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

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

. . . 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

In the epic Harry Potter copyright fair use battle now under way in a District Court in New York, the mortal judge is wondering out loud -- from the bench -- why these parties can't just settle their dispute.

For background on this fascinating Copyright dispute, click here.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Patterson Jr., after referencing Bleak House -- Charles' Dickens tale of endless litigation -- noted that it was “a very sad story. Litigation isn’t always the best way to solve things."

He went on to ask the parties: "Can it be resolved another way? I feel that this case could be settled and should be settled."  "I think this case, with imagination, could be settled."

Despite the invitation, even Rowling's apparently boundless imagination could not be tapped to think creatively about a global settlement.  As reported by the WSJ Law Blog here, the parties have reached a settlement of the relatively inconsequential false advertising and deceptive trade practices claims, but the copyright/fair use dispute -- the meat of the case -- continues.

Is the judge wrong to think that a high profile copyright case that makes a star of the fair use doctrine could be settled?  Or as one of the participant's asked, how do you settle with a billionaire?

Answer:  To settle with a billionaire, you need to offer something that the billionaire wants more than money.

The first task, then, is to figure out what that is. Why is Rowling fighting in the first place? What is her motivation?

We get some indication of what propels her from her own testimony at trial: protection of her characters, her "17 years of . . . hard work," her desire to write a Potter encyclopedia of her own one of these days, proceeds of which she says she will donate to charity.   Indeed, in the preliminary injunction papers filed by Rowling, she made a point of saying that she has already donated $30 million to charities.

This gives any good mediator plenty of things to work with in trying to explore settlement possibilities.  Rowling may want good press; she may want to build an image as a philanthropist; she may want to be seen as a protector of authors' rights. 

What about exploring a settlement where the Lexicon is published but some of the proceeds are donated in  Rowling's name to a charity of her choice.  If she is interested in giving young writers a leg up, the publisher could offer to open doors for young writers, one of whom could co-write or co-edit the Lexicon.

To protect Rowling's characters, RDR could agree to a licensing arrangement, thereby ensuring that no precedent is set.

A little imagination, as Judge Patterson so aptly noted, can go a long way towards finding ways to satisfy the underlying interests and motivations of all parties.

The conflict resolution side of me would love to explore ways to end the Rowling/RDR dispute in a way that satisfies all interested parties.  I am convinced there is a settlement out there to be had, if only the parties would explore it with an open mind.

On the other hand, the fair use junkie in me is avidly interested in how this monumental battle will shake out.  Fair use is an amorphous concept at best, as was made clear at the USC IP Institute Fair Use Panel last month.

Further judicial guidance -- and this one is definitely headed to the appellate courts -- would be a welcome contribution so long as it helps to clarify, and not further muggle, er, muddle, what constitutes fair use.

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks (1)

“Never before in history has innovation offered promise of so much to so many in so short a time.”

"Intellectual property has the shelf life of a banana."

These two quotes from world-class innovator and IP rights owner, Bill Gates, say it all about the state of intellectual property today. While most people are aware of the intellectual property concept - of copyright, patents, industrial designs and trademarks - many still view them as business or legal concepts with little relevance to their own lives. To address this gap, WIPO’s Member States decided in 2000 to designate an annual World Intellectual Property Day. They chose April 26, the date on which the Convention establishing WIPO originally entered into force in 1970.

Continue reading here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This is the sort of statement I simply cannot resist.  Thanks to TechDirt!

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. . . . He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

-- Thomas Jefferson, courtesy of TechDirt's post On the Constitutional Reasons Behind Copyright and Patents -- click here for the full post.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Recently I re-posted Five Ways to Minimize Risk of Copyright Liability from Citizen Media here. 

Today, IP attorney extraordinaire Tamera Bennett (left) dropped by to remind us of our own ADR "core values," i.e., self-determination and respect for the rights of others.  

Instead of simply approving Tamera's comment, I decided to bring it up here for everyone to see. 

The easiest way to get along with our fellow artists?  

Get a license! 

If you have genuine affection for the work of another, drop them a line, pick up a phone, send a carrier pigeon.  

"I really love your work." 

Then ask for permission to use it. 

Just do what your mother taught you.  Ask nicely.  Say please.  Then thank the nice copyright owner for being so generous with his/her work.  You'd be amazed at people's generosity, especially when you couple it with a (true) statement such as "I'm a young artist and don't have a lot of money but would really like to . . . . . " 

If you can't say that, i.e., if you have the money to pay the license fee, for heaven's sake support your fellow artists.

Tamera's comment below.  See her blog, Current Trends in Copyright, Trademark and Entertainment Law here. 

I have several concerns with the listing of ways to avoid copyright infringement.

1. "Use only as much of the copyrighted work as is necessary to accomplish your purpose or convey your message" ---- Clients come to me and want to know how much of the song can I use or can I reprint a portion of this chapter of the book, or can I use this poster in something else. I advise the client to get a license. Fair Use is a defense which is very difficult to win. There is no cut-and-dry rule that you can use three bars from the song before liability attaches.

2. Add something new or beneficial (don't just copy it -- improve it!) --- This trips folks up all the time. Adding something new does not protect you from copyright infringement. You need a license to create a derivative work. Adding something new to someone else's copyright is a violation of the copyright owner's exclusive right to allow for the creation of derivative works.

Remember, if you did not create it, you probably need a license to use it.

In line with Tamera's advice, see No copyright for derivative works without permission over at the Chicago IP Litigation Blog.  Excerpt below. 

Photo my own -- a surprising street scene outside my front door. 

Plaintiff took a series of photographs of defendants’ Thomas & Friend toy trains, each pursuant to a provision that defendants could only use the photographs for two years. Plaintiff argued that defendants infringed plaintiff’s copyrights by using the photographs after the two years were up.

But the Court held that plaintiff had no copyright. The photographs were derivative works based upon defendant’s copyrighted Thomas & Friends train engines and cars. The party making a derivative work must have the copyright holder’s permission to copyright the derivative work. While plaintiff had the right to make the derivative works, plaintiff was not granted the right to copyright them. Plaintiff, therefore, had no copyright.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)

Unbelievably extensive link roll to global IP resources in a single week!  Check it out.  I just subscribed but am thinking I'd need to take a vacation to keep up!

Thanks Duncan!

By the way, the patent infringement case I was talking about involved one co-defendant selling its business to another co-defendant where the two businesses had different geographic markets; different distribution channels; different strengths; different weaknesses; and, the seller was cash poor due to the litigation.

Thanks for picking up our post.

And welcome to the neighborhood.  When I get a moment, I'll add IP Think Tank to our Blog Roll.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

We've said this before:  prevention beats every dispute resolution mechanism available so long as you do not limit your own freedom out of fear of liability.  

That said, here are the top five tips for using copyrighted material fearlessly from the extraordinarily concise and helpful "Primer on Copyright Liability and Fair Use" from  the Citizen Media Law Project Blog.

While there is no definitive test for determining whether your use of another's copyrighted work is a fair use, there are several things you can do to minimize your risk of copyright liability:

• Use only as much of the copyrighted work as is necessary to accomplish your purpose or convey your message;
• Use the work in such a way that it is clear that your purpose is commentary, news reporting, or criticism;
• Add something new or beneficial (don't just copy it -- improve it!);
• If your source is nonfiction, limit your copying to the facts and data; and
• Seek out Creative Commons or other freely licensed works when such substitutions can be made and respect the attribution requests in those works.

Read the entire Primer here.

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks (2)

Plagiarism Today continues to provide us with the best aggregation of IP news every week in its  Saturday Linkroll.  Today we're linked to Corante's post "Even Fools Don't Invest in the Music Business," noting the Motley Fool's warning (We're All Thieves to the RIAA) that

a good sign of a dying industry that investors might want to avoid is when it would rather litigate than innovate, signaling a potential destroyer of value. If it starts to pursue paying customers -- which doesn't seem that outlandish at this point -- then I guess we'll all know the extent of the desperation. Investor, beware.

While you're at it, take a look at the Los Angeles Times article, CD Sales Fall Again; DVDs See First Drop,

The [falling] figures underscore the industry's failure to combat music piracy with a campaign of lawsuits and threats. 

We like the music industry.  We really do.  Some of our best friends are musicians and composers and they're suffering some pretty hard times here.  

We just think -- as the RIAA's conduct is proving -- that BigMusic, like the American automobile industry in the 1970s, needs to start listening to at least one of the weathermen who knows which way the wind is blowing.   

Get the picture?  Yes we see . . . . (check out those hair-dos!)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Direct from NPR to Engadget to our readers:

Speaking to NPR, RIAA president Cary Sherman . . . said . . . that the RIAA hasn't ever prosecuted anyone for ripping or copying for personal use, and that the only issue in the Jeffrey Howell case was -- as always -- sharing files on Kazaa. Perhaps most interestingly, Sherman directly addressed the "ripping is just a nice way of saying 'steals one copy'" comment made by Sony BMG's anti-piracy counsel in the Jammie Thomas case, saying that the attorney "misspoke," and that neither Sony BMG or the RIAA agreed with that position.

Why do we continue to follow this multi-strand narrative on an IP ADR blog? 

Because this is why IP is worth doing.  The law hasn't caught up with today's technology, let alone that lurking around tomorrow's corner.  We're at the very beginning.  Dawn.  And we're excited to begin the year as part of the conversation about the law the culture is in the process of creating to give artists their due; cut the producers and distributors in for their fair share; promote artistic collaboration and the solo effort; and, maybe rearrange a little bit of society, history and politics at the same time.

We're all in!

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Duane Morris reports today on the Third Circuit Decision Clarif[ying] Proper Use of Lapp Factors in Trade Dress Infringement Actions.

I leave the strictly legal analysis to my fellow IP legal bloggers.  See e.g. the 43(B)log's treatment of the denial of the preliminary injunction by the District Court here.  

My comment pertains to the last paragraph's modest conclusion that the new decision "provides brand owners with important guidance" in ordering their affairs.

That guidance?

1. store brands can 'get away' with a little more similarity than other defendants' products when they prominently display a well-known store-specific signature on their packages
2. but store-brands may not merely affix a tiny differentiating label to a copied national brand
3. "health-related" products such as the artificial sweeteners at issue can err on the side of similarity because customers "are assumed to exercise more care in their purchasing decisions than they otherwise might for low-priced products"
4. evidence of actual confusion from a "surgical strike" shopper was not representative of the typical shopper in light of of their brand indifference and the fast pace of their shopping.

Is This Guidance Sufficiently Certain to Recommend Litigation?

From a practical standpoint -- is there any other? -- any legal issue that requires fact-finding will likely be settled later (and far more expensively) than those that don't. 

Why? 

Because litigation makes sense only if:

1. you have far more resources than your opponent; or,
2. the matter is actually resolved at the preliminary injunction stage because the resulting commercial losses are too great to bear until trial; or,
3. the matter can truly be resolved by way of summary judgment motion, i.e., there are genuinely no  material facts nor any immaterial facts that pull at equity's heart-strings.  

Judges have hearts? 

Yes, indeedy.  In fact, if you look back over your long or short litigation career, you'll get the gestalt -- the cases you should have won on summary judgment but which you (unjustly) lost invariably contained some set of facts that:

1. made the requested judgment feel inequitable even though it would have been legally appropriate
2. made the trial court worry about reversal -- usually because the law or the facts were just too darn complicated
   • ever so brief aside:  at the close of one summary judgment argument in a nine-figure case, I asked the Judge denying my motion to provide the parties with his ruling on our evidentiary objections.  His response?  The wave of a hand at the wire cart containing several red welds of pleading files coupled with this remark -- "you can't expect me to rule on those objections."  Beat.  "There are just too many of them."  Voila -- justice! 
3. required more work to understand than the particular Judge before whom it was pending was prepared to do (cf. "too darn complicated")

But They Infringed My Trade Dress!!!!

Let's stick with artificial sweeteners here. 

The reason the "store brands" cost so much less than the national brands is, of course, promotion.  Advertising.  Print.  Television.  Internet.  Billboards.  Slogans. Jingles.  The whole Adman Magilla (plug here for Madmen from Nancy Franklin's ecstatic New Yorker review -- "it hits a deep place in you, like a straight-up Martini made of memory and desire.")

So really!  No one should feel sorry for a store brand trying to hitch a free ride on the back of the national brand's gazillion dollar ad campaign.  Shoot!  That's the kind of advantage taking that makes everyone's mouth go a little sour, right?

Trouble is, as far as jurors and judges go, there is no innocent and, more importantly, no flesh and blood person who's done any equity-sweating or competitor abusing.  Just the cold record; some high-paid expert witnesses; and, the usual line-up of corporate representatives.

There's simply no way to predict what a Court or jury or appellate tribunal is apt to do.  It's all so loosey goosey really.  This is not only not science -- it's not even social science.  It's a game of chance no matter how skilled and sophisticated the players.

Isn't this Just Another Commercial for Your Mediation Services, Ms. Pynchon?

Well, not entirely.  My friend and mentor Ken Cloke likes to say that mediation is a profession in search of its own suicide because we're always trying to teach people to just do this resolution thing -- strategic planning and negotiation -- by themselves.

Have I, for instance, said read 3-D Negotiation yet this year?  No?  Here's the amazon.com link.  Buy it today.  You don't even have to read the whole thing.  You can skim it.  Really!  It will be the best investment of your legal career since you first subscribed to Lexis or Westlaw.  

The recommendation below, for instance is a little harder than it sounds, but it's a whole lot easier and less risky than high-stakes IP litigation.  What is that recommendation?  

Learn the "art of letting them have your way."

At its best, letting them have your way means finding an agreement that meets your counterpart's real interests, as a way of meeting yours.  It means shaping how the other side sees the basic choice -- between yes and no -- so that the "yes" they choose for their reasons yields the deal you want for yours.

3-D Negotiation at 37.

Try it.  You'll like it!

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Bloggers with no visual artistic talent -- like me -- are perennially searching for free images to emphasize or draw attention to the central theme of their prose.  As powerful as words can be, they cannot deliver the multi-layered messages contained in a single image  with the same degree of immediacy or power.

So it is with pleasure that we announce our own recent find of the wikimedia commons collection of rights-free visual imagery.

I quote liberally from a recent wikimedia plea for assistance below: 

Where Wikipedia’s trade is in encyclopedia articles and Wikibooks is in textbooks, Wikimedia Commons is devoted to free content photographs, diagrams, illustrations, animations, videos and audio. . . . 

We understand that written literacy is important for allowing citizens to fully participate in society. . . Media literacy is becoming just as vital. . . .

A written tradition is often about connecting people to their history, but increasingly our history is not being recorded in words on a page. Does the name Phan Th? Kim Phúc mean anything to you? Probably not. What if I showed you a black and white photograph of a little girl running down the road naked, screaming and crying? Probably you would recognise that photo, and instantly understand all of the issues it is short-hand for.

I can’t show you that photograph. It dates to 8 June, 1972, and is short-hand for the influence of the media’s reporting of the Vietnam War on the American public’s opinion of and support for that war. From this example it is clear that the media plays an active role in democracy. Free press, free people.

But not free content. That photograph won’t pass into the public domain until at least seventy years after the photographer’s death, and that’s only if the United States government doesn’t extend the term of copyright yet again (you can find the details on Wikisource, but Lawrence Lessig’s book Free Culture is a rather more readable introduction).

Social movement cyclists Critical Mass are fond of the saying, “We’re not blocking traffic — we are the traffic”. There is a similar rallying cry behind citizen journalism — “We are the media”. And while the cyclists’ refrain seems more hopeful than accurate, it’s hard to deny the reality of participatory media today. . . . 

Wikimedia Commons comes in here because it provides the basic building blocks for people who take part in media creation, commentary and criticism — that is, anyone who wants to. If you need images, video or sound that you want to be able to use without fear of being nabbed for infringing someone else’s copyright, then Wikimedia Commons is for you. And because it’s a wiki, you’re invited to give back, too.

Wikimedia Commons also takes existing free content or public domain collections and cannibalises the useful parts. By re-describing and re-cataloguing we essentially make these things that are already free, more accessible. After all, something that’s free but very hard to find is not all that useful, is it? . . .  

Wikimedia Commons is a project that merely collects media files that are in the public domain or are free content. That project doesn’t have any position about what copyright laws should be, it only cares about what currently qualifies for inclusion. That project needs your help for very boring things: to pay for more servers, more bandwidth, and more software developers. Servers and bandwidth are obvious needs, I suppose. We have many 3MB images that are regularly used in dozens of Wikipedias, but there are not too many (if any!) Wikipedia text articles that are 3MB in size. We have to put a low cap of 20MB on uploaded files because we just aren’t confident that we could handle an explosion in larger content (video files, for example, could regularly pass that limit). Media is inherently bandwidth-greedy.

As for the software developers: If you have a browse around Wikimedia Commons you might notice the interface is not that great. It’s not shiny like…well…any Web 2.0 website. It may feel like the website is wearing hand-me-down shoes which don’t quite fit right. That’s true - the website uses the MediaWiki wiki engine designed for an encyclopedia. It still needs some more tinkering to adjust to the basic unit of Wikimedia Commons, which is a file (usually an image), not an article. And while MediaWiki is open source software which means anyone who has enough time and patience can contribute, it’s enough of a complex beast that few do.

So, servers, bandwidth and software developers — that’s why I want to ask you to please dip into your pocket and donate for Wikimedia Commons. But from me personally, I hope a New Year’s resolution may make its way into your mind, to resolve to fight against copyright expansion, enjoy the availability of the commons and give back to it, too.

Happy New Year.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

(image links to Amazon's page for the Norton Anthology of English Literature)

Low tide here at the IP ADR Blog.  We seem to have entered a time in which America follows Europe and the U.K. by simply shutting operations down between Christmas and the New Year. 

And high time too!  No one gets any work done other than the poor store clerks anyway.  So say!  Have a little patience with them this holiday season and carry a few lagniappes in your pocket to bestow true holiday cheer upon the hard working temps, two of whom were completely flustered yesterday when their cash registers broke down over at the Grove shopping center (yeah, that's me -- bad cash register karma).

Anyone Read Beowulf Lately

But there is something relevant to intellectual property this morning -- a good article over at Concurring Opinions by Frank Pasquale, Humanities Hobbled by Copyright Law.  "While scientists are pioneering exciting new modes of cooperation," writes Pasquale,

 humanities scholars are increasingly tripped up by an archaic copyright system. Great schools of the recent past may be doomed to an ownership pattern fractionated enough to frustrate even the most persistent assembler.

May I suggest that the problem described in much greater detail in Pasquale's post be resolved neither by the compromised process of legislation nor by the adversarial mode of dispute resolution, but by a grass-roots coalition of publishers and academics working toward a solution that satisfies the greatest number of the true needs of all stakeholders.

Collaboration.  The by-word of 2008.

Cheers!

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

(image from toothpaste for dinner)

We're sorry we missed this report from MacUser News when it appeared under the headline UPDATED: Music boss: we were wrong to go to war with consumers in November, but thanks to Plagiarism Today's Saturday Linkroll which led us to these items in Mashable (The RIAA Tries Truthiness and EMI to Cut RIAA Funding; Death of RIAA Near?) we're able to report that Warners Music Chief Ed Bronfman is singing the Innovate, Don't Litigate song. 

Speaking at the GSMA Mobile Asia Congress in Macau, Edgar Bronfman told mobile operators that they must not make the same mistake that the music industry made.

"We used to fool ourselves,' he said. "We used to think our content was perfect just exactly as it was. We expected our business would remain blissfully unaffected even as the world of interactivity, constant connection and file sharing was exploding. And of course we were wrong. How were we wrong? By standing still or moving at a glacial pace, we inadvertently went to war with consumers by denying them what they wanted and could otherwise find and as a result of course, consumers won."

Mobile operators risk the same, he said. Fewer than 10% of mobile owners buy music on their handset, the vast majority of which is ringtones.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Thanks again to Plagiarism Today for yet another great Lawrence Lessig video.  

Forgive us our fandom for a law school professor, but this guy is the smartest, most forward-thinking, creative individual thinking and talking about art, copyright, culture and the internet today. 

Some of this is pulled from the earlier presentation we posted but this is much more thorough and all-encompassing. 

Check it out.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Sometimes you've got to wonder whether anyone really cares about intellectual property at all. Or class and culture for that matter.

Take the case of the Pull-My-Finger Fred doll versus Fartman, the epic battle of the farting plush dolls. Now I'm not that far removed from teaching my boys about the incredible magical powers of the pulled finger not to understand how a Pull-My-Finger Fred doll could enjoy a certain amount of commercial success. (In fact I have a brother who probably rushed out to buy the first one.)

But is a "white, middle-aged, overweight man with black hair and a receding hairline, sitting in an armchair wearing a white tank top and blue pants" who farts "when one squeezes [his] extended finger on his right hand," and "makes somewhat crude, somewhat funny statements about the bodily noises he emits, such as 'Did somebody step on a duck?' or 'Silent but deadly'" really worthy of emulation?

Our thanks for this bit of IP whimsy to Judge Diane P. Wood of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for the fine description in her March 2007 opinion.) 

Apparently Novelty Inc. thought so. It created Fartman, described by the Court as (and this may sound familiar to you):

a white, middle-aged, overweight man with black hair and a receding hairline, sitting in an armchair wearing a white tank top and blue pants. Fartman (as his name suggests) also farts when one squeezes his extended finger; he too cracks jokes about the bodily function. Two of Fartman's seven jokes are the same as two of the 10 spoken by Fred.

Does the world really need two white, middle-aged, overweight, balding, flatulating, wise-cracking male plush dolls? But that's not the point.

The point is, what was Novelty Inc. thinking? Why blatantly infringe on someone else's copyright? If you really must have a gas passing plush doll to fill out your product line, why not create one with a full head of blond hair, or standing with a green shirt, or ... a woman! (You women know you do it. Don't deny it. I think Judge Diane Wood might have been feigning innocence when she wrote:

Somewhat to our surprise, it turns out that there is a niche market for farting dolls, and it is quite lucrative.

O.k., that's not the point either. Nor is it to critique the legal issues raised by this case, including the ever fascinating and difficult idea/expression distinction. That has been done admirably and more timely by others, including William Patry in his post Fartman Appeal Fizzles.

Rather, my point is this:

Dispute resolution in the IP field comes in all shapes and sizes.

One of the best means of dispute resolution is to avoid the dispute in the first place.

Call it pre-dispute resolution.

In this case, Novelty Inc., is now liable for nearly a million dollars in infringement damages, more than half of which were the plaintiff's attorneys fees.  Clearly, Novelty could have used a little pre-dispute IP counseling.   With professional guidance, it could have avoided a case that stunk from the start. (Come on, you knew it was coming eventually.)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Join Stanford Professor Larry Lessig's Creative Commons 50,000 Friends Drive!

You can join the Creative Commons Facebook "Cause" here.  Text below from the Creative Commons Cause page:

The Mission:  to build a layer of reasonable, flexible copyright in the face of increasingly restrictive default rules

Description: Too often the debate over creative control tends to the extremes. At one pole is a vision of total control — a world in which every last use of a work is regulated and in which "all rights reserved" (and then some) is the norm.

At the other end is a vision of anarchy — a world in which creators enjoy a wide range of freedom but are left vulnerable to exploitation. Balance, compromise, and moderation — once the driving forces of a copyright system that valued innovation and protection equally — have become endangered species.

Creative Commons is working to revive them. We use private rights to create public goods: creative works set free for certain uses. Like the free software and open-source movements, our ends are cooperative and community-minded, but our means are voluntary and libertarian. We work to offer creators a best-of-both-worlds way to protect their works while encouraging certain uses of them — to declare "some rights reserved."

Positions: Copyright can be exercised in such a way that it promotes collaborative culture while still protecting the author's legal rights.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On the very same day that the Volokh Conspiracy was worrying about the potential for contributory infringement resulting from its posting a YouTube video to his highly respected blog, Google, YouTube's owner, was saying the following to its eighty gazillion bloggers:

Blogging from YouTube

November 26, 2007

As you videobloggers already know, you can upload your videos directly to Blogger. But for the rest of the video watchers out there, did you know you can just as easily post YouTube videos to your blog?

All you need to do is set up your YouTube account to post videos to your blog using the "Share" button. You'll enter your Blogger information once, and from then on it's one-click sharing from any YouTube video page!

If there were liability for contributory infringement, you'd think this encouragement by YouTube's owner to post YouTube videos to its owners' blog sites would fit the bill. 

So we're now resting even easier about posting YouTube videos.  We're relying on Google not to be steering its blog customers into acts of infringment when posting its subsidiary's videos on its Blogger blog sites.

At some point we imagine (as Howard Beale in Network was asked to) the existence of a single corporate entity, unable to sue itself, sounding litigation's death knell.  

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

(photo:  The Kreation of Adam by Krystian Schneidewind)

Culture and consumers precede the law.  They rarely, if ever, conform themselves to the needs, interests and desires of business.  Culture and consumers govern business.  Business does not govern them. 

The law follows culture.  As we noted in Disputing Humor:  Comedy, Folkways and the Internet, "the law" is not just a set of rules, but a life condition "in which [people] are carriers of rights and duties, privileges and immunities."

No formal structure supporting the system of law need be visible. . . Law can be found any place and any time that a group gathers together to pursue an objective. The rules, open or covert, by which they govern themselves, and the methods and techniques by which these rules are enforced is the law of the group. Judged by this broad standard, most law-making is too ephemeral to be even noticed. /*

In other words, we govern ourselves more or less naturally, until a conflict within the group arises. When that happens, the group is "forced to decide between conflicting claims [and the] law arises in an overt and relatively conspicuous fashion. The challenge forces decision, and decisions make law." Id.  

There are 87 comments over at the Volokh Conspiracy -- many of them pretty heated -- about the practice of posting (or linking to) YouTube videos.  When there's this much dissent and passion, what the law will be is anybody's guess.

We also recently noted that the RIAA is waging a computer-sleuthing and intimidation campaign against its own customers in an effort to stop illegal downloading (apparently going so far as to notice the deposition of a ten year old girl).  When Goliath is going after Davy as if Davy were carrying a tactical nuclear weapon instead of a sling shot, cooler heads are not prevailing.

Enforce Your Rights by Suing Your Market or Adjust Your Business Practices to Changing Times?

Taking on just one of the legal issues raised by the 87 Volokh commenters is good only for people who like to tinker with the law (lawyers).  It is always bad for people who want to make a profit from selling stuff to the public.  

Take YouTube.  One of the commenters over at Volokh made this small but important point -- a "point of law" that could consume the energy of teams of well-paid lawyers for years if not decades.

You "link" to the YouTube clip, but the clip itself is stored on some YouTube server. The "link," however, plays directly from this blog. Is this different than (1) a link that opens a new YouTube window (requiring the additional step of the user clicking "play" from YouTube's website)? If so, why?

I think we'll all agree that it is different than, for example, (2) a blogger providing the following instructions:

"If you'd like to watch the video, google these terms: "Herbie Hancock" and "One Night with Blue Note." Then click on "I'm Feeling Lucky" and watch the video."

So ... is the embedded YouTube link more similar to (1), or is it more similar to (2)? Does copyright law have anything to say about this?

When you post a YouTube video to your blog what you are really doing is cutting a rectangular window in your blog template, letting the YouTube video shine through.  If YouTube "takes down" the video, it will no longer "show" through the window you've cut for it. 

Question.  Is this infringement or contributory infringement?  You have an hour.  You may begin writing your answer . . . . . NOW.  

Listen, lawyers love questions like this.  They allow us to ply our trade at its most creative -- to push the envelope or even to break the mold.  There's nothing we like more than asking ourselves and our colleagues whether the laws enacted, interpreted and enforced when copying machines were the primary means of reproduction should apply to the practice of virtually cutting holes in blog templates for videos to play through.  

Do Columbia and Warner Brothers want to spend their creative talent, business acumen and cold hard cash trying to maintain the past when the present and the future are so full of opportunity?  

Listen.  The producers and distributors will find a way to make a living in the new Millennium.  They're very very good at that.  They will, however, do so much more quickly if they focus on serving their customers by delivering a superior product.  Serving customers with a summons and complaint is applying a quill pen to a problem that requires a laser gun.        

UPDATE FROM CITIZEN MEDIA LAW PROJECT Embedded Video and Copyright Infringement answers most the questions raised here and over at Volokh in favor of the poster. 

*/  See, Weyrauch and Bell, Autonomous Lawmaking:  The Case of the "Gypsies" (1993) 103 Yale L.J. 323 (1993) quoting Thomas A. Cowan & Donald A. Strickland, The Legal Structure of a Confined Microsociety (University of California, Berkeley Working Paper No. 34, 1965).  The Weyrauch book on Gypsy Law can be found here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

When a body as pro-business as the American Bar Association calls out an industry group for bullying, it's time for that organization to take a close look at its behavior in the marketplace. 

Remember, it's not just about the law. 

It's about civilization, community, ethics, even etiquette. 

It's about making allies rather than enemies.  It's even about -- gasp -- doing good.  Or at least not doing any harm.

(image from Will Blog for Experience -- RIAA:  Screwing You Since 1952)

So why is the Recording Industry of America Association the likely winnner of the IP ADR Dictionary's 2007 Bully Award?

Because it continues to act like a sixth grade kid shaking down the first graders for their lunch money on the primary school playground. 

But first the definition of a bully in his full social context.

In their 2005 article Bullying roles in changing contexts: The stability of victim and bully roles from primary to secondary school academics Mechthild Schafera, Stefan Korna, Felix C. Brodbeckb, Dieter Wolkec, and Henrike Schulzdam use as their "bully" definition the systemic one:

[the] repeated and deliberate . . abuse of power [which is] most likely to occur in relatively stable social groups with a clear hierarchy and low supervision, as is found in schools, the army, or in prisons.  

In this context, say the authors "[a]n aggressive individual’s search for dominance can be facilitated by a hierarchical structure in that it makes low-status individuals visible and easy to get to."

This definition of systemic bullying fits to a "T" the behavior described in the recent ABA Journal article Plaintiff to RIAA:  Download This! 

The attorney subject of the article who is litigating a malicious prosecution suit on behalf of a woman wrongfully sued for illegal downloading, says that the RIAA, 

targets people [for downloading infringement actions] without the resources to challenge the lawsuits. . . 

According to [the malicious prosecution filed on behalf of his client] a support center employee told [Plaintiff] that unless she paid the [RIAA] $4,000-$5,000, she would be ruined financially. Additionally, the action states, the claim center employee told Andersen that he believed she was innocent, but she should pay something anyway.

“He explained ... that defendants would not quit their attempts to force payment from her because to do so would encourage other people to defend themselves,” the complaint states.

At issue is the RIAA's methodology for identifying infringers, a methodology that is not "100 percent" according to law professor Jonathan Zittrain. 

According to Zittrain, a professor at Harvard Law School and the University of Oxford, none of the infringement actions has gone to a verdict.

Some suspect that many of the association’s suits have resulted in default judgments because many defendants cannot afford legal representation. Cases might settle for far less than the initial demand.

“I heard of a $300 settlement they just took,” says Jason Schultz, a senior staff attorney with the Elec­tronic