What can $60 do in copyright infringement cases? Google thought this can be the settlement amount. Since Google launched Google Books, its online digital library service (www.print.Google.com) in 2004, the company has overcome quite a few hurdles in obtaining authorization to publish copyrighted works, including reaching settling agreement with the American Society of Composer, Authors and Publisher (ASCAP) in 2008. It recently got into a similar situation in China, after it scanned and placed 17,922 manuscripts belonging to 570 Chinese authors into its database without securing their authorization, according to the allegation. The authors’ joint protest against the infringing conducts through the China Writer Association prompted Google to make a statement of settlement. In the statement, Google offered the authors a sixty-dollar compensation for each infringed work, subject to a timely filing of claims (before June, 5th, 2010). The agreement also provided that Google would remove the work(s) from its online library at the author’s option, or a 63% of the future sales income would be paid as royalty if the author chooses to license the work to Google. The settlement offer was posted on the website of the official Chinese Writer Association website (www.chinawriter.com.cn). Individual authors may accept the resolution by signing the agreement, or further pursue their relieves individually. It can be predicted that many litigations will arise there, as put by Mr. Changtian Zhao, one of the authors whose works were copied: “Why doesn’t Google scan Harry Porter and put it online, then offer J. K. Rowling $60.00?”
Rock Art Brewery owners Matt and Renee Nadeau received a cease and desist letter from makers of Monster Energy Drink (Hansen Beverage Company) to stop selling its Vermonster beer and drop its efforts to get a federal trademark for the name. Hansen claims use of the name Vermonster beer “will undoubtedly create a likelihood of confusion and/or dilute the distintive quality of Hansen’s Monster marks.” Although several lawyers have advised Rock Art that they would likely prevail in the legal battle, it is unclear whether the small brewery will have the funding to go up against a company like Hansen who has revenues of around $600 million per year.
UPDATE: Monster and Rock Art came to an agreement that Rock Art may continue to use the name “Vermonster” as long as it stays out of the energy drink business. LINK
The USPTO announced today that it will file a motion to dismiss in Tafas v. Kappos, the case regarding the validity of a controversial rules package proposed by the USPTO. This effectively marks the end of the rules proposed to help make the USPTO reduce its application backlog. In short these rules would have restricted the capacity of inventors to prosecute applications: setting limits on the number of Continuations and RCEs that applicants could file. Also, applications would be limited as to the number of claims that could be included. See the Patent Office press release for more information: http://www.uspto.gov/news/09_21.jsp
As everyone well knows, the USPTO faces a gigantic backlog of patent applications (around three quarters of a million applications) that leads to significant wait time for inventors. In view of this, USPTO director David Kappos announced some encouraging news last week in the form of changes to the examination system.
First, examiners are allotted an additional hour to read and review the application. The hope being that this time will be used not in examination but in conducting substantive interviews with the inventor’s counsel early in the process.
Second, the new guidelines make slight changes to the “count” system. Patent examiners are required to bank a certain number of “counts” per two week period. This quota system is a measure of productivity similar to the billable hour amongst attorneys. The examiner receives one count for issuing the first office action and another for disposing of the case (therefore, two counts per distinct case). However, Examiners can bank more counts for the same case if they reject and cause the inventor to seek an RCE, which is treated as if it is a new application. This has led some to accuse the USPTO of “forcing” RCEs at the cost of time and money to inventors. To solve this, the USPTO has decreased the value given to RCEs- to 1.75 for the first RCE and 1.5 for subsequent RCEs. Also, the proposed change the point distribution in the counts to decrease the value of rejections.
Are these changes going to be effective? Is this too little or at least a step in the right direction?
There is a business dispute with IP ramifications currently ongoing in the San Francisco area. This dispute centers on duck tours. Everyone here in Boston is probably familiar with the duck tours that use WWII-era amphibious vehicles (or replicas) to tour the city both on land and water. This is a pretty lucrative business that is common in large cities across the U.S. One of the leading companies in this field is Ride the Ducks, which operates these tours in many cities (for those wondering, Ride the Ducks does not own Boston Duck Tours but does partner with it). It seems that Ride the Ducks has recently come in the San Francisco market where it is looking to displace a local duck tour company, Bay Quackers. For all of the juicy, “business is war” details see: http://www.sfweekly.com/2008-11-12/news/clash-of-the-quackers/1.
Ride the Ducks has filed a trademark infringement suit against Bay Quackers regarding a sound mark it registered for the quacking sound its duck kazoos make (!). For those not familiar, tourists can obtain kazoos that make ducks sounds to use while on one of these tours. Sound marks are a type a trademark that work in roughly the same manner as normal trademarks. For example, NBC has received a trademark for not only its visual logo (the peacock) but also its auditory logo (the chimes). Similarly, AOL has sound marked “You’ve Got Mail”; the Harlem Globetrotters have a sound mark on the whistled version of “Sweet Georgia Brown”; and even the Pillsbury Doughboy’s giggle is protected. To obtain protection of sound marks, the USPTO requires first, that the mark be a source identifier, i.e. when a person hears the sound, she associates it with a company. Secondly, the sound must be distinct, a property that can be either inherent to the sound or acquired through usage. Lastly, the sound must not be functional. Sound marks are very rare, with the USPTO database showing only about one hundred and fifty live marks.
While a lawsuit over quacking kazoos seems inherently ridiculous, it has major business ramifications, especially for the alleged infringer, Bay Quackers. Should Ride the Ducks receive the injunction it has sought, it would receive a commercial advantage in a very competitive market. Such an advantage, regardless of how small it may be, could be enough to tip the scales.
This woman did: Barbara A. Ringer, who joined the Copyright Office at the Library of Congress straight out of Columbia Law School, and 21 years later oversaw the passage of the revolutionary Copyright Act of 1976. At the time Ms. Ringer joined the Copyright Office, the 1909 law in place provided for 28 years of copyright from date of publication, after which works could pass into the public domain; the ’76 Act extended the term to life of the creator plus 50 years, and also created the statutory fair use exception. While some may disagree about the merits of copyright term extension, Ms. Ringer’s objective was always to protect the rights of authors and content creators.
Ms. Ringer also won a gender discrimination suit to become the first woman Register of Copyrights in 1973. She died on April 9th.
Today in Stockholm the Swedish District Court handed down a $3.5 Million fine and one year in jail time for the people behind The Pirate Bay, a popular bittorrent tracker. While the people fined say they would rather burn down their homes than pay the fine, (Ars interview), it appears they will have to serve the imprisonment. The IFPI, a European version of the RIAA in the United States, prosecuted for the copyright holders in the case. Sweden typically has a more lax attitude towards copyright infringement, which is one of many reasons The Pirate Bay hosted there. In Sweden, a law recently went into effect mandating the disclosure of private data by ISP’s of file-sharers. The trial has major implications for all of the European countries implementing the IPRED, as well as bolstering the position of copyright enforcers in the United States as well. The Pirate Bay website is currently still functioning and hosting torrent files.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Wyeth v. Levine held that FDA approval of a drug’s labeling does not preempt a state law tort claim for inadequate labeling. So what do you do if you’re counsel to a pharmaceutical company making physician-administered drugs? Put the biggest, scariest black box warning you can on every prescription drug you sell. There’s no downside! Physicians frequently don’t read labeling, relying instead on prior experience with the drug, or what they learn from pharmaceutical reps and colleagues. Patients rarely even see these labels, and instead hear only the doctor’s summary of risks. This course of action would provide a complete defense for the drug manufacturer so that tort liability will stop with the administering physician.
This seems absurd and counterintuitive; shouldn’t drug warning labels communicate actual dangers and not just be a proxy for a tort defense? FDA needs to step in and address this before physicians and patients have no way of knowing the actual dangers of these drugs.
Pfizer’s purchase of Wyeth is big news for the pharmaceutical industry, and for big business in general. Because its blockbuster cholesterol drug Lipitor comes off patent in 2010, probably ceding much of its $12.6 billion market to generics, Pfizer went looking to boost its pipeline in search of the next blockbuster drug.
Despite the generally gloomy outlook on Pfizer’s own pipeline, it still has a number of blockbuster drugs that remain on patent (based on rough projected global sales for 2008): rheumatoid arthritis drug Celebrex ($2.5 billion, on patent until 2014), Xalatan for glaucoma ($1.8 billion, on patent until 2011), Detrol for overactive bladder ($1.2 billion, on patent until 2012), antibacterial drug Zyvox ($1.1 billion, on patent until 2021) and schizophrenia drug Geodon ($1.0 billion, on patent until 2012). The company still makes money from off-patent drugs, such as erectile dysfunction treatment Viagra ($2 billion, off patent since 2000), but sales generally drop off dramatically as patents expire and exclusivity ends. See high blood pressure medication Norvasc ($2.2 billion, but down from $4.9 billion in 2006 since it came off patent in 2007), antidepressant Zoloft ($142 million, but down from $3.3 billion in 2005, off patent since 2006) and antibacterial Zithromax ($121 million, but down from $2 billion in its patent expiration year of 2005).
Pfizer acquires a major player in Wyeth, with blockbuster drugs including antidepressant Effexor ($3.9 billion, off patent in 2010), children’s vaccine Prevnar ($2.7 billion , off patent in 2007 in the US, but extended to 2012 in Europe), arthritis drug Enbrel ($3.8 billion, off patent in 2009), antibiotic Zosyn ($1.3 billion, off patent in 2007) and sales from nutritionals, vitamins and Advil totaling $3.0 billion in 2008.
This represents a trend in the pharmaceutical industry towards consolidation, in the hope of producing the next Lipitor, a drug which can net a company tens of billions of dollars each year. Of course, monopoly profits only come with exclusivity, so I’m guessing patent lawyers and IP litigators will continue to find themselves very busy, even in the down economy.
On January 6th, Apple announced that it will offer music from all four major music labels (Universal, BMG, Warner Bros. and EMI) for the first time as DRM-free downloads. This is a huge step for iTunes, finally catching up with the method Amazon MP3 has used since its inception. This represents a policy shift towards allowing users to freely transfer songs between their computers and mp3 players, something previously made extremely difficult and awkward by Apple’s DRM scheme. Though iTunes allowed authorization of up to 5 computers to play content purchased from its iTunes Store, this always seemed like an artificial and arbitrary restriction to place on its users (not to mention the fact that DRM protected content couldn’t be played on other mp3 players). Apple of course was well within their legal rights to negotiate licensing however they pleased and to implement their DRM scheme, but this decision marks a clear statement that it was a failed policy as a business decision.
Even though iTunes clearly maintains the content advantage over Amazon MP3 (10 million songs versus only 6 million), I will continue to use Amazon MP3 exclusively, and recommend my friends do the same, both because of the universality of the mp3 format, and my general disdain for Apple products (don’t get me started on the pathetic quality of iTunes as a music player/manager).
More generally, this marks a business trend towards a new method of dissuading piracy: Give users the autonomy to view and use content in the way they please, and they will be more likely to legitimately purchase copyrighted material, and less likely to resort to illegal copying and dissemination. This move by Apple, along with the free streaming video content offered by Hulu (a collaboration between NBC, Fox, MGM, Sony, Warner Bros. and more), and most other major networks making their shows available streaming for free on their websites, represents a win for end users, freed from arbitrary and cumbersome restrictions on the use and enjoyment of the growing variety of digital content becoming available on the web.
News | tango | 
October 19, 2009 6:06 pm | 
Comments (0) 
Subscribe