The Scotsman takes a hard look at the legacy of the late patent king (Craig Howie, “New doubts on serial inventor”, Aug. 23)(more).
Posts Tagged ‘technology’
Patent Troll-Be-Gone?
Major software and hardware companies, tired of facing financial demands from companies organized for the purpose of buying up and suing over otherwise dormant patent rights, are calling for a change in patent law so that owners who are not using their patents would no longer have the right to sue for injunctions against alleged infringers (suits over damages could still be filed). Support for the idea is far from unanimous even among manufacturers, however. For more on the controversy over patent-licensing firms, see May 2, etc. (Brenda Sandburg, “A modest proposal”, The Recorder, May 9).
BlackBerry squeezed
The Canadian maker of the wireless email device in March agreed to pay $450 million to settle the claims of NTP, a company which manufactures nothing and instead makes its way in the world by asserting rights in old patents. Not all is sweetness and light, however: “Critics of the patent system maintain that these companies — called ‘patent trolls’ by their detractors — rely on excessively broad patents, particularly for software, that should never have been granted in the first place.” For more on the controversy over patent-licensing firms, see various posts on our technology and intellectual property page. (Ian Austen and Lisa Guernsey, “A Payday for Patents ‘R’ Us”, New York Times, May 2).
Untraceable — but still under copyright
Due in part to expansions of copyright law lobbied for by Disney and other giants, a huge volume of writing, art and music which would otherwise by now have entered the public domain is still under copyright, even though the rights to much of it — things like picture postcards, ephemeral commercial illustration and sheet music issued by long-defunct publishers or with no identifying marks at all — cannot be traced to any particular current successor-owner even by good faith efforts. Per Wired News:
According to comments submitted to the copyright office, one married couple couldn’t get a wedding photograph repaired: The photography shop would not scan and reprint the photo because it was taken by a professional and the shop was afraid of violating copyright, even though the photographer was out of business.
“For heaven’s sake, this is a photograph of me and my wife, and I can’t have it legally repaired!!! Wrong, wrong, wrong!” wrote William Haynes.
(Katie Dean, “Copyright Reform to Free Orphans?”, Apr. 12).
Domain name nastygrams
I find these letters depressing. These are the kind of letters that cause people to hate lawyers.
Notice of the problem and the trademark holders’ intent to file a claim are required by the [Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act], but the tone of these letters is not. Instead of nicely explaining what the law is, what the goal is and how appreciative the trademark holder would be if the domain name holder was courteous enough to transfer the name as requested, these letters bombard the recipients with legal jargon and serious threats without context or explanation. …
When I have a client on either side of the cybersquatting scenario, I urge starting with the polite request approach. Usually, I can succeed that way through some polite explanation of the law over the phone and a little patience. That approach also costs my clients less that either court or arbitration would since both of those require filing fees and lengthy legal briefs. More importantly, solving disputes through discussion makes me feel good and helps me prove that, at least occasionally, lawyers can act like human beings and make someone’s day instead of ruining it.
(Judith Silver, Cybersquatting Ain’t What It Used To Be).
Put the blame on games, cont’d
Devin Thompson, 16 at the time, is charged with murdering two Fayette, Ala. policemen and an emergency dispatcher in June 2003. Now members of the victims’ families are suing the maker of the Grand Theft Auto video game, retailers Wal-Mart and Gamestop, and Sony, which manufactures the PlayStation, as well as Thompson himself, on the grounds that the violent game “trained” the teen to commit the real-life killings. Representing the families, if you haven’t already guessed, is attorney Jack Thompson, whose anti-videogame crusade has for years provided material for these columns (Sept. 26 and Dec. 17, 2003, etc.)(Johnny Kampis, “Lawsuit claims video violence precipitated Fayette police shootings”, Tuscaloosa News, Feb. 15; Tony Smith, “Grand Theft Auto firm faces ‘murder training’ lawsuit”, The Register (UK), Feb. 17). More: “The supporters [of anti-videogame government action] think violent games produce violent teens, but the evidence is lacking.” (Steve Chapman, “Violent video games and Illinois’ loopy legislators”, syndicated/Chicago Tribune, Mar. 20)
“Music Industry Sues 83-Year-Old Dead Woman”
“Gertrude Walton was recently targeted by the recording industry in a lawsuit that accused her of illegally trading music over the Internet. But Walton died in December after a long illness, and according to her daughter, the 83-year-old hated computers.” (AP/ABCNews, Feb. 4). Glenn Reynolds (Feb. 5) guesses that it’s another “bot-based complaint” (more).
California court to examine award in biotech case
The California Supreme Court has agreed to review a judgment of $500 million against Genentech, a California biotechnology company. The judgment, which was upheld by an intermediate state appellate court, awards $300 million in compensatory damages and $200 million in punitive damages to the City of Hope, a cancer research center. Genentech and City of Hope collaborated in the 1970s on a methodology for inserting human genes into bacteria and using them to produce medically useful proteins, such as insulin. This development led to the first drugs made by the biotech industry. Genentech held the patents on these technologies and was to pay royalties to City of Hope. City of Hope claims that through fraud and concealment, Genentech cheated the research center out of hundreds of millions of dollars. (Bob Egelko, “State’s highest court steps in Genentech dispute over royalties to be heard by justices,” S.F. Chron, Feb. 3).
Genentech claims that the contract required royalty payments only on patents using DNA synthesized by City of Hope. The appeal does not focus as much on the compensatory damages for breach of contract, but stresses that assessing punitive damages sets a dangerous precedent. Genentech and amici warn that assessing tort liability may stifle innovation by “reduc[ing] investment in research and development for [intellectual property] that is not yet patented — that is, the very newest technologies with the greatest potential social value.” (Mike McKee, “Calif. Justices to Review $500 Million Judgment Against Genentech,” The Recorder, Feb. 3). The knowledge that they could be liable for punitive damages if a mistake is made could prevent a number of biotech companies and research facilities from collaborating with one another, impeding biomedical and scientific development. The ruling also affects any other type of royalty agreement.
“Why Hasn’t Tivo Improved?”
“Lawsuits are killing innovation. It’s a common story in the world of technology. Any time a company produces a disruptive technology that does something cool, they have to have a legal department that is bigger than their engineering unit to survive, and that sucks for business, sucks for customers, and sucks for the technology industry. I work around lawyers all day and I wish this was a bigger issue with the public.
“Anything that helps customers enjoy TV, movies, or music is a target for lawsuits.” (Matt Haughey, PVRBlog, Jan. 21).
A simple ‘Thank you’ would do
A French researcher, Guillaume Tena, found several holes in the Viguard anti-virus program that a malicious hacker could have exploited to nullify the software’s protections. What did he do? He published his findings.
The company responsible for the holy software, Tegam, sued for copyright violation. The company is asking for a 6000 euro fine and a four month jail term. A related civil case asks for 900,000 euros in damages.
The researcher’s website says he “showed how the program worked, demonstrated a few security flaws and carried out some tests with real viruses. Unlike the advertising claimed, this software didn’t detect and stop ?100 percent of viruses?.”
From the ZDNet Australia story:
According to French security Web site K-OTik, Tena had technically broken copyright laws because his exploits were “not for personal use, but were communicated to a third party”.
However, K-OTik, which regularly publishes exploit codes, claims that the ruling could create a precedent so vulnerabilities in software, however critical, could not be declared publicly without prior agreement from the software publisher.
K-OTik?s editors say the ruling is “unimaginable and unacceptable in any other field of scientific research”.
” Security researcher to be jailed for finding bugs in software?”, ZDNet Australia, Jan. 11.