How do I pick a Law School? Disbarment Metric Analysis?

This equation has nothing to do with this post

How do I pick a law school? 

The methods to select a law school are as nearly varied as the reasons for attending one.  Clinic options, professorial notoriety, attractiveness and marriageability of the student body, starting salary, prestige, parental edict, etc., the list goes on. 

However, one metric that I don't hear all that often is "likelihood of disbarment."  Sure, it is not as fun to contemplate the odds that your highly expensive investment in upper-middle class lifestyle preparation will be snatched away due to some fiduciary or ethical indiscretion, but some thought should be given to the possibility. 

Recently, NYS opened up the attorney registration database for programmatic access (meaning you can download and manipulate the fields as a Excel, JSON, CSV and other format types, as well as access the data directly from a web app). Nominally, this will allow you to check your reg status without having to go to your department website, but I digress. 

Of course, the first thing I did was manipulate the data to find out how many attorneys were disbarred who were admitted to the NY State Bar. According to the list, about 1800 people have been disbarred out of 350,000 records going back to 1899. 

The next thing I did was try to chart the data via school. What I got was hundreds of records, some for schools I had never heard of (Northumbria - I am looking at you).

The next problem was that people arbitrarily decided how to write their school (NYU vs N.Y.U vs New York University School of Law).

To solve that, I ran some regex fixes to condition the edge cases I could see. I tried to format the data by stripping out "Law", but when you try to strip out "School" - weird things happen. So there are some duplicate entries (like Brooklyn and Brooklyn School (i.e. stripped out 'Law').  Once I got a super-set, I manually conditioned the data to a top 20 set. Here are the results. 

Yea Alma Mater! 

Now, on its face, Brooklyn is the highest, but I would provide some caveats. The records go back to 1899, and the first Brooklyn Law reference I can find is in 1918. That means that it is possible that the 160_+ disbarment for BLS grads could be amortized over the course of nearly 100 years, the same goes for NYL. However, I am not sure what happens when you are disbarred and then deceased. 

***The data documentation does not give info about current status vs historical stats.  I would suggest that the Brooklyn number represents those persons that are still alive, but I have no way of knowing.***

However, when you restrict the entries to people who were admitted in 2000 or later, you get a different chart.

So what accounts for the difference? 

I mean we could just default to "Touro et al are lower ranked schools, of course their alums get into more problems", but that seams like the intelligent design answer to this science questions.  Maybe the fact that top law school grads in NY go into politics, business and large firms where there is a less chance that they will get into trouble? More lower ranked grads go solo (by choice or by default) and solos always have a higher chance of getting into trouble? 

Who knows. Any Theories, drop them in the comments. 

 t

[Scam] United States Trademark Registration Office

The United States Trademark Registration Office is a scam and you should not give them any money.

"Woah!", you might be thinking. That is a bit of a harsh take on the beloved United States Patent and Trademark Office. What happened, they wouldn't let you register that mark for "Baconnomics" (Ed: Yes, that is true).

However, what I am talking about is NOT the USPTO, but a scam organization that uses phonetic similarity to try to trick you into giving them money. Unlike the actual United States Patent and Trademark Office, the United States Trademark Registration office is a non-government entity, that seams to exist in a P.O. Box in the low rent side of Los Angeles.

Here is a copy of the scam form letter (source: USPTO).

DO NOT GIVE THEM MONEY.

You will be angry. Your IP Attorney will be angry. Sometimes clients openly question why they need to use an IP professional.

Note that the document above (in section 39 USC 3001) explicitly states that it is not a bill from the USPTO, but a solicitation. Clever scammers don't want to get sued or imprisoned, but they do want you money.

Spotting, and protecting you from IP Scams is one of our jobs, one we take seriously. If you ever receive patent or trademark notices from an office not in Virginia, or D.C. proper, have someone check it out, or at least look on this website or on Baselex.com.

Jordan Garner

Access Requirements for USPTO Alexandria, VA Campus

If you are planning on visiting the USPTO offices in VA, and you have a NY License (or one of the other 7 listed below), you are going to need to bring the alternative IDs listed here. 

As of April 21, the following states do not meet the REAL ID standards:

·         Alaska

·         American Samoa

·         Arizona

·         Kentucky

·         Louisiana

·         Maine

·         Massachusetts

·         Minnesota

·         Montana

·         New York

·         Oklahoma

·         Washington

Visitors to the USPTO with state issued identification from these states must present alternate forms of identification to facilitate access. Three of the states listed above offer an Enhanced Driver’s License that is identifiable by an American flag on the license; they are New York, Minnesota, and Washington. USPTO will accept the Enhanced Driver’s Licenses from those states.
DHS currently accepts other forms of Federal-issued identification in lieu of a state-issued driver’s license, such as a:

·         Passport

·         Passport card

·         DoD’s CAC

·         Federal agency HSPD-12 ID

·         Veterans ID

·         Military dependents ID

·         Trusted Traveler card – Global Entry, SENTRI, or NEXUS

·         Transportation Workers Identification Credential (TWIC)

For visitors using state-issued ID to access the USPTO, only driver’s licenses or identification cards from states that meet Federal standards will be honored. USPTO will continue to accept other forms of government-issued identification, including Federal employee badges, passports, military identification cards, or Enhanced Driver's Licenses as noted above.
If visitors do not have acceptable identity documents, the person to be visited at USPTO will need to provide an escort in order for the visitor to access the USPTO. The visitor must be escorted at all times while in USPTO secured areas.

For additional information about the REAL ID Act, please visit www.dhs.gov/secure-drivers-licenses.

Don't use Invention Assistance Companies until you check the PTO

Short Post: 

There are a lot of entities out there that want to help you get your idea off the ground. From venture capital firms, to Kickstarter, to your cousin's Persian rug connection, there are people well placed who want to see your idea succeed and share in the profits.  
There is nothing wrong with bringing a few fellow travelers along with you for the ride. In fact it is good practice to have a couple more heads to put together when the going gets tough. 

One group that does not have your best interest at heart are "Invention Assistance" companies.  You seen the ads on late night T.V. They will help you patent, market, and sell you idea to major companies! 


Why go to a moldy patent attorney who has ethical obligations?  Hitch your wagon to a business that knows what good ideas look like, and will escort you through the process from conception to showers of riches.  </sarcasm>

While it is entirely possible that these companies do help the odd inventor. It is much more likely you will exit the process will poorer, both in terms of actual money and patent rights. 

We could walk through all the way that Invention assistance companies upbraid your future patent having happiness, but the Patent Office has already compiled a list of complaints as depressing as they are informative.   

Here is an excerpt of a complaint sent to the PTO regarding an Invention Assistance Company: 

Name of mass media invention promoter advertised in:  Mail Advertisement

Invention promotion service offered to be performed:  To market and license my invention.

Explanation of complaint between customer and invention promoter: 
I am filing a complaint against this company.  I paid them $25,270.00 completed last payment May 2011.  On November 6, 2012, received a letter they closed their business so I got ripped off.  In year 2007, I lost $5527 – to another companyXXXX., XXXX, XXXX, XX 07004.  That makes it (two) almost $31,000.  How can I trust anyone to market and license my invention.  I don’t’ have the money anymore. I research on the website on the XXXX before paying any money.  Who are the trusted companies who will follow through and assist new inventors?  These companies had a bad reputation with the BBB and FTC.  What am I doing wrong?  What do I look out for?  I need help to get my money back and market my invention.

You can read all the complaints for various Invention assistance Firms, here. 

Patent Lawyers, and law firms in general, will not assist you in taking your idea to market. That is generally a task best left for yourself.  However, if you must use a company to help you, understand what you are getting yourself into. 

More importantly, check the company out, and due your due diligence. It is not enough to review the BBB, but check the PTO, and the FTC. If your idea is worth thousands of dollars, then it is worth the time to make sure you are protecting it right. 

Jordan Garner 

What should be in my site's Privacy Policy?

A client recently contacted me in a panic. They had seen the recent FTC settlement (see here) with Snapchat and were concerned about their own App's privacy policy. We talked through their concerns and determined that their privacy policy was sufficient to cover current usage of their App.

It is important for a Start-up developer to know the purpose of a "Privacy Policy" and its cousin "The Terms of Use."  They are not simply "make work" hassles for lawyers, or something to be copied blindly off of a Git repository. {Ed. Except if it is a Privacy Policy template from www.Baselex.com}.

The purpose of both can be summarized as the contractual obligations of each side, the user and the App provider, that exists when the App is used. {Ed. For our purposes, App covers any minimally interactive website.}

Terms of Use
The Terms of Use are fairly straight forward and mostly deal with the User obligations. In an effective ToU, the App Provider lays out some explanation of the functionality that will be encountered in using the App (such as forums or comments) and a code of conduct that the users agree to be held to when using the App. For example, many apps have a "non-harassment" component to their Terms of Use. Users that violate this, generally find themselves on the wrong side of the "Ban Hammer".  The Terms of Use are similar to an End-User License agreement, and tend to contain similar language. ToS, when effective, provide a User of an App with a clear list behaviors, rights, and obligations (such as honoring Intellectual property) that exist when they use the App.  

Privacy Policy
Privacy Policies differ in significant way from Terms of Use and generally lay out how the App Provider will use the data of the User. The goal of any effective Privacy Policy is to highlight the ways that a User's personal identification and data might  be used by the App Provider. Aggregated stats, geolocation, and preferences for Ad-Targeting are all pieces of data that an App Provider might collect about individual or collective users. There is no explicit rule in the U.S. that limits the data that an App provider can collect to specific categories. (with the exception of various HIPPA relevant issues which are beyond the scope of this brief post.)

What is required is that the App Provider lay what those pieces of information that are being collected. A well drafted Privacy Policy provides enough scope to the App Provider to modify their data collection practices based on market need, while not deceiving or misleading Users as to the scope and extent of the data collected.

Where SnapChat ran afoul of the FTC was in failing to abide by this primary role. The Snapchat Privacy Policy (according to the FTC) provided explicit statements on what data was and what was not collected through the use of the App. Specifically, Snapchat claimed that the communications sent to recipients was ephemeral to the recipient and not stored in any database or server.  Through a series of hacker data breeches, it became clear that not only was this not true (there were vast databases of Snaps retained by Snapchat) but the data was not ephemeral to the recipient. The recipient of a Snap could, through various technological methods, obtain a permanent copy of the snap.

 Furthermore,  the Snapchat privacy policy explicitly disclaimed the storing of geolocation data. Again, after a review of the data stored by Snapchat, it became clear that geolocation data was being stored for future use.

As a result of these revelations, it became clear that the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for SnapChat's app was woefully deficient and confusing. The natural outcome when consumers feel deceived and confused about the true nature of a product is an investigation by the FTC.

Therefore the first thing to ask when crafting a privacy policy is what does your app or website seek to accomplish, and how does it use the user data in order to accomplish task?  There is no benefit in making a statement about specific functionality and features if these features are not present. Quite the contrary, there is a significant downside to telling App users one story about functionality, while the truth tells another. Likewise, if you need geolocation data, or contact lists, explicitly state that you need them and use them in your privacy policy. It is better to lose a few privacy adherents in the early use stage then have potentially millions of potential plaintiffs in a class action suit based on deception.

As final matter, Privacy Policies should not be drafted and locked in a drawer under the TOS/PP file folder in your server root.  Every iteration of the App, from customer feedback, to posts, to direct messaging might change what type of data you need to collect from your users. Similarly, if you are changing revenue models, you might need to update your privacy policy to indicate the structural change in how you are using the data (from purely analytic, to a data broker model). A quaterly review of both the ToS and PP are a good way to ensure that you are not providing inadvertently misleading information to your Users about the App and their privacy.

Jordan Garner

Start-UP Failure and IP

Quick post:

I have been filling my free reading time with stories about how different start-ups fail. My inquiry is not limited to "Tech" or "Software", but to restaurants, shipping companies, mines and other small and medium businesses that found themselves suddenly with more liability than assets.

Obviously, I am not a business manager, so my opinions should be taken with a healthy grain of salt. However, a reoccurring theme appears to be that companies often fail because the business plan that failed to accurately match reality.  It should be noted that reality is a hard thing, it changes and morphs over time. Having a business model that consistently matches it is very difficult.  There are very few conceptual frameworks for making money that have not be changed by the advent of new er better technology and information, (agriculture? Prostitution?), trying to keep pace is difficult.

That being said, what I have also noticed is that very few (say less than 1%) of the companies I read about failed because of IP infringement. Sure, there are some tech start-ups that fail because they step on the toes of a competitors IP (esp in the trademark and copyright space), but it is generally not how start-ups fail.

However, there is a pernicious perception in some quarters of the start-up world is that accusations of infringement are a) rampant and b) driving companies who would otherwise be profitable, off of a cliff.

The reality, much like business plans, must have some facts and analysis to support those conclusions. A significant quantity of IP suits filed in 2014 were directed against large profitable business and instigated on the behalf of non-practicing entities.  It is rare for any company to receive a cease and desist letter from a patent holder. It is rarer still for them for the target of a suit to be a un-profitable start-up.

For the curious, here are some post mortums of various tech start-ups:

http://www.cbinsights.com/blog/startup-failure-post-mortem


http://successfulsoftware.net/2010/05/27/learning-lessons-from-13-failed-software-products/

The point is that businesses have a lot of things to worry about, and a limited amount of time to worry about them. Worry less about IP infringement, and more about your business model and odds are you will have made the right choice in your focus.

A Modest Proposal: Bitcoin + Kickstarter +PMCs = Brave New World

I am looking for my razor....

Unless you have been living in a cave, or actually fighting the Shining Path in the jungles of northern Peru, you are aware that Boko Haram, an Islamic fundamentalist organization, has kidnapped more than 200 schoolgirls. Their stated purposes was to sell them into sexual slavery, their unstated purpose was to sow general mayhem.  If you want to read more, then feel free to check out excellent coverage here.

The Nigerian government has offered the equivalent of $300,000 for information leading to the whereabouts of the missing school girls. In an age where random kickstarters for pointless, useless crap raise millions of dollars, the international community (not governments, but actual "global" citizens - i.e. you) can probably do better than a bit over 1000 per kidnapped schoolgirl.

This brings us to the intersection of a number of internet technologies and recent global developments. Currently, there is no technological barrier to use a Bitcoin based crowd funding site to hire a private military contractor (UN speak for "Mercenaries") to locate and rescue the girls. There would be obvious implications for territorial sovereignty for the Nigerian Government, but they appear to already have a problem with territorial sovereignty.

How would this work in practice? Poorly. However, it is the logical outgrowth of technologies currently available.

The way bit coin works is to render anonymous the commercial transactions using a finite (but infinitely divisible) resource stock . Libertarians and others find this particularly beneficial because it removes the threat of "fiat" currency fluctuations (of course it introduces other types of currency fluctuations, but that is not the point here ) and allows for transactions to occur outside government control and inspection. This
combined with a crowd-sourcing model would let denizens of the world contribute to a fund anonymously.  Millions of dollars worth of Bitcoins could be electronically transferred to a holding entity that was the point of contact.  This aggregation of resources could use a crowdfunding model, one well developed over the past few years, to solicit and explain the purpose of the holding entity.

During the United States' decade and a half worth of combat in the Middle East, PMCs have increasingly been used to guard kep individuals, do recon, and even engage in combat. (The nightmare that was Fallujah started because some PMCs went looking to settle a score with insurgents).  Now, they comprise an international shadow military active in almost every conceivable military role. They have their own equipment, weapons, command structures and PR teams.

In our scenario, once the funds were amassed, they would be used to hire a PMC outfit to retrieve the girls.

People might cheer or wring their hands, but no one should assume that this in not possible today. These three technologies combined form a platform.  Lets call it an "Anonymous Crowd-Sourced Conflict Management" or ACSCM platform (and API!).  Once it is successfully deployed, there would be no reason to think that other enterprising individuals wouldn't use the platform for more nefarious ends. One could envision Dark Nets full of Terrorist Groups pleading and copying other groups request for crowd sourcing (which raises a interesting question out IP theft among various terrorist groups) to fund their particular plots.

We are constantly told how new technologies will change the world. The problem is that we always default to that change being only beneficial. All technologies have the capacity to use and misuse in ways their original creators never intended.

IPT Patents is a Patent Scam Company [Scam Alert]

In keeping with a general theme on this blog, we have uncovered another International Patent Scam service.

IPT (www.ipt-patents.com) is sending out letters, a copy if which is reproduced below, that claims that they are a "Registration of International Patents" Office.

My second rule of Scam-club (the first is that you always talk about Scammers) is that you never trust any documents coming from a P.O. Box in  eastern Europe.  For that matter, I wouldn't send money to P.O. Box in Jersey based on an unsolicited letter.

Don't fall for these scams. If you want to file for a patent in a number of countries, you will always save more money by hiring an IP attorney to help walk you the mine-field.  Otherwise, you are easy pickings for the IPT's of the world.

Add them to the list:
IPT
UPTS
IP-Data.biz


http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/pct/en/warning/ipt.pdf

[SCAM Alert] WDTP

Spring time is the time for flowers, and Patent Office Scams.  A client just alerted me to a new IP Scam outfit called WDTP.

Again, a good rule of thumb is to avoid any and all official mailings coming from a P.O. box in Brno, Czech Republic.

 Brno looks like a lovely place to hang out, get some Eastern European beer and take in the sights. It is not a great place to secure your international patent and trademark rights
Don't fall for these Brno based scam operations:

WDTP
UPTS.org
IP-DATA.biz

You will not have anything to show for it.

Jordan Garner
.
 

Let it snow! Burton Patents

To say that the winter of 2014 as been harsh would be an understatement. In the North-East and West, snow totals are approaching historic levels. Even as I type, another monster storm is gathering to dump feet of snow on an area stretching from upstate NY to Maine.

If there are any winners in intense snowy winter, it is ski resorts. Resorts, it is obvious to state, can't function without skiers and snowboarders.  One of the premier outfits in snowboarding Burton is, aside from a trendsetter in slope apparel and design, a prolific patentee.

According to the patent databases, Burton has more than 100 issued patents and pending application in the US.  An appreciable number of these patents are directed to function features, such as the spring leaf modified glide board design seen above.  Other patents address the continuous problem of lacing your boots. For example patent 8418381, describes a lacing system for boots.

One of the features that drives sales in the apparel / sporting goods space is the relentless need to innovate and produce new and improved models. In that respect, the Tech space and the sports retail space are not significantly different.   The ability to patent these advancements, however incremental, mean increased sales and wide recognition as an innovator.

Not every patenable idea is a commercial success, nor should it. A large purpose behind the patent system is to allow companies and individuals to iterate over known ideas to get new ideas. Sometime, the iteration is not worth the added expense. Sometimes the iteration was the last piece of some overall systems puzzle that advances the art, and becomes the basis of new paradigm in the industry.

Burton made a large push for the integrated boot binding combination. Had it taken off, it would have changed the technological direction of the industry. At the end of the day, in 2014 at least, that technology is a side show to the more simplistic boot binding system employed by Burton and other board manufacturers.

The point is that you never know which ideas might strike and catch fire, and which ideas whither on the vine. If you wait until you are successful to patent those ideas, it is already too late.


Jordan Garner

The Case for a Financial Engineering Art Unit at The PTO

If you understand the formula to the left, then congratulations, you are probably a financial engineer.

Financial engineering is a multidisciplinary approach to finance that uses mathematical modeling, computer algorithms, and economic principals to develop various sophisticated financial instruments. The goal, as with every alchemist, it is generate something of immense value from something of very little value.

Where the end product of financial engineering intersects with IP law is the notion of the "business method patent".  Most of the concern regarding Non-Practicing entities (Patent Trolls), are focused squarely on the validity of patents relating to financial engineering implementations.

 The U.S. Supreme Court has recently granted Cert. in CLS Bank v. Alice Corporation. The internet is full of blogs explaining the merits of each parties' position, and i have nothing useful to add to that conversation.

What I do add is this: The general disposition of people opposed to business method patents is that the concepts are abstract, and do not do anything new with old concepts. Unfortunately, that opinion confuses the prohibition on non-patentable subject matter (Sec. 101) and novelty (Sec 102).

If the argument is that a financial engineering concept, like the 3rd party escrow arrangement in ALS, were abstract, then why are we arguing about it? Clearly someone implemented the idea, hence making it tangible. Once something can be made tangible, it is no longer abstract.  Really, most positions on business method patents collapse into a novelty argument.

The patent office was issuing loads of patents on financial concepts tied to various computer implementations. When these patents are challenged, the argument is always that the patentee is merely applying the concept with a computer. The parties could point to the prior art, but they usually find it lacking. Thus, they settle into a long patent-eligible subject matter argument instead of a novelty, obvious argument.

The result is that Congress, the President and various industry groups are attempting to change the law to suit the goal of eliminating harmful business method patents.

A better way to solve the problem is to move the issue back into the patent office. It is my theory that one of the reasons that business method patents get through the patent office is that most of the Examiners in the art unit have a computer science background and not a financial engineering background. If the PTO actively recruited a financial engineering unit, and stationed them in a Manhattan Satellite Office, they would have the synergy of a examiner corp that is familiar with high-end financial concepts, and a store of knowledge as to what constitutes prior art.

Why Manhattan? Proximity  to Wall Street; home to several leading financial engineering graduate programs. Supply of former and current financial industry employees who can transition into the examiner role.

Before we close off an entire field of patentable subject matter, we should at least try to diligently examine them.

Jordan Garner

Getting Hired in the IP Field [PTO Stats]

There is nothing better then data...said no one...ever. However, I think lawyers should have a keen eye to trends, and trends only make sense with data.  The patent office is a great resource to uncover strategies and long term trends in the field (and in American innovation in general). Below are some patent stats for 2012.

It is interesting that slightly more than half of all the applications filed in the US, originated from inventors in foreign countries. The take away is that foreign filing in the US is a serious source of work and revenue for firms, large and small (there is a reason I go to Japan once a year). However, one could argue that Americans have lost the edge in their own patent office. When you break out the foreign countries into their own catagory, the situations becomes more interesting.

Japan, once the second largest economy in the world, is still the second largest filer of Applications in the US. In contrast, China (PRC), is the world's second largest economy, but is tied with Canada for the amount of applications filed in the U.S. Over time, these number will begin to reflect the rise of China on the global stage, but the concern that China is already at the front, is a bit misplaced.


Lastly, the estimated number of active patent practitioners is 26,000. So, when you calculate the total number of applications filed by the number of active practitioners, you get 20.8 Applications per practitioner. Seeing that some of these applications are pro se, some companies have hundreds of applications filed by a small team, the number of applications per attorney or agent is actually quite small. I will let you draw your own conclusions on what that means for the prospects for new lawyers.

[Ngram Viewer] Patent troll vs software patent vs open source

This is a brief follow up to the earlier post on not fearing/feeding patent trolls. I wanted to see the mention frequency for patent trolls measured against open source software and software patents. The chart is below and self explanatory. Social media tends to drive our opinions as the the current state of IP. However, the empirical evidence tells a differs story.

Clearly, the story of innovation is being driven by open-source technologies. While software patents exists, the percentage of mind share they occupy pales in comparison to open source.

Don't Fear the Patent Trolls

One of the concerns revised by start-ups is fear that their small company will be sued by a Patent Troll (Non-practicing entity). Generally this concern is premised that the software (it is almost always a software start-up which fears patent trolls ) used by the start-up is covered by some obscure software patent.

Much like the Satanic Moral Panic scares of the '80s and 90's, the fear of patent trolls outstrips the actual reality.

Generally, the goal of a NPE is to obtain a lump sum payment for past infringement. Suing a start-up which has not demonstrated any revenue, or even a viable business plan to generate revenue, wouldn't gain any meaningful recovery. In order to recover for patent infringement, you have to show lost profits, reasonable royalty or willfulness. Since NPE's (by definition) do not practice the patent, they have a hard time showing lost profits. Thus, they rely heavily on a reasonable royalty of the Companies' profits.

If your start-up has barely received a series A funding round, the profit motive for litigation is not there. That doesn't mean that a NPE won't send you a letter alleging infringement, thus trying to rattle the tree a bit in the hopes that you have deep pockets. However, if you are a start-up without a lot of revenue, or a famous or wealthy founder, odds are you are not going to find yourself in Court.

However, if you do receive a nasty gram from a lawyer claiming patent infringement, ask the sender to identify the patent and the particular claims alleged as infringed. Wait to hear back from them. If they get back to you in a manner that does not answer those two questions, then it is time to contact a professional IP attorney.

The point is that NPEs suing start-ups are not a wide spread issue. A quick google search shows about half a dozen high profile instances, but that is contrasted against the list of start-ups supported by every major venture firm out there.

Not every start-up is being sued into oblivion on the basis of specious patents. For instance, the Government Accountability Office found that Patent Troll Litigation only counted for 20% of patent litigation cases in the US. The rest were simply run of the mill patent disputes. Of that 20%, most NPEs directed their fire to major multi-national corporations, not 3 man start-ups.

Code, innovate, and create. Don't spend your time thinking that their are monsters under the bed.

Jordan Garner

Standard essential patents are...essential

Forbes has an interesting article on standard essential patents (SEPs). You can read it here. http://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2014/01/16/a-way-to-mitigate-smartphone-patent-litigation/

The article often points to Qualcomm's 6 billion dollar /year in licensing royalties (for CDMA patents) as though it were an example is an in the breakdown of the SEP system. 

However, the article fails to note that CDMA is not an obscure technology foisted on an industry. CDMA is the one of the most widely used cell phone communication standards on the planet. 

The whole purpose of the SEP system is to provide a reasonable royalty to the inventor of technology that the market determines is the best way to implement a solution to an industry-wide issue. 

If the industry is unable to perform this function, as the article implies ( noting the increased politicization of the process ), then why entrust the process to industry?  Forbes appears to be making an argument that the market, as it relates to SEPs, has failed.

If un-elected industry officials can not pick technological winners and losers, why not ask the un-elected bureaucrats to do so? In that scenario, some collection of professors, lawyers and government appointees could hash out some solution which results in a standard, non-negotiable license applied across the board.

If that outcome feels less than appealing, then the basic premise that the system is failing needs to be reevaluated.

If your technology undergrids global communications, you should be compensated for it, regardless of if you build every piece of equipment or not. The fact that different factions would argue for their technology is not a break down in the system, it is the system functioning as it was intended.

Jordan Garner
(c) 2014 Moorsgate Media

[Scam Alert] UPTS.org

Unlike intros to songs featuring Jay-Z, this is not a "new watch" alert but a a [New Scam] alert. However, much like the rap impresario, I come to tell you tales of The Hustle.

Much in the same way that modern hip-hop reinterprets the classic Greek tragedy, IP scammers seek the remix of old strategies.
Before the Internet, IP scammers must have had it made.  All that was needed was an official looking document and an Eastern European P.O. Box. Presto, cash in bank.

Now, in order to have a credible shot at committing fraud, IP scammers have resulted to professional looking webpages, and even more official looking documents.

I find UPTS.org to be particularly innovative in this respect. They use a web URL that is surprisingly homologous to the USPTO. That off-set  P grabs you, roping in those who are vaguely aware of the existence of the USPTO, PCT and EPO. Add in the .Org and it all looks so plausibly above board.

However, the briefest reviews shows that once again, those eastern European O.P. boxes are behind the scenes. Looking to collect your checks (and god forbid,) your credit card number.

Safe to say that UPTS.org is a scam. Do not give them your money. Add them to the List.

IP-Data.biz
UPTS.org

Jordan Garner

Steampunk, Patents & IBM

Steampunk as a genera was set to explode in 2013.  For those who don't know the difference between steampunk, cyberpunk and retro-future, let me provide this definition. A common definition could be provided as a sci-fi / fantasy sub-genre based around Gothic machinery and the industrialized civilization of the 19th Century. However, it should be noted that the definition of Steampunk differs from adherent to adherent. The common elements are a heavy influence by the works of Jules Verne, the inventions of Nikola Tesla and Victorian fashion. The genera adheres a retro-futuristic style that puts critical emphasis on ascetics, at times to the detriment of function.

According to IBM (a retro-futuristic enterprise if there were one) Steampunk was set to evolve into a cultural meme, jumping cultural domains like some sort of mechanical fish. IBM came to that conclusion through the use of its sentiment analysis system which scans social media for "chatter". In this case, the chatter said that Steampunk is set to explode. This "steam explosion" will see the transition from "high-cost" low volume Steampunk inspired devices to mass market production. See there analysis here. 

Naturally giddy at the prospect of this explosion in felt hats and brass goggles, I fired up my ISPDR Terminal (More on this another time) and went looking for Steampunk patents. 

Unfortunately, the only issued patent that felt "Steampunk-y" is the above illustrated "gear-heart" pendant. U.S.P. 666116.  Some additional patent applications were directed to video games having a Steampunk feel, but no additional physical device. No giant steam powered spider-automaton diagrams, no difference engines powered by AEther. Just some odd electrode wielding walking sticks and some flogs. 

Of course, it is possible that all of the really fancy jewelry is being copyrighted and not design patented.  However, if you thought your designs were going to go mass market, and you were working in a genera as unique and ascetically diverse as Steampunk, why wouldn't you seek design patent protection.  

The general take away should be about focusing your development efforts to conform to some 10,000 foot analysis, as opposed to developing and IP portfolio which serves current business needs. Clearly, those high-cost low volume manufacturers are not having a problem with rampant infringement. Otherwise they would have masses of patents and pending applications. 

Chatter about trends, technologies, or concepts are just that, chatter. Even with powerful computer analysis it is difficult to determine the direction of technology and style. Therefore, you never know what ideas and technology might take off tomorrow. This makes it difficult to justify the costs associated with IP protection. However, the opposite is true too. One well placed patent might control the market, or a genera. A balanced IP portfolio strategy, based on real world feedback, is always the right style. 

Jordan Garner