IP ADR Blog

A little slow on the uptake here in alerting U.S. readers to the official launch of the Anti Copying in Design organization's U.K. Mediate to Resolve service.  Illustration and excerpt direct from IPKat.  Mediate to Resolve's list of Mediators here.  For full IPKat post, click here. 

Not a side issue but an event in its own right, the official launch for ACID's Mediate to Resolve scheme was one of the reasons for the cork-popping at that organisation's 10th birthday party in London last week.

Right: handled properly, a good mediation can produce amicable, workable arrangements even between even potential foes

For the uninitiated:

"ACID’s (Anti Copying in Design) national Mediate to Resolve service for dispute resolution is based on the organisation’s extensive experience handling mediations. Just under 2,000 ACID mediations have taken place, of which less than 30% have required further legal intervention. ACID’S national network of Accredited Mediators offers a wealth of intellectual property dispute resolution experience. Their mix of negotiation style and skill provides a comprehensive service to those seeking mediation as a real alternative to litigation.

Many organisations are not familiar with the stages of the mediation process – and there is no reason why they should be – until they need it! We hope this booklet will clarify the use and process of mediation and help to explain the route to dispute resolution. At ACID, we are frequently asked “What mediation is and how does it work?” Mediation is a confidential meeting between two parties who are in dispute which enables them to retain control over the outcome. They are guided through the process by a skilled mediator who will use his or her expertise to restore or rebuild a harmonious relationship, but has no authority to impose an outcome.

These days the demands on businesses to succeed and grow are severely hampered by the increase in intellectual property infringement. Taking action against those who seek the fast track to market through IP theft places huge fiscal and time restrictions on the day-to-day running of organisations. ACID has spent the last decade encouraging parties in disputes to seek mediation sooner rather than later and Government is now sending a strong message to judges to look more favourably on disputing companies who seek mediation prior to any court applications". . . .

Continue reading here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

R. David Donoghue over at the Chicago IP Litigation Blog is hosting a "Carnival" of Blogs that is new to me -- The Carnival of Trust.  

As David explains:

The Carnival of Trust is a monthly, traveling review of ten of the last month's best posts related to various aspects of trust in the business world. It is much like the weekly Blawg Reviews that I post links to and have hosted, but those generally contain far more than ten links. My job this month was to pick those ten posts for you and provide an introduction to each post that makes you want to click through and read more.

We're pleased that our sister blog -- Settle It Now -- is included in the category Trust in Leadership and Management along with Charles H. Green's Trust Matters; George Ambler's Practice of Leadership;  and Stephen Albainy-Jenei's Patent Baristas  (if they gave awards for blog template design, PB would win in my book every day of the week).  In this crowd I feel like Zelig!

Here's David's generous mention of the Settle It Now Negotiation Blog and my recent post on convincing your clients to give up more than you (their attorney) predicted while still maintaining your credibility.

On the subject of trust-based leadership, Victoria Pynchon at the Settle It Now, Negotiation Blog has an excellent guide for maintaining your client's trust during a difficult negotiation: How Can I Convince My Client to Lose More than Predicted and Still Maintain My Own Credibility? The answer is complex and multi-faceted, but it boils down to the fact that you have to get the stakeholders and decision makers face-to-face, get their buy in on resolution as a goal (in addition to winning), explore all avenues of resolution, and you have to let them explore all aspects of the dispute, even those that do not matter. The last point is a difficult one for lawyers. As a lawyer you generally want to remain focused on the settlement inputs -- money, confidentiality provisions, sale of existing product if something about the product is being changed, etc. -- but from a trust perspective it is important that the stakeholders resolve not just those issues that go into a final agreement, but any problems or concerns they have related to the dispute or the parties to the dispute.

And let me just add here -- though I'll sound like a broken record to my regular readers -- that business people seek out lawyers because they believe themselves to be victims of injustice. (see my short-short video on this topic here)

Though I, as a mediator, am always seeking business solutions to legal problems, the client's injustice problem must be addressed to maintain your credibility (and retain your client's trust.).  Every great mediator I know will address this issue with your client unbidden.  If you're using less than great mediators --  raise the issue yourself -- all competent mediators should be prepared to address the issues foremost on your client's mind right including -- Will I lose?  How much more is this going to cost me? and Am I Being Extorted or Low-Balled?

Thanks for the mention, David!  We're happy to see Settle It Now mentioned by an IP Blog as influential as yours.  Every IP dispute involves the same issues as every other commercial dispute, requiring the parties to go beyond their legal positions; explore all of both parties' commercial interests; create value from potential business synergies; claim as much of that value as possible; craft business solutions to legal problems; and, frankly address the injustice issues that led your client to seek you out in the first place. 

They'll be yours for life.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Too busy to comment, but couldn't resist posting this one.  Comments from the IP crowd?  Ideas for interest-based solutions from the ADR posse?  Mike Young?

ATHENS, Greece - A Greek court has been asked to draw the line between the natives of the Aegean Sea island of Lesbos and the world's gay women.

Three islanders from Lesbos — home of the ancient poet Sappho, who praised love between women — have taken a gay rights group to court for using the word lesbian in its name.

One of the plaintiffs said Wednesday that the name of the association, Homosexual and Lesbian Community of Greece, "insults the identity" of the people of Lesbos, who are also known as Lesbians.

"My sister can't say she is a Lesbian," said Dimitris Lambrou. "Our geographical designation has been usurped by certain ladies who have no connection whatsoever with Lesbos," he said.

The three plaintiffs are seeking to have the group barred from using "lesbian" in its name and filed a lawsuit on April 10. The other two plaintiffs are women.

And below -- a T.V. lesbian "mediator" gives warring parents a hologram of custody battles.   Funny.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Check out Cumulative and Overlapping Innovation by Adam B. Jaffe and Josh Lerner over at  Harvard Business School Working Knowledge here as well as Jaffe and Lerner's book Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What to Do About It, one of the Economist's Best Books of 2004, Economics and Business Category.  Excerpt from HBSWK below: 

A classic example of the tradeoff between rewarding pioneering inventions and allowing improvements is the Edison electric light bulb. Edison was granted the basic patent on incandescent lighting in 1880. For the next dozen years or so, there was much dispute about the validity and breadth of this patent. Many companies offered competing products. A number of these contained important improvements in the design of the filament and the bulb itself, and the cost of the bulb trended steadily downward.

Then, in 1891, Edison General Electric Company won an infringement suit against its competitor, United States Electric Lighting,and subsequently won injunctions against a number of competitors. The flow of improvements then slowed, until the expiration of the patent allowed competitors to re-enter and resume their efforts to improve Edison's design.

Now, surely Edison's invention was about as novel as they get. And Edison and his assistants put a lot of time and money into testing different materials until they succeeded with the carbon filament, justifying a patent to allow significant profits to be earned on the invention. But acknowledging the legitimacy of Edison's patent and his efforts to enforce it is not inconsistent with recognizing that the monopoly thereby created temporarily inhibited the subsequent improvement of the invention and the development of the industry more broadly.

In principle, subsequent inventors with good ideas about improving an important invention ought to be able to negotiate an agreement with the owner of the original patent that allows the improvement to be implemented.

This could be done by granting the improver a license to use the original patent, or by selling or licensing the improvement back to the holder of the original invention.

After all, if the improvement is really a good one, both the original inventor and the improver have an incentive to see it implemented. In practice, however, such agreements often are difficult to work out. After the Wright brothers patented their basic design for an aircraft stabilization and steering system, there were many others who wanted to work on a wide variety of different ideas for aircraft. But the Wright brothers refused to license anyone, and engaged in protracted litigation with a number of designers.

With the entry of the United States into World War I, the U.S. government in fact pushed the major aircraft manufacturers, including the Wrights' firm, to license their patents as a package, in order to ensure the rapid manufacture of planes and the development of new designs. The rapid development of numerous different aircraft concepts in the years after the establishment of this "patent pool" suggests that the pioneering patent—combined with the unwillingness or inability of the inventors to cooperate with their technological followers—temporarily retarded the development of technology.

Continue reading here

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The significant problems we face cannot be solvedby the same level of thinking that created them.--Albert Einstein

Lawyers, philosophers and scientists are all trained to question first principles.  The right of one individual to the absolute and exclusive right of dominion over property by virtue of creation or payment (by money or barter) is one of the first principles of capitalism and is rarely questioned. /**

The ownership of ideas, however, and one's entitlement to preclude others from interfering with another's dominion over them, is more slippery today than ever.  In this month's Harvard Business School Working Knowledge journal, for instance, Professor James Heskett kicks off a reader's forum -- Who Owns Intellectual Property -- (open until April 24) with the following:

I [recently] visited the website of the branding consultancy Wolff Olins, responsible for creating the branding for (RED), which raises money for The Global Fund being promoted by Bono and Bobby Shriver. (RED) is a brand, a piece of intellectual property that was designed purposely to be co-opted by others wishing to incorporate it into their advertising. Organizations such as Apple, Gap, and American Express have promoted their products and services using (RED) while raising money for The Global Fund.

Wolff Olins' homepage presents a provocative redefinition of brands as practical platforms that enable people to do things. In its words, "As brands become less the property of an organisation and more the banner of a movement, ownership will become even looser. Logos will be things other organisations, and individuals, can borrow and adapt." That belief, they maintain, will require that some companies, in their own best interests, relinquish control over brands and "be more generous" with consumers. In other words, they take the risk of transferring ownership and quality control of what used to be called their brand to others. In this case, who owns the intellectual property?

More generally, are views of ownership of intellectual property changing? If so, how will it affect the way intellectual property is valued for financial purposes? Are laws worldwide regarding intellectual property out of date? What do you think?

To add your own thoughts, click here.

____________________

/**  Though possibly apocryphal, in responding to the question "what proof need I present to demonstrate my ownership of this slave," a trial judge sitting in a non-slave state in 1840's America is said to have answered, “a bill of sale from God Almighty.” 

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

See The Unlucky Troll at Forbes.com, excerpt below:.

[Chicago lawyer Anthony] Brown first noticed the JPEG patent after quitting his corporate law practice in 1996 and raising just under $1 million from friends and family to fund his new patent-licensing firm. After several months of trolling the national patent database, he found what he'd been looking for. The brainchild of two Philadelphia-area engineers, the JPEG patent lay dormant after being issued. Brown cold-called one patent holder, then 70, and the widow of the other, and persuaded them to assign him control in exchange for a chunk of any licensing fees recovered.

Then came Brown's first roadblock: A petition filed in 2000 by parties unknown asked the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office to reexamine whether the processes the patent described were novel enough to deserve a patent. The feds agreed to the review, a common practice if the questions raised seem substantial. The catch is that during the review the holder of the patent can't demand licensing fees, and the patent's life doesn't get extended accordingly. The reexam of the JPEG patent lasted seven years (the average takes less than two). In the end some fancy wordsmithery allowed Brown to retain control of the patent's pertinent provision.

Brown then launched a wave of lawsuits last summer, demanding anywhere from $25,000 to $15 million, depending on a company's revenues and reliance on the Web. One licensee, court records show, was Kraft Foods (nyse: KFT - news - people ), which was subject to a $5 million fee under Brown's "royalty schedule." Kraft agreed to an undisclosed fee.

But last year saw yet another anonymous challenge. This one was filed by Chicago patent attorney Vernon Francissen, who declines to identify his client. Francissen suggested the JPEG patent's current version had slipped through an overburdened system and was being applied too broadly. In March the Patent Office agreed to a second reexam, again putting up a roadblock to Brown's licensing campaign. . . . .

In late 2010 the patent expires--and there's no limit on the number of times "anonymous" parties can ask for a reexam.

See also TechDirt's February '08 article JPG Patent Holder Goes for the Sympathy Vote here; for more on patent trolling in general, see law.com's "Meet the Original Patent Troll" here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

. . . and because this puts everything else into perspective -- including our own ability to know anything other than our (highly flawed) perception of it  . . . .  which has to do with negotiating past impasse  . . . . . I'll let you decide why . . . .

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There are dozens of reasons why a negotiated settlement of a patent infringement case is superior to continued litigation, but only one reason why it's even better than winning.  As law.com recently reported, "over the last decade, 38 percent of the cases had at least one term found on appeal to have been wrongly construed [and] . . . 30 percent of the cases had to be reversed or vacated because of an erroneous claim construction." 

As usual, we have Dennis Crouch at Patently-O to thank for the statistics, which were gathered by David Schwartz, an assistant professor at The John Marshall Law School.  

"For some lawyers, the high reversal rate is worrisome," according to law.com's article Federal Circuit Tosses Out $104 Million Patent Verdict in DirecTV Case here. 

"It's higher than everyone would like," said Michael Barclay, an IP lawyer at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. "You can't advise your clients on what's going to happen."

One fix for the issue was proposed in the patent reform bill that is currently stalled in the Senate. It would change the rules to permit an interlocutory appeal to the Federal Circuit after the hearing on claims construction instead of waiting until the trial is finished.

Proponents said the change would cut out all the time wasted on trials that ultimately get overturned by the appeals court. But opponents, including Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel, said that the change would clog up the appeals court and cause even more delays in patent cases.

In the Finisar case, a Texas jury originally awarded the tech company $78.9 million in damages after it found that DirecTV willfully infringed on a patent involving methods for transmitting and broadcasting digital information. U.S. District Judge Ron Clark denied Finisar's request for an injunction but awarded $25 million in enhanced damages. DirecTV was also on the hook for prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest and a compulsory license.

The appellate panel vacated the verdict, ruled that the alleged infringement wasn't willful, and invalidated one of the seven patent claims in question.

DirecTV's appeal had challenged the construction of two terms in the district court's claim construction as too broad. The appeals court agreed, though it ruled that only one of the misinterpretations was harmful.

For the full article, click here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Harry Potter and Copyright Fair Use junkies know this already -- there is a firestorm brewing between the not insignificant powers (and financial resources) of JK Rowling and her Harry Potter franchise (which includes Warner Brothers) on the one hand and RDR, the wanna-be publisher of a fan's "Lexicon" or reference guide, on the other.

And the battleground is copyright's amorphous fair use doctrine.

Potter fan and Michigan middle-school librarian Steven Vander Ark has a very popular and comprehensive website that is considered to be the most authoritative reference to the Harry Potter series. 

Among other things, the Lexicon collects in alphabetical order information on the series' characters, places, spells, potions, and more, quoting liberally from the original language in the Potter books. The Lexicon was so popular, and so comprehensive, that JK Rowling herself frequented it as a reference guide and awarded it a "fan site award" in 2004.

Rowling's views changed, however, when she learned that Vander Ark had cut a deal with book publisher RDR to create the Lexicon in hard copy and sell the book in stores.  Before it could be published, Rowling brought suit in New York, claiming copyright infringement.

Her legal position is that the Lexicon merely reorganized, but otherwise copied, her words and ideas -- a blatant infringement of her most basic copyright in her creations.

As Rowling notes, she has the exclusive right to create derivative works which is what the Lexicon is.  Rowling further asserts that she intends to write her own Harry Potter encyclopedia of sorts in the next decade, with proceeds to be donated to charity.

RDR is screaming fair use, arguing that the Lexicon is transformative of the original work -- that is,  taking the original and creating a wholly new and different work of authorship. RDR points to reference guides that have been published for innumerable other works of fiction, including ones for The Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia.

So which is it, an infringing derivative work, or a transformative fair use? My fellow panelist on last month's USC IP Institute Fair Use Panel, Tony Falzone has an opinion -- Fair Use.

Indeed, Tony and the Fair Use Project are representing RDR books in the trial currently pending before New York Federal Court Judge Robert Patterson Jr. while Dale Cendali of O'Melveny and Myers' New York office leads the charge for Rowling's camp, and not surprisingly sees nothing transformative at all about the Lexicon. 

For details on the trial, take a look at the WSJ blog here the gothamist blog here.   Both are providing terrific day to day coverage of the trial.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)