put in the legwork and time to file the patent, and you could sell your patent for $500,000 or spend the month writing up a proposal, and you have a chance at getting $20,000 flat.

Some other endeavors in invention outsourcing:

Today, would-be innovators can sign up online to compete for prizes for feats as diverse as landing on the Moon and inventing artificial meat.

This year, researchers at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the University of Washington began recruiting computer gamers to an online competition, named Foldit, aimed at unraveling one of the knottiest problems of biology — how proteins fold.

And in a report last year, a panel appointed by the National Research Council recommended that the National Science Foundation, the major government financing agency for physical science research, offer prizes of $200,000 to $2 million “in diverse areas” as a first step in a major program “to encourage more complex innovations” addressing economic, social and other challenges.

Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, has proposed that the government offer $300 million to whoever invents a battery compact enough, powerful enough and cheap enough to replace fossil fuels.

I'm enamored.

Stumble it!

We have structured the panel as a series of brief presentations by the panelists followed by a general Q&A session on the presentations. While the title for the panel is a bit innocuous, the presentations will cover a variety of relevant open source topics, including: GPLv3 and the GPLv3 drafting process (including differences between GPLv2, GPLv3 and other open source licenses), open source patent concerns, legal strategies for using open source software in connection with proprietary software, and issues raised by open source software under the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 and other corporate regulations.

My presentation will include a brief history and update on the "BusyBox lawsuits" brought over the last year by The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) on behalf of its clients Erik Andersen and Rob Landley (the two principal developers of the BusyBox open source utility) alleging copyright infringement based on a violation of version 2 of the GNU General Public License (GPL). I will be including information based both on my personal experience working with defendants in several of the BusyBox cases as well as discussions with others involved in the suits. Details on the panel and the other panelists are included below.

For those of you based in New York or headed to the ABA Annual Meeting, please let me know if you would be interested in getting together while I am in town.

2008 ABA Annual Meeting
Section of Intellectual Property Law

2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.
CLE Program: Life after GPLv3: New Developments in Open Source Software Licensing.
co-sponsored by the Section of Science & Technology Law

The past year has seen significant legal developments concerning open source software licensing, most notably, the publication of the GPLv3 license, which is much more comprehensive than GPLv2 and attempts to address the changes in software law over the past 15 years, as well as initial efforts to enforce open source software license requirements in the courts. This panel will explore the new GPLv3 license, how it differs from GPLv2, the status of GPLv3 adoption and recent litigation concerning the enforcement of GPL and other open source license terms affecting GPLv3 or other open source license use.

Moderator
Sue Ross, Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., New York, NY

Speakers
Gabe Holloway, Leonard, Street and Deinard, Minneapolis, MN
Terry Ilardi, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY
Jason Haislmaier, Holme Roberts & Owen LLP, Boulder, CO
Jim Markwith, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, CA

bluebox is conducting a one-day workshop for QUT research staff who wish to learn more about commercialisation.

Offering comprehensive coverage of commercialisation issues relevant to the research environment, the workshop will provide attendees with a fantastic opportunity to discover more about taking research to market and gain a deeper insight into commercialisation at QUT.

Session topics include:

• How is QUT research commercialised?
• What is intellectual property and why is it relevant to my research?
• How can I ensure my research outcomes are able to be commercialised?

for more information visit the bluebox website at: http://www.qutbluebox.com.au/news/upcomingeven/workshops.jsp ]]> http://tkbulletin.wordpress.com/?p=453 Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:32:29 +0000 Kirsty Galloway McLean http://tkbulletin.wordpress.com/?p=453 Pacific Private Sector Group To Hold Annual Talks In Fiji
Pacific Magazine - 20 July 2008

NADI, FIJI: Representatives of the region's private sector will meet in Nadi, Fiji, for the second Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Pacific Islands Private Sector Organization (PIPSO) on Monday and Tuesday this week, according to a PIPSO release. The AGM will be followed by a regional workshop on how intellectual property and traditional knowledge can contribute to small business success, from July 23-24. Supported by the European Union through the Pacific Regional Economic Integration Program (PACREIP) and co-organised with PIFS' Private Sector Development Unit, the workshop provides an opportunity for public-private dialogue on issues pertaining to intellectual properties and traditional knowledge and aims to clarify the role of intellectual properties and traditional knowledge in determining the success of innovative island businesses. Read the article...

GENEVA, SWITZERLAND: A new draft of proposed modalities for negotiating three intellectual property issues at next week’s World Trade Organization ministerial shows that proponents have gathered the support of the majority of developing country members. The new draft, dated 17 July, reflects changes over the previous version that address developing country concerns. There is a new opening paragraph calling for the issues to be included in the ministerial (which begins on 21 July) in order to pave the way for negotiations. New language also appeared on the process of negotiating the protection from misappropriation of their genetic resources and the necessity of special treatment for poorer nations. The new text comes at a particularly delicate time, as high-level officials begin arriving in Geneva for next week’s ministerial, and the fate of the round of trade liberalisation negotiations launched at Doha, Qatar in 2001 hanging in the balance. While rules on agricultural and non-agricultural market access will continue to be the primary focus of the negotiations, there are indications that IP issues could tip the scales one way or the other. The so-called CBD amendment now proposes negotiating prior informed consent and access and benefit-sharing (ABS) “as an integral part of the disclosure requirement and post-grant sanctions.” The prior draft modalities had required definitions on “the nature and extent of a reference” to prior informed consent and ABS, and had allowed “additional elements” to be negotiated, but had not specifically named prior informed consent and ABS as points of negotiation. The strongest proponents of the CBD amendment, such as India and Peru, have called for two additional provisions to be added: one to ensure the prior informed consent of communities where genetic resources or traditional knowledge are found, and one to ensure access and benefit sharing with the communities. These provisions are most strongly supported by developing countries, where assurance of fairly sharing in any benefits in particular is often viewed as a key trade-off for the use of their genetic resources. Post-grant sanctions likely would allow a granted patent to be overturned for failing to adequately or accurately disclose origin, or ensure consent and benefit-sharing. Read the article...

It sounds kind of like a theoretically-glorified version of Instructables, but you won't see people giving themselves laser-burned tattoos. Because the BCC is interested specifically in knowledge that's frequently inaccessible to most users:

Individual and collective needs to be more autonomous and general lack of resources for the everyday issues. In short: urban survival.

We look for alternative, cheap and affordable, even free ways to find answers to all sort of needs. We share practical or theoretical knowledge in all disciplines, from medical to crafts, to technology to civil rights. All we need to know for the every day life.

We collect share and protect knowledge rarely valued, common knowledge in traces to be lost, knowledge locked on a patent system, knowledge not able to be approved by science. All matters. (from the wiki)

Maybe it's not a super-new idea, but it's good. Here in the States this kind of attitude seems mostly to be wrapped up in hack culture, which I fully support & love;—but what seems special to me about the BCC is its interest in extending that kind of attitude—that you can hack your life; that knowledge should be free; that no one should be trammeled by the often deliberately-obscure rhetoric/documentation of the Technological Overlords of our lives, online or otherwise—& providing the tools to deploy it successfully to people who aren't necessarily automatically interested in this kind of thing. I wonder why we don't have something like this here. Do we?

I bring it up here because I'm trying to keep track of the good alternative-copyright/intellectual-property stuff that I've come across; for a lengthy & excellent write-up, go over to we make money not art, because they're good at that kind of thing.

I just got word that Australian trade officials are accepting comments on the next round of ACTA negotiations.

Predictably, their request for input from is inexcusably opaque. The announcement (link above) alludes to three topics: "border measures", "civil enforcement", and "institutional isssues" (I'm nominating that last one for the Max Weber Prize for lack of imagination by a bureaucrat).

Without more substantive public disclosure and debate of the topics under consideration in the ACTA negotiations, such public comments requests remain little more than a shadow play of actual democracy.

This is simply unacceptable given the scope of issues ACTA will address and their potential impact on the future of the Internet, the digital economy, global development, and law enforcement.

Small wonder, the Office of the US Trade Representative has not even bothered to request comments.

Hat tip: Kimberlee Weatherall

Let the hiring begin...

Indian Institute of Technology - Mumbai Director Prof Ashok Misra is leaving the institute in October to join Intellectual Ventures, a private company which seeks to create invention capital network by developing a large patent portfolio. Prof Misra announced his decision at the Golden Jubilee Celebration of IIT-Mumbai, here, saying he considered this forum to the best place to make his departure known. Misra has been Director of the premier institute since May 2000 and is serving second term. He said that he would be available to the institute for any consultation but would write check to only IIT-Kanpur. Misra is alumnus of IIT-Kanpur and his remarks came in the context of appeals by the IIT-Mumbai alumni here to their colleagues and others donors to make contribution for their institute. More than USD 5 million was collected during the meet and the alumni have set a target to collect at least USD 10 million. Misra, professor of chemical engineering, is fellow of the Indian National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences. He has six patents to his credit.

Stumble it!

Last couple of months I've been quite busy with writing PhD thesis and few other projects, but also I was trying to start an open project balancing between academia and industry. This balance sounds like an opportunity, but in fact it was an issue instead. The issue wasn't in the money - I was lucky to find people willing to help me in getting funding. The issue was rather in what I need to give away in exchange for the money - openness, control over the project or all intellectual property rights. Being already established scientist or a business person would solve such issues immediately, but I am still PhD student, so I need to face it. And while I have still plenty of people to talk to (I think it will take another month or two), that left me thinking about career on the border between industry and academia.

On both sides, in academia and industry, career path (and I'm not talking here only about having a job, but also about starting a business by yourself) is somehow clear and one can get a significant help along the way, but I haven't found such clear path on the border between these two. Open source business model seems to work well mostly for very established players (such as Apache or RedHat) - growing in such model looks much more difficult than on either of sides. Probably Antony Williams from ChemSpider (who was one of the people that inspired and encouraged me to follow this path) would say much more in here, especially how easy (is not) to get a financial support for working on a project like ChemSpider.

I don't think about working in one or the other environment anymore. Being freelancing scientist has a lot of good sides and growing wouldn't be an issue (for example I have enough collaborations and ideas to cover financially next 3-4 years from grants; publications would follow). But, as I wrote before,some of the projects I'd love to work on are unlikely to be funded in academic system. On the other hand, openness is too important for me to give it away, so only a merger of these two sounds interesting. There are few examples of successful merging industry and academia, but they all seem to operate on different principles, compared to my recent attempts. Craig Venter's model was as far as I know most of the time double-sided - he had a non-profit search unit and a company that commercialized its discoveries. Pretty similar has also David E. Shaw. So I have started to wonder if sticking to borderline is actually the very best idea. Being involved on two fronts at the same time sounds pretty overwhelming, but so far these are the only examples when this whole idea seems to work. Are you aware of any others?

My other hope is that new ways of growing on the borderline will very soon emerge. There's quite a lot happening right now on the front of supporting innovations (including open models), so maybe over there I will find my niche. We'll see.

(The image above is not my desk. While I work in a home office, mine doesn't look so clean.)

Further reading:

A microfunding system for research and innovation.

Pharma looks at new ways of innovate.

Discussion around business model around Open Data is building up.

On the other hand, see the following: Court Advisor Says Poem List Infringed Database Right 

Europe's highest court could strengthen the rights of database creators to protect their work. One of the European Court of Justice's Advocates General has issued an opinion backing a German University's right to stop others using information it compiled.

Source: Out-Law.com, July 15, 2008.

Most of you have probably already seen the above video by now. After all, if there's one thing that Ally McBeal taught us, it's that there's nothing better than a dancing baby--at least if that baby is dancing to legally licensed music. Hear that song in the background? It's Prince's "Let's Go Crazy," and Universal Music was none too pleased to see this video on YouTube. After all, the mom who posted it didn't go through the legal channels to get a license to the song playing in the background on the radio.

This sounds pretty silly, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation thought so too. After YouTube took down the video based on a DMCA claim, they subsequently put it back up six weeks later with a concession from Universal Music that the use of the song in the video fell under fair use. However, the mom in question, along with EFF, fought back. They filed suit under a little-used section of the DMCA allowing victims of meritless takedown notices to seek damages.

The case went to trial on Friday. Universal Music's lawyers call this a case of first impression, making a legitimate distinction: in previous cases like this one, damages were awarded because of a false representation of copyright ownership. Here, Universal Music does own the copyright to the Prince song. So the question is whether there can be a misuse of the takedown notice where fair use is involved--or, as the judge noted, whether there can ever be misuse if there is indeed a legitimate copyright.

This is actually a very interesting issue, considering that fair use itself is basically judge-made law. Though there is precedent for what is fair use and what is not, it is litigated on a case-by-case, specific facts basis. However, even if Universal Music wins, it seems likely that they and companies like them will think twice about issuing takedown notices where the situation barely passes the laugh test, as that little clip of a dancing baby is certainly turning out to be more trouble than it was worth.

The judge did not indicate when he would rule. With the judge still out on the Harry Potter lexicon case as well, we could be seeing huge changes for the face of fair use in the near future.

-- Casey Fiesler

See: http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000363367&fid=829

It's nice to be large, but I set up Factor - Patent Attorneys with an emphasis on quality not size.  It is because of the quality of our products and staff that JMB & Co, was interested in the merger.

The combined firm JMB, Factor & Co. will maintain the tradition of excellence and attention to detail for which we are known. We wish to be known as no. 1 for quality and service. But being number 6 in size is nice as well.