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

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

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

Mr. Thrifty and I have been known to walk to the IMPROV (Jerry Seinfeld, Sarah Silverman, and before Mr. T., even Rosanne Barr before she was Rosanne).  The club is right around the corner from our little neighborhood -- the one that's recently been renamed "Beverly Grove" in honor of the two shopping centers that anchor it firmly in L.A.'s march of progress to complete gentrification.   

The presence of the IMPROV in my own personal geography is strong -- I took my comedy-driving- school-class there from the now pretty famous Kathy Griffin back in the day when I used to power my cherry red RX-7 up and down PCH at speeds local law enforcement couldn't ignore.       

But I digress before I lede, a perilous practice when reporting not quite so exciting arbitration clause interpretation cases. 

So here it is:  Comedy Club, Inc. v. IMPROV West Associates, etc., the Ninth Circuit construing trademark licensing arbitration and non-compete clauses between an IMPROV licensee, the Comedy Club, and the IMPROV as follows:   

1. the arbitrator properly arbitrated the equitable claims where the "scope of arbitration" clause could reasonably be interpreted to embrace such claims;
2. the arbitrator’s award enforcing an exclusivity clause containing a restrictive covenant by terminating the Comedy Club's right to open other clubs could not be set aside as "completely irrational" since that's what the contract provided for;
3. the arbitrator exceeded the scope of his authority by enjoining non-party "affiliate" family members; and,
4. because enforcement of the agreement's covenant not to compete barred the Comedy Club from operating in a substantial portion of its market, that portion of the award violated California Business and Professions Code § 16600, was therefore entered in manifest disregard of the law and had to be vacated.   

The Ninth Circuit therefore,

vacat[ed] the district court’s order confirming the arbitration award and remand[ed the case back] to the district court  with instructions to vacate the Partial Final Arbitration Award in so far as it enjoin[ed the Comedy Store's] Affiliates, unless they [were] agents or otherwise acting for [it] and to the extent it prevent[ed the Comedy Store] from opening or operating non-Improv clubs in counties in which [the Comedy Store] does not now operate or own an Improv club.  

So who said arbitration awards can't be appealed?

With all due respect to those of us here at the IP ADR Blog who arbitrate IP disputes, these lengthly and complex proceedings make me want to mediate the darn thing.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Take a look at this excellent article -- Pirates Stealing Content from Rival Website -- by Florida Gunster Yoakley lawyers David Bates and Meenu  Sasser.

This one-page article is well-worth reading if you or your clients possess anything of value on the internet that can be "scraped" by pirates.

The good news?

According to Bates, "[a]bout 95% of the cases are resolved by a cease-and-desist letter."

With that kind of track record, Gunster ought to be thinking about value rather than hourly billing.  Maybe they already have.

• 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)

($5700 by Andrew Magill)

I just ran across this terrific resource for IP practitioners -- Insurance Coverage for IP Assets. Were I still in practice today, I wouldn't make a move without this great source of IP settlement wisdom. 

Here's the thing about the law of insurance coverage (a sub-specialty of mine for the last ten or so years of my practice) -- you cannot simply read your clients' insurance policies nor simply read the pertinent case law in deciding whether to make -- or more importantly to press -- a claim for coverage. 

There are no easy coverage answers and the difficult questions raised by every coverage dispute vary from state to state.

I live with policy-holder counsel and he can't answer my questions unless I look up the answers and give them to him, at which point he'll tell me why I'm wrong (I usually am) unless I've asked six or seven additional questions.  (thanks honey!)

So add this valuable book to your research library in 2008.  

Publisher's description of contents below; link to publisher's web page featuring the book above. 

Insurance Coverage of Intellectual Property Assets is the first resource to comprehensively analyze the insurance protection issues that must be considered when an intellectual property dispute arises. From determining the scope of coverage under a policy, to tendering of a claim, to seeking remedies when coverage has been denied, this essential guidebook details the interactions among policyholders, insurers and the courts.

You'll find comprehensive and timely analysis of federal and state case law and major commercial insurance policy provisions that address:

• The extent of insurance coverage under the "advertising injury" and "personal injury" provisions
• Language in policies that limits or excludes coverage for intellectual property claims
• Public policy exclusions to coverage for claims of an infringement undertaken with intent to harm
• Interpreting ambiguous language in insurance policies
• Defending a claim under a "reservation of rights" and potential conflicts of interest triggered thereby
• Forum selection and choice of law

And more.

In addition, there's detailed discussion and comparison of the actual language used in most commercial insurance policies and the 1976 and 1986 Insurance Services (ISO) policies.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

. . AND THEN SETTLE YOUR COPYRIGHT CASE.   

(right, IP ADR attorney, mediator and blogger Michael D. Young of Weston Benshoof and Judicate West; case link courtesy of Thelen Reid)

$27 million will buy you a whole lot of cake. And you can eat it too. That’s one of the lessons from the Tennessee Court’s unprecedented sanctions award against an apparent copyright infringer who just refused to stop copying. 

In MGE UPS Systems v. Titan Specialized Services  (OPINION HERE), the copyright owner not only obtained a sanctions order worth $27 million against one of its primary competitors (and apparent copyright infringer), but was still entitled to pursue its claim for copyright damages. 

How is that for protecting your intellectual property while also setting the stage for a pretty advantageous settlement negotiation?

Using the lingo of ADR/negotiations, MGE UPS Systems showed how a copyright owner could effectively utilize the litigation process to change the parties’ respective leverage, and then set itself up for the perfect negotiated outcome.

Here’s the short set-up: MGE UPS Systems, Inc. sells, and then services, “Uninterruptible Power Supply” equipment, equiqment  systems customers (such as hospitals) install to ensure a constant supply of power in the event of an outage. 

Because this equipment must be regularly serviced and maintained, not surprisingly, there are a number of competitors who provide such services to UPS users -- and who compete head to head with MGE for that business.

Things were pretty competitive…until MGE built a better mousetrap. It developed new software that was so good it allowed UPS to service its equipment 2-4 times faster than its competitors, and with greater accuracy and efficiency. The software was, of course, proprietary and copyrighted. The competitors were starting to feel the pinch.

Beware the Mobile Employee

One competitor apparently pinched back. If you’ve worked in any technology-based business, you know how prevalent employee mobility is – and how easy it is to download secrets onto a simple pen drive that fits in your pocket.  According to complaint's allegations, defendant JTP solicited one of MGE’s former employees who just happened to have a pirated copy of the MGE proprietary software. JTP obtained the software, distributed it to its service personnel, and began competing against MGE with MGE’s own copyrighted product.

Why JTP thought it could get away with this thievery is never explained.  Why it believed it could then go out in the market place and start miraculously servicing UPS equipment in 1/6^th the time without raising suspicion is also never explained. 

What needs no explanation is what happened next. As soon as MGE learned of the theft and infringing use of its software, it filed suit. 

The Leverage of Time

With the suit filed, is it time to call in fellow blogger Vickie Pynchon to mediate the dispute? JTP probably would have loved this. Settlement takes time, and every day that passed setting up and conducting the mediation would have been another day JTP could have been in the field utilizing MGE’s own copyrighted software to steal business from MGE. JTP would have been incentivized to drag the process out for as long as it could. 

But for MGE, this would have been a mistake. The leverage of time was working against it. With MGE bleeding every day, what it needed was litigation triage. So MGE sought to staunch the blood flow by applying for – and obtaining – an emergency restraining order against JTP prohibiting it from using the MGE software at all for any purpose whatsoever. 

Now who was in a hurry to settle? Not MGE, certainly. The leverage had flipped. Back in sole control of its proprietary software, it could now regain control of the Service market as well. It was JTP who should have been in a hurry to settle before it became locked out of the market altogether. Maybe it could cut a licensing deal?

Time to Call the Mediator

This is the time JTP should have called Vickie to seek out a mediated solution. But it didn’t. Instead, it took a seriously wrong turn. According to the opinion, rather than comply with the Court order, JTP ignored the thing altogether and continued utilizing the copyrighted software in competition with MGE. 

The Leverage of Sanctions

When MGE learned about JTP's contumacious conduct, it returned to court and sought sanctions. And what sanctions they were.  After a two day evidentiary hearing, the court, noting that a third of JTP’s income was based on its service of MGE equipment, awarded MGE “a monetary sanction of thirty (30%) of JTP's gross revenues from July 21, 2004 to date.” 

Thirty percent!  $27 million! 

(The court also ordered an inspection of JTP’s computers – at JTP’s expense of course – and awarded MGE its attorney’s fees.) 

And this doesn’t include MGE’s infringement damages!

An entire blog could be dedicated to litigation sanctions.  (I looked, but couldn’t find one -- readers should feel free to start one.)

Unless JTP had a rabbit up its sleeve, this would have been a good time to call Vickie to get this one settled or at least to read the chapter on negotiating from a position of weakness in Malhotra's and Bazerman's Negotiation Genuis.   

$27 million and damages? 

That’s what I call having one’s cake and eating it too. 

(Though I’m a pie guy myself.)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

L.A. Times reporter Dawn Chmielewski wins the tech-legal lede of the day contest by reporting that

the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday reaffirmed its earlier support for the socially redeeming value of searching the Internet for nudie pictures.

The San Francisco court, in reviewing a case it initially considered in May, reiterated its finding that Google could display tiny versions of photographs by Perfect 10 Inc., a Beverly Hills-based adult publisher, in search results, even when those images were copyrighted.

That opinion affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding to the District court is here.

And that report, by the Los Angeles Times, is almost right. 

The Ninth Circuit instructed the District Court to make further factual inquiries to determine whether Google and Amazon are contributorily liable for infringing uses by other websites.  As the Court held:

Google could be held contributorily liable if it had knowledge that infringing Perfect 10 images were available using its search engine, could take simple measures to prevent further damage to Perfect 10's copyrighted works,and failed to take such steps.

The best analysis of the opinion on the web right now is Eric Goldman's Technology and Marketing Law Blog post Perfect 10 v. Amazon Opinion Amendment--Ninth Circuit Does 180 on Fair Use Burden for Preliminary Injunction here.

Quotes that form the meat of the opinion below:    

HOLDING ON DIRECT INFRINGEMENT (GOOGLE)

In this case, Google has put Perfect 10’s thumbnail images . . . to a use fundamentally different than the use intended by Perfect 10. In doing so, Google has provided a significant benefit to the public. Weighing this significant transformative use against the unproven use of Google’s thumbnails for cell phone downloads, and considering the other fair use factors, all in light of the purpose of copyright, we conclude that Google’s use of Perfect 10’s thumbnails is a fair use. . . . . We conclude that Google is likely to succeed in proving its fair use defense and, accordingly, we vacate the preliminary injunction regarding Google’s use of thumbnail images.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

(right:  Los Angeles IP and Entertainment attorney Richard Jefferson)

Some comments deserve their own post and this is true of Richard Jefferson's thoughts on our recent post Red Hot Chilis and Showtime Californicate in the Los Angeles Superior Court.   

After reading over the Complaint, I now see legally how the Red Hot Chili Peppers (the "RHCP") were able to get this case in Court without being accused of blatantly filing a frivolous complaint.

The RHCP have coupled a claim for unfair competition and dilution regarding the TV show title (which looks like a weaker claim on its face) with the stronger claim against the TV Show's soundtrack release (the Californication soundtrack). Of course, the media headline is going to pick up on the more publicized RHCP Album Name vs. TV Show element, but this is typical of the media game in Hollywood.

There are a number of issues that make this case an interesting case to follow, such as the claim that the RHCP's album title has acquired a "secondary meaning" that will transcend trademark categories and the fact that Showtime actually applied for a federal trademark for "Californication" in the TV series category.

Like most entertainment cases, it appears to me that this is just another case of "who has the bigger pockets to pay their lawyers". I suspect that there were extensive pre-litigation correspondence between the parties and Showtime never reached a settlement number that was high enough for the RHCP so they sued.

Also, not only is this good exposure for the band but the way that the media has spun the story so far, Showtime is getting some good pub as well by making it seem like this is a far fetched claim.

Thanks for the thoughtful analysis Richard!  Much appreciated.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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 Frontier Foundation. According to Schultz, the RIAA outsourced much of the copyright infringement litigation “factory style” to small law firms, and it hired nonlawyers to negotiate settlements.

Though Jonathan Lamy, RIAA’s senior vice president of communications, claims that the group’s investigation methods are sound and that it is not pursuing those who cannot afford legal counsel, everyone knows that few ordinary citizens could afford the legal representation necessary to defend themselves against the type of aggressive and well-orchestrated campaign described by the ABA article.

So why is this bullying?

Bullying, like pornography, is one of those things you know when you see.  That the RIAA's illegal downloading campaign perfectly fits the academic description of bullying therefore comes as no surprise.

The RIAA's "deliberate and repeated" use of powerful computer technology to investigate consumers' downloading activity, coupled with its well-orchestrated use of an army of low-paid attorneys and collection agents to deliberately and repeatedly bring suit against consumers who might be potential -- but certainly not proven -- illegal downloaders is marketplace bullying at -- frankly -- its most shocking.

And though the RIAA spokesman insists that it does not "target" those who cannot afford legal representation -- how many of us -- even the professionals among us -- could? 

This is systemic bullying at its most definitional

[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, [] in prisons . . .

or simply in the marketplace.

Nobody likes a bully.  It's time for the RIAA to do a little soul searching about its place in the society that supports its members by buying their products.

When its the ABA  -- not the ACLU -- that marks you as a school yard bully, you're not making any friends -- only enemies.  And no organization, no matter how powerful, can afford that.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The IP ADR Bloggers have just gone "live" with our new web site:  ipadr.com.

Come on by and check us out!  

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Below is the hypothetical from Eric Sinrod's CNet News Perspective Column, from Watergate to Videogate. 

And though we don't think it necessary to answer the question, our U.K. readers may use Football for Dummies in responding.  

A [New England] Patriots' assistant was apprehended for operating a video camera on the sidelines of the opposing team, the New York Jets, during the first game of this season. The camera contained footage of the Jets' defensive signals.

NFL rules prohibit video-recording devices in the coaches' possession both on the field or in a locker room during the course of any game. The rules also state that video for coaching reasons must emanate from places enclosed on all sides with an overhead roof.

The NFL's executive vice president for football operations has since sent a memorandum to head coaches and general managers to clarify the rules. The message was unambiguous: videotaping of any kind, including taping of an opposing team's offensive or defensive signals, is not permitted on the sidelines, in a coaches' booth, in a locker room or from any other place available to a team's staff during a game. . . 

The National Football League fined Coach Bill Belichick $500,000 while the Patriots were ordered to pay $250,000. The league also ruled that the Patriots must forfeit a first-round draft choice next year if the team reaches the playoffs (which is highly likely) or second- and third-round selections if it fails to make the playoffs.

"Did justice prevail?" asks Eric.  "Even more, does the result hold up as a matter of law?"

You have one hour.  This is a closed book exam.  Do not read Eric's trade secret analysis until you have closed your blue book or shut down your laptop. 

You may begin. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

(why do these guys look so happy?)

(for a thorough analysis of the ruling and comments pro and con, see the New York Times article, Microsoft Ruling May Bode Ill for Other Companies. 

The comment of greatest interest to us here at the IP ADR Blog is the note that "antitrust enforcement [is] too slow to grapple with fast-moving high-technology markets," so that market forces, rather than the rule of law, prevail.  For full NYT article click here.

If those market forces are controlled by a monopoly, we may have to begin looking for other ways to balance the forces of competition, innovation, and consumer interests).

Yesterday's Post on Tension Between Consumer Protection and a "Free" Market

I think most creatively on the freeway.  Well, on the freeway and in the shower. And on an elliptical trainer.  These are all places I'm not supposed to be thinking so I park my brain in neutral and it performs wonderful tricks for me. 

It's pretty damn creative, actually.  It grabs odd trails of thought, puts them together and then taps me on the shoulder and asks How about this?

It's particularly helpful to have Mr. Thrifty in the car for a long drive because I'm a chatterer.  A world class stream of consciousness natter-er.  This should make you happy not to be married to someone like me.

Anyway, as I was nattering on the 405 between Sunset and the 118 on Sunday, driving to my Dad's house in Northridge, I said this:  Why doesn't someone load a laptop with the best programs available, make them COMPATIBLE and then sell the loaded laptop?

My brain gave me that nugget as I was complaining about the new Vista Operating system.  Since I know nothing whatsoever about software or hardware, I have no clue whether it's a good idea or not.  I only know this:  I purchased a new laptop with a Vista Operating System on it and NOTHING is compatible with anything else and it really $%#^%$'es me off.

So I must report that I'm happy with the Judgment of the European Court of First Instance in Case T-201/04 Microsoft v Commission.

Since I'm a devotee of Sun Microsystems CEO Jonathan Schwartz's rallying cry Innovate Don't Litigate, I wish the software industry would spend its money innovating around Microsoft rather than litigating against it.  (and yes, Jonathan, we'll forgive you for partnering up with Microsoft here because we think you might help make its products better -- at least we're counting on you so please don't disappoint us). 

Nevertheless, I'm happy to see good work being done for the consumer on all fronts, including the European Court of First Instance which just held as follows:

• Microsoft abused its dominant position by refusing to supply interoperability information to competitors for work group server operating systems. 
• Microsoft abused its dominant position by bundling the Windows media player with its Windows PC operating system. 
• The Commission did not err in assessing the gravity and duration of the infringement and did not err in setting the amount of the fine. The €497 million fine imposed on Microsoft stands.

Still, I'd really like to see someone launch that compatible laptop.  I'm first in line and will pay a very good price for it.

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

The IP ADR Blog is pleased to announce that we are being joined in our IP blogging venture by John Leo Wagner, Federal Magistrate (Ret.).

Judge Wagner is a colleague of Mike Young's and mine at the Southern California ADR firm Judicate West.  His impressive credentials will soon be posted in the "About" section of the blog (up at the top there).  We provide only the highlights of his judicial and private practice career below.

Welcome John!!  We know that our IP ADR Blog readers will greatly enjoy hearing your thoughts on the negotiated resolution of IP disputes.

ABOUT JUDGE WAGNER

Judge Wagner has been engaged in the settlement and trial of intellectual property disputes for over 20 years. He is currently a full-time neutral with Judicate West Alternative Dispute Resolution, where he mediates and arbitrates all manner of patent, copyright, trademark, trade dress and trade secret disputes.

John was formerly Of Counsel with the Los Angeles-based law firm of Irell & Manella LLP, where he was the head of the firm’s ADR practice group and Director of the firm’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Center. He worked for over seven years as one of the ADR Center’s primary neutrals, settling a myriad of difficult intellectual property disputes.

Before joining Irell & Manella, John served for over twelve years as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Northern District of Oklahoma, where he founded and administered the Court’s mediation program, and served as the resident expert in settling IP disputes.

John has mediated and arbitrated thousands of cases and was recognized as a Southern California Super Lawyer in the field of Alternative Dispute Resolution in 2007. He has also been selected for inclusion in he 2007 edition of The Best Lawyers in America in the specialty of Alternative Dispute Resolution.

John is the President-Elect of the International Academy of Mediators, a Fellow of the American College of Civil Trial Mediators, a Member of the CPR International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution’s Panel of Distinguished Neutrals and a Diplomate Member of the California Academy of Distinguished Neutrals.   John is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Federal Bar Association's ADR Section.

John has been active in guiding national ADR policies and practice for over two decades. He was appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist to serve on the Court Administration and Case Management Committee of the U.S. Judicial Conference, where he helped to formulate rules and policies governing ADR programs in the Federal Courts. He also served on the CPR Advisory Committee dealing with Mediation Procedures and the CPR/Georgetown Commission on Ethics and Standards in ADR.

Judge Wagner frequently teaches and lectures on ADR topics.  

We're happy and proud to have him join us here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

HOW IT STARTS

"They cheated me," said the C.E.O. of a Fortune 500 company. 

"They stole my invention [or process, design, employees, product, market, or, customers]."

"They copied, knocked off, lied, misled, withheld, and, denied."

This is how the litigation begins.  You can recite it in your sleep because you drafted the complaint, the counter-claim, and, the interrogatories.  You prepared the examination, the cross-examination, and the jury instructions.

HOW IT ESCALATES

With each passing day, their wrongful, outrageous behavior and the injustice done to your client grows. 

Why? 

Because they prove their essential bad character and malicious intent with each litigation thrust and parry.  Your conduct is righteous, avenging, and, pure, while theirs only confirms their bad faith.  They destroy documents, alter evidence, mislead the Judge, and file pleadings at 5 p.m. the day before three-day weekends.

HOW IT COMES INTO THE JUDGE'S SETTLEMENT CHAMBER OR THE MEDIATION CONFERENCE ROOM

Although no one "takes it personally," by the time you bring your clients to a settlement conference or mediation, they cannot bear the sight of one another. 

I have not only been instructed that joint caucuses will not be tolerated, I've been asked to assure that the parties will not lay eyes on one another because the other side's very corporeal existence might so inflame the disputants that the negotiation session will melt down before it has had the chance to begin.

If you are a litigator with at least five or six years of experience representing clients in hotly contested intellectual property litigation of any stripe, you know that I am not exaggerating.

I want you to keep this litigation posture and emotional climate in mind for the next few weeks because all of my posts are going to be based it.

WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM OUR FRIENDS -- ENSURING THE BEST POSSIBLE NEGOTIATION   

In the coming weeks, we will be discussing some concepts in the social psychology of conflict that will help you de-esclate the conflict, which will, in turn, help everyone brainstorm and negotiate a deal as effectively and efficiently as possible.  

Toward that end, we'll talk about cognitive biases, with a little help from our friend Michael Webster, whose Psychology of Compliance and Due Diligence Law Blog was just last week named one of the ten best legal blogs on the internet. 

We'll also rely upon Harvard Business School's Working Knowledge, an invaluable, free resource that will improve every commercial litigator's ability to "cut to the chase" of the business interests that lie at the heart of every great settlement. 

Today's post, for instance, in fact the entire series of posts, was inspired by the HBS Working Knowledge Newsletter article -- Why We Aren't as Ethical as We Think - A Temporal Explanation by Max Bazerman (author of the great new negotiation text Negotiation Genuis) and his colleagues Ann E. Tenbrunsel, Kristina A. Diekmann, and Kimberly A. Wade-Benzoni. 

Other on-line resources we'll be using to explore this topic include:

Beyond Intractability (this link, for instance, is to our friend Ken Cloke's article on Mediators without Borders, which describes several great techniques for de-escalating conflict). 

The Freakonomics Blog, covering, among other things, marketing strategy that often overlaps with negotiation strategy, see e.g. Should Apple Burn its Economics Textbooks here and monetizing the value of spending more time with a loved one here. 

Brains on Purpose, our friend Stephanie West Allen's Neuroscience and Conflict Resolution Blog, see e.g. this recent article -- Conflict, Is it All In Your Head?, which appears, along with another cool dozen-plus conflict resolution blogs at Mediate.com's "Featured Blogs" page and Geoff Sharp's 40 Sites in 40 Minutes  including Gini Nelson's Engaging Conflicts on such topics as The Ethics of Compromise here and Diane Levin's Online Guide to Mediation on such topics as Is Your Negotiating Style Leaving Value on the Table? here.

Roger Dooley's brilliant Neuromarketing Blog, see e.g. our Negotiation Blog post on Small Talk and the Value of Joint Sessions here.

The Legal Theory Blog, see e.g. Negotiation and Time Perspective.

The Trial Lawyer Resource Center, whenever we need reminding that trial may well be the better alternative to a negotiated resolution, and to avail ourselves of the settlement insights posted there such as Listening During Settlement Negotiations. 

Malcolm Gladwell's Blog (the Tipping Point and Blink), see, e.g., this post on why journalists failed to detect the Enron debacle.  

The texts on which we usually rely will also be cited to assist you, including 

Professor Leigh Thompson's introductory-intermediate guide to negotiation, The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator (2d ed) -- the first chapter is online here.

Lax & Sebenius' essential 3D Negotiation -- excerpt online here.

Bazerman and Malhotra's newest compilation of negotiation advice, with which to earn your own post-graduate negotiation degree, Negotiation Genius.

The American Bar Association's massive compendium of negotiation strategic and tactical advice, The Negotiator's Fieldbook (online chapters include Analyzing Risk by Jeffrey Senger)

 Every new or existing website can benefit from search engine marketing.     Although many web hosting service providers supply domain registration, internet safety, and general marketing services, they do not locate the dedicated IP addresses you need. Just as  advertising agencies promote their client’s products or services online, search engine marketers facilitate web marketing through link exchange, email marketing, adsense promotion and the like.  An abundance of websites and articles provide internet marketing information. By reading seo reviews you can improve your chances of finding the best company to provide SEO services for your company.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Take it or Leave It?  (cartoon by Charles Fincher at LawComix.com) 

Don't get caught making unproductive settlement moves, learn from some of the best in the U.K., L.A. and Half Moon Bay in October and November. 

For our U.K. readers, Victoria Pynchon will be speaking on IP ADR in the USA: Big Ideas and Fresh Perspectives on 8 October 2007 at the Hatton Conference Centre in London.  Click here to see the day-long schedule and to sign up for early-bird discounts.  A downloadable .pdf of the conference schedule is in our sidebar to the left.

For our Southern California readers, a full-day seminar on Settlement Techniques that Give You the Winning Edge with IP ADR Bloggers Victoria Pynchon and Les J. Weinstein; Judges Alexander Williams, III (full-time settlement Judge) and Victoria Chaney (Ass't Supervising Judge of the Los Angeles Complex Litigation Court); and neutrals the Hon. John Leo Wagner (Federal Magistrate, Retired) and Jay McCauley, will take place at the Wilshire Grande in downtown Los Angeles on November 13, 2007.  Sign up here.  

If your practice crosses over with employment issues, join us for ALFA International's Labor & Employment Practice Group Seminar entitled "Employer of the Year" or "the Office": Which One Are You? (.pdf of the event brochure) at the Half Moon Bay Ritz-Carlton on October 3-5, 2007.

Once again, Victoria Pynchon will be speaking, this time with Joshua Frank, Senior Legal Counsel to DHL (moderated by James M. Peterson of San Diego's Higgs, Fletcher & Mack, LLP) on the Pro's and Con's of Employment Arbitration.

You'll have to get up early for this one -- it's scheduled from 8:45-10:00 a.m. on October 3 -- but we promise you a lively debate and fresh perspectives on an issue that might make corporate and litigation counsel want to rip those arbitration clauses out of their and their clients' employment agreements. Then again, you might just decide to rewrite those ADR Clauses altogether so that you get the best possible dispute resolution mechanism for your and your clients' work-force.

Either way, the time is ripe for reconsidering and revising the way in which you and your clients handle disputes with their employees.

JOIN US!!

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

(Thanks as always to the generosity of the fabulous Charles Fincher at LawComix.com for the greatest law cartoons ever!)

And many additional thanks to Mark Partridge over at the Guiding Rights Blog for sharing this thunderbolt with us:  there were sixteen trademark, twenty-three copyright and seventy-one patent cases tried in the entire U.S. Federal System last year (the only place they can be tried for our foreign readers). 

I don't know what percentage of the total cases filed that is, but I can't believe it is more than one percent.

One of the most common questions I get from attorney-students when I teach Deposition Skills for  the National Institute of Trial Advocacy as I did last week-end is this:

"Should we conduct a killer cross-examination during the deposition or save it for trial?" 

My answer? 

You're not going to trial. 

Don't save anything unless it's for a strategic litigation as opposed to trial tactic.  You'll "try" your case, if at all, to a mediator.  Don't save it for me.

In all fairness to IP trial attorneys, I assume that a great percentage of IP litigation now takes place in arbitration.  If anyone knows how many IP cases are arbitrated every year, please feel free to pass that number along.

And thanks for the statistics Mark!

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Today's post is brought to you by the letter "C."  

The happy little fellow at left is a Capuchin monkey, many of whom have been trained to work for "money" by researchers. (where's PETA when you need them?)

As Forbes Online reported last year in Primate Economics, these monkeys refuse to work if they observe one of their fellows "earning" an unequal share of the rewards.

What does the Capuchin consider "unequal?" Probably pretty much the same thing we do.

Forbes reports that the Capuchin will more or less happily "work" for a "CEO" monkey until the CEO begins to "earn" five times as much food as the "worker" does.

When that critical inequity is reached, the laborer rebels and refuses to work, leaving both monkeys without "income." 

In other words, the capuchin would rather go hungry than participate in a reward system that is radically inequitable. 

And it's not just quantifiable inequities that cause the Capuchin to "strike."  He will also digs his heels in and refuse to go to the office if he sees a co-worker receiving better quality compensation.

The "money" researchers have trained the Capuchin to work takes the form of pebbles that can be traded for food, such as cucumbers.  The Capuchin will happily work for cucumber-trading pebbles unless he sees one of his co-workers receiving more desireable grapes for the same amount of "money."

If this qualitative inequity continues, the cucumber-earner becomes agitated, throws his pebbles out of his cage and eventually refuses to perform any further tasks for the researchers whatsoever.

The obvious take away?

If you want to negotiate the settlement of an IP dispute, you must find a way to "spin" your proposal as fair and reasonable under the circumstances.  It's not just about numbers, it's about the reasons for numbers.

In a post-scarcity economy, primates (read:  people) are less concerned about absolute rewards (wages, goods, standards of living) than they are about how those rewards compare to their fellows'.  As the researchers conclude:

Rewards in a market economy [must be shared].  [The] the essential flaw in systems like communism [however, is that] people are expected to share resources without regard to how much work they do.

We're willing to cooperate.  We just need to be assured that the system in which we labor possesses a reasonable degree of reciprocity. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

We received the below announcement yesterday from Les Weinstein's and my good friend Martin J. Trupiano, with whom we both worked.  I worked briefly with Marty at the (now departed) Los Angeles office of Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, and Les worked with him for a much longer time at, successively, Pepper; Graham & James and, finally, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey.

Here's the thing about Marty.  He's not simply a sophisticated, creative, careful and dogged advocate for his IP clients, he's truly one of the nicest people I've ever known.  (Is that libel per se when applied to a litigator?)