Monetization of IP : This bearded, vegetarian hipster made about 600k this year for doing nothing.

This hipster musician, otherwise known as Paul McCartney, makes tons of money every year.  At last count, he makes something like 35 Million dollars a year.

Now, to complicated financial wizards sitting at a prop trading desk, that might not seam like a large sum. However, taken over the course of this Beatles's 4 decade career, it adds up to a net worth somewhere in the 800 million dollar range.

Some portion of that income comes from touring. However, a large portion of his income comes from royalties from his later Beatles, solo endeavors and Wings catalog.   McCartney is one of the most prolific songwriters of his generation, with a number of songs he has written hitting the tops of the Billboard Charts.  One of those songs you might be listing to right now. It is called "Wonderful Christmastime."

Paul is careful to retain rights in all of the work he produces. This is a by-product of being burned by his early record company EMI, which paid the Beatles a penny an album. They still got rich, but nowhere near the level they should have.

To salt the wound, EMI would eventually sell the royalty rights to the Beatles' early hits to a Sony / Michael Jackson joint venture (the catalog included  4000 other songs including hits by Bob Dylan and was bought for 47 Million dollars in the 1980's. - it was sold by Michael Jackson prior to his death for 375 Million). 

This experience, getting sharked by EMI, is probably why when McCartney came up with the idea for "Wonderful Christmastime", he retained both writing and preforming rights. As such, when a royalty check does come in, it goes straight into the no-pig based bank. By current estimates the continuous playing of "Wonderful Christmas Time" nets Paul about 600k a year, every year, since 1979.

Since Copyright in the US is Life plus 70 years, Paul's children will be having a wonderful Christmas time for the remainder of their lives.

Every so often, I meet someone who argues with me about the value of Copyright protection or the necessity to spell out with clarity who owns the rights in a particular literary or artistic endeavor. Usually they argue that the potential benefit is minuscule relative to the cost and expense of hiring someone knowledgeable to handle the matter. Alternatively, people argue that the potential awkwardness of having that conversation with band mates or collaborators is not worth the effort.  99 times out of a hundred, these people are not completely off base. Unfortunately, most copyrighted material is not worth much to anyone other than the creator.
However, it is that one-off, that one in a million occurrence which makes the entire process worth it.

No one wants to be an Ex-Beatle hawking Christmas jingles because they got hosed on their first record deal. Well, no one except Ringo.

Girls be illin?: Don't waste your start-up capital on non-essential legal fights

Story: Goldieblox, a toy company marketing engineering toys to girls, used the Beastie Boys famous / infamous song "Girls" in a parody music video to promote their start-up project. The music video went viral on youtube, spawning mostly ardent praise and affection.

The Cerberus Legal dogs of Universal Music sent Goldieblox a pleasant letter (by Cerberus legal dog standards) asking them to take down the video. The letter claimed that the parody video was outside the scope of the fair use exception to copyright use, and constituted an impermissible use of the underlying work.

The legal counsel for GoldieBlox filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a finding on non-infringement under the parody provision of fair use.  This could be a educational case about how a "letter" is never really a letter, but an invitation to bring a DJ action.

A lot of digital ink has been split regarding the merits of the parties positions. If you are in favor of the permissible parody argument, then the Electronic Frontier Foundation (eff) has a great rundown of the law and their interpretation.

The point being missed here is one of resource allocation. It is argued that any press is good press. If that is true, then this entire episode is a net benefit to Goldieblox and their start-up ambitions.

However, from a business point of view, getting into a law suit with a major entertainment company is a huge hassle. Aside from your own legal costs, which could have been better spent on non-legal blog based marketing, you run the potential risk that you might lose and owe someone, or some mega corporation, lots of money. That outcome is unlikely here (even if GoldieBlox loses, they will likely have minimal damages), but that is besides the point.

A cursory level of diligence would have shown that not only do the Beastie Boys not like "Girls" (they refuse to play it anymore), they are actually quite litigious. As such, perhaps their IP, regardless of your use, was not the best media to use.

For the legal costs involved in filing and arguing a Declaratory judgement action, you could have hired a band or a composer to generate a all new song. The point here isn't that the Beastie Boys are right to argue about fair use, it is that a start up generally should avoid potentially bruising legal fights.  IP counsel should always be mindful of not only the legal arguments, but the overall business position.

Start-up resources should never we wasted on non-essential legal fights. If you need access to a particular piece of technology or code in order for your idea to function, then roll the dice, take the risk. If you want to make a music video parody of a famous song, think about the necessity to the bottom line.

Jordan Garner

No Patents on Perpetual Motion Machines

In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!!!

It is always good to revisit the basic, core concepts to reconfirm that you have a firm grasp of the complex. This is true across endeavors. Great cooks sometimes need to remember how to boil an egg. Likewise, software designers sometimes create simple apps using the bare bones code base.

The same is true for patent law.  Recently on the internet, there was a discussion about a supposed "perpetual motion" machine developed by a German tinkerer. A brief article concerning the inventor is here.  One of the points being bandied about in the discussion of a supposedly limitless energy system was that "because it is not a perpetual motion machine, it can be patented".  This is a misinterpretation of U.S. Patent Law.

U.S. Patent law allows for the patenting of "everything under the sun, made by man".  This restriction means that naturally occurring items, as well as purely theoretical constructs are not patenable. For example E=MC2 is not a patentable formula, since it describes a fundamental property of physics. A practicable application of this equation, say a nuclear reactor, would be patentable.  However, recent US case law has held that any preemption of a natural law  that is, a patent that claims all the applications of E=MC2, is also not patentable.

The point here is that natural laws are not defined by Congress, or the Courts. Furthermore, natural laws and laws of nature are only rough approximations of how we believe the world to work.  These laws might be subject to boundary conditions and localized modifications given the right arrangement of energy inputs and conditions. As such, it is possible that the "laws of nature" that you can't patent today, will be different from the laws of nature you can't patent 100 years from now.

This is all to say that you could get a patent on a perpetual motion machine. Merely calling it a perpetual motion machine is not the problem in getting a patent. There is no rule that says per se perpetual-motion, Faster Than Light and teleportation devices are not patentable.

The difficulty is in demonstrating to the patent office that it works. This is called the enablement requirement. If you show up to the patent office with a patent application that describes the mechanism of action as a perpetual motion machine, then you are going to need some extraordinary evidence to back that claim up. If you show the world a device that apparently accepts no input but continued to do work, then you will get a patent, so long as others can reproduce your results. What you can't do, is claim on paper to have a device that goes against our current understanding of science and expect to be granted a patent.

 In fact that Patent Office does not even require you to advance a theory as to why the device works in the first place in order to get a patent. A patent is simply a contract between an inventor and some territorial organization (e.g. The United States of America or France). This agreement states, explicitly, that as the inventor of  a improvement in a technical field, you are granted a limited monopoly to make, use and sell that improvement. In exchange for this monopoly, granted and enforced by the government, you must disclose the invention to the public (i.e. the world) in sufficient detail such that any one skilled in that technology can make and use the invention without resorting to undue experimentation.

 If you have a perpetual motion machine, and you can satisfy this requirement, then you will get a patent on it. The underling laws of physics that you are bending breaking or modifying are of no consequence.

Product Design IP in the age of 3D Printers

Dieter Rams designed Coffee Maker

Intellectual property protection for industrial design and industrial designers has always been a fraught process. The nature IP does not lend itself easily to the tasks Industrial Designers might put to them. However, new technology might begin to change how Industrial Designers see Intellectual Property protection.

IP Limits

Conventionally, industrial design is protected through a design patent.  Design patents allows the designer to get protection on their purely ornamental design for 14 years from filing.  Unfortunately, this means that if the product has a functional component (enhanced ergonomics etc.) then the designer relinquishes that functionality, or they are forced to obtain the more expensive and time consuming utility patent. A utility patent covers the function of a device , process, compound or article of manufacturer. For example, a designer could hold a patent on the manufacture of a particular item. While this might successfully deter large scale copying, it does not prevent wide spread dissemination of the construction methods and processes.

Copyright protects artistic and literary works for 70 years, plus the life of the author. Text and audio-visual works are the primary focus of copyright. Once you move beyond the artistic realm into the functional, Courts have held that copyrights no longer apply.  However, the age of 3D printing might be about to change the rules of the game.

Charles Eames Design Patent 

3D Printing

For the uninitiated, a 3D printer is a device that builds an object, usually out of some resin, layers at a time. It is the electronic opposite of a very fine mandolin slicer. MakerBot, and companies like them are pioneering a way to have an "internet of things." The eventual goal would be a repository of templates for the production of all manner of goods, ready to be downloaded and printed, the way one might download a song and burn it to a CD [ed. do kids ever do that any more ?].

 The software used in 3D printers vary from device to device. However, they all use some form of stereolithography file to instruct the device on how to lay down layers of material. Once all the layers have been deposited, you should have a reasonable copy of object described by the file.

It should be apparent that 3D printing allows for the production of many useful things, it also allows for the re-production of industrial design elements without authorization from the original creators. Where 3D printing has created a problem, it might also offer a solution.

IP Incorporation into Designs



Since the procedures for manufacturing the item begins with a digital file. It is possible to encapsulate the design within the boundaries of Copyright law. If the software file, the instruction set for making a particular design is complete (that is, it does not require additional tooling, or minimal machining) then the software encapsulates the design.

It might still hold true that the tangible representation of the software (i.e. a chair or lamp) is not covered by copyright, the software code that executes the 3D printer is a valid piece of IP.  Therefore, the nexus of IP infringement of the design would occur when the digital file is copied (i.e. on a file share network). Thus, developing code for the 3D designs will become as important as the conceptual prototypes. Court are well positioned to hear arguments on the illicit trade and sale of pirated software. This presents an opportunity for Industrial designers and software coders to collaborate on clever implementations of the software to render the designs with minimal post processing. The closer the code is to representing the object, the stronger the case for infringement. Once the code base of a portfolio has been engineered, a simple licensing program [not in bitcoins!!!] (think Itunes) could offer people the world over the chance to download an use a particular firm's designs.

Alternatively, or additionally, a designer could include a structural trademark element. For instance, the design of a chair could,  incorporate a logo. In this instance, merely printing the object does not create a cause of action. However, once an unscrupulous manufacturer attempts to sell the copied design, they are engaged in trademark infringement.

There are likely more elegant solutions than these two for the potential problems posed by 3D printing. However, these solutions show that IP in 3D printing can be maintained and creators can be protected.

Jordan Garner

Why you had a hard time getting an IP job 2009

Not my children, but they raise an interesting point

There was [is] a misconception that "IP" people and especially "Patent" people land on their feet after a traumatic work event.

In most cases these traumatic work events are solitary affairs to be met with stoicism when they arrive, and laughed off once gainful employment is once again obtained.   Job loss, it should be noted,  is not uncommon. It is definitely not uncommon in late 20th / early 21st century America. In general this theory holds true, with a strong caveat concerning Bio-background patent prosecutors (a situation which I have addressed before). Engineering background IP practitioners have generally found it easy to obtain new employment.

However, at the tail end of 2008 and well into 2009 and beyond, there was a uncommon tightness in the IP employment market for all background. This tightness didn't comport with the conventional wisdom about IP.

Conventional wisdom held that IP slightly a-cyclical or even lightly counter-cyclical to the overall business market. If IP was influenced by the broader economy, it was the result of companies exploiting their IP to the full extent possible in a difficult market. This theory held that lots of new applications, litigation and diligence work would be generated in a mild downturn as people companies and organizations attempted to maximize license fees, infringement judgements and acquisitions.  Litigation and diligence can be the topic of a different post.

Here we take a look at the wisdom as applied to applications, and find it lacking.


source: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2013/10/where-americas-inventors-ara/7069/

As evidenced by the chart title, the above graphs the number of application filings by US inventors per year.  Instead of seeing a steady churn in work, we see an inflection point, then a steep and accelerating drop off until 2010.

What this chart shows is that "peak-application" (like peak-oil) hit sometime before anyone was actually aware a problem was brewing. As 2007 transitioned into 2008, the trend accelerated such that applications were approaching free-fall in by the end of 2008.

However, if people remember correctly, the Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy did not hit the news until September of 2008.  So this drop off was not the result of the economic collapse that erupted in the wake of Lehman, but was part of the systemic breakdown which caused it. While everyone was keeping their eyes glued to the "market", IP watchers should have been analyzing the IP "market".

The second chart below breaks this data out to the highest regional markets for patent applications.


As far back as 2005, there was a leveling off in the application filings. This would have been the point to consolidate and solidify staffing levels. Instead, 2007 saw some of the largest summer associate class sizes. New York suffered severely. From a pre-2007 height of  over 1,000,000 applications to a current number of just over 600,000; New York had seen a 50% reduction in filings. By 2011 the IP filing market was only 10-20 % off the lows.

A 50% reduction in patent work in New York means a lot less law firms getting paid, and a lots less associates on the firm's rosters.

What these two charts show is that triggering event for the Great Recession (Lehman Bankruptcy ) was not the triggering event for the decline in patent filings. The gears were already in motion back in 2006.  The reasons for the run up and crash are likely as varied as reasons for the crash in the broader market; over-supply, irrational belief that history always points upward, empire building at the cost of sustainability. Any, and likely all, of these factors played into the massive disruptions that gripped law firms in 2009-2010. (see Towsand, Morgan, Darby et al.)

Firms are not quick to innovate in the best of times. Facing a 50% drop in work load, billings, and profits is not the best of time. All of this conspired to make it difficult to get a job in the IP field in 2009. Thankfully, the broader market is slowly improving.

As the line representing new filings continues on its upward march, we would do well to keep a close eye on the movements and metrics of our own "market" s well as the broader market.

Infringement frequency pushback

As a quick post, the following chart is presented from Google's fantastic Ngram viewer.

First, a bit of information regarding Ngram. The viewer is one of those Google 20% projects (i.e. not a core google product) that came out of the Google's massive data trove generated when it optically scanned libraries worth of print books. This scanning was itself not without controversy. See here.

The viewer allows you to search for the frequency of a word, or phrase, and see how that phrase has changed over time.  This allows for hours spent traveling down the internet time sink looking for interesting word / data combinations.

However, I think (and IP nerds agree) that the interesting output is related to the frequency of IP terms in written english. A look at the graph above demonstrates that for all the recent talk about Patents being a drain on industry, the frequency of discussion has remained relatively flat since the 1800s. Time bias being what it is, you see a peak in the late 1940's (probably a combination of medical advances and post WWII electronic / solid state electronic development.) and then a precipitous drop off to a nadir in the 1970's.  For 30 something developers or businessmen, it looks like there has been a terrible rise in patent usage.  However, even in 2009, with Trolls in full swing, the rate of  the usage of patent terms has yet to return to the nominal historical average.

More interesting, copyrights, long the bane of innovators, has been on a steady historical march, with no signs of slowing.

What is slowing is the march of IP infringement references.
     In the above chart, the concept of a "trade secret" seams to occur far more than any of the traditional Federal IP rights. There appears to be a high burst in the mid-80s to the 2000. (Potentially the rise of Japan and China? Topics for another day).

Patent, copyright and trademark infringement references hit their peak in 2000 and have been decreasing ever since.

It should be noted that these are references to the specific terms in published works. It does not include online media (which might be siphoning off the results post 2000)).  However, it would be odd, and a post in its own right to not have some correlation to the prevalence of a term in print and its prevalence in all media.

Anyone who is selling the concept that IP rights, their enforcement, or position in the mind-space of our society needs to justify those claims in light of the charts above.

Tax Policy for NPE ('Patent Trolls") [Wonky]

'In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." - Benjamin Franklin (noted scientist, inventor, philanderer  founding father, and fit model for currency).

The current debate around NPE (non-practicing entities, i.e. Patent Trolls) had me thinking about the law of unintended consequences and taxes. (Yes, I know, boring).  

I think everyone can agree that the ultimate goal of the AIA changes to the patent law were driven, in no small measure, by companies wishing to eliminate the threat of Patent Troll suits. For a general counsel with the ear of the legislature, this sounds like a perfectly reasonable use of power and influence. For the solo inventor who honestly believes that MegaCorp has ripped him off, it looks like corruption of the highest order. 

Resolving these two conflicting visions is nearly impossible. For MegaCorp, it honestly believes that Solo inventor is just a crook who is hassling their highly successful venture. For Solo inventor, he has invested time, but more importantly, money in acquiring a patent and MegaCorp is reaping all the benefit.  Furthermore, to Solo, it looks like the law has been changed to favor one party over the other. 

While the AIA might cut down on NPE suits, it will likely have inadvertent effects that we are barely aware. As such, I tend to not agree with wholesale legal changes as a way to eliminate 'bad' actors. When profit is the motive, very bright people will expend effort to find the loophole.  The problem with the AIA is that it targets the result of NPE actions (suits directed against major tech companies) instead of the goal of NPEs (Profit!). 

I would have advocated using tax policy to target the goal, not the result. 

On MegaCorp's side, Tax policy could be changed to make a new taxable income category for reasonable royalties as assessed by a court for infringement of a non-practiced patent.   Currently the tax rate for recovery in settlement and and reasonable royalty recovery by judgement are the same (~35% and taxed as income).  However, a change is the way that the IRS treats recovery from settlement vs recovery from litigation would lead NPE's to maximize their profit through the most efficient way possible.  If the tax rate for reasonable royalty (of a Non-practiced patent were sufficiently high, it would alter the calculus of going after MegaCorp, especially given that attorney fees are not tax deductible. Likewise, tax policy could be used to reduce the windfall that a true NPE could recover based on a past damages.

While this might drive NPE's into settlements instead of broadside litigations (which is what most GC's are really worried about), it would still leave Solo inventor holding the bag on his out of pocket patent fees.  

One way to lesson the impact to Solo is to use tax policy to unburden him of some of the cost in acquiring the patent.  This system would work as thus: The IRS would allow, given the size, income and subject matter, a tax credit for money spent acquiring a patent. This could be as simple as acquiring a tax credit for application fees, or it could be as complex as some formula for a tax credit that takes into account the amount of money that was spent in prosecution. 

These are obviously rough sketches of a goal oriented solution to the NPE problem, while trying to make sure that honest small inventors are not thrown out with the NPE bathwater. 


Jordan Garner 

In honor of Comic-con - a rebuttal to the End of IP

This week is Comic-con in New York.

Comic-con is awesome.

Comic-con could not be possible in a nation without a strong commitment to intellectual property protection. While people may differ on the benefits conferred by the Sonny Bono amendment (AKA the Mickey Mouse Protection Act), no one honestly argues that the characters in their favorite comics, video games and movies, should be free for anyone to pass off as their own.

That being said, the Anti-IP crowd (which is really an anti-software patent crowd), has yet to make the empirical case that nations without IP protection produce more intellectual property than nations that have weak or strong IP regimes. The Manga output of, say South Korea vs China, speaks to this.  The reasons are varied, and the subject of individual posts.

However, in honor of Comic-con, I present the following (terrible) Comic which demonstrates some of the problems that Anti-IP advocates face.

(all "YEA!" should be read as though spoken by the talking food of "Yo Gabba Gabba".)

jgarner@leasonellis.com

Columbus Day Inventions - App Inspiration

In my continuing quest to prove that Patent law is not simply a mechanism for destroying the aspirations of having a "Social Network" style movie made about your life, I decided to put together a bunch of Columbus Day themed Patents.

While you can look at these patents and see the clanking mechanical devices of a century past, I prefer to see them as a rich vein of design and functionality that can be easily ported to a App for fun and profit. 

Humm...maybe I should patent turning mechanical patents into Software Patents... 

If you get tired of looking at awesome patents from the last century, a magical time of steam and whatnot, feel free to read the 8 page take down of the IP profession in today's New York Times.

Each of these patents would work well as an App or a graphic novel, cum spoken word performance piece. Either way, the prior art is well documented and at least 100 years old.  Just because some jerk calls you up and threatens you with infringement based on a flimsy patent does not mean that all patents were / are bad.

Columbus Day Patents: 

(All of these devices work better in their original, century old form, than Apple Maps)

For All you Brooklyn-ites, Fixie rider, Kickstarting metal workers out there, I present Brooklyn Native Raymond Finkelson's level attachment compass for bicycles. 

Designed to let bicyclists of the early 20th century know their direction, and grade, this bit of vintage Brooklyn Tech can easily be made and adapted to the wider, flashier Iphone 5. Christopher Columbus would have loved to have a bicycle and a Fixie at that. Only the truest of hipsters could rock pants that skinny. 

Above - A instrument for taking Nautical Observations. US Patent 11,475 (found here). Lots of Iphone 5 Potential here. A bit of graphical and computing horsepower lets you tilt a 3d representation of the Earth for all your nautical observational needs. Columbus would have given several shinny beads to the natives who hooked him up with this sweet app, and small pox. 

Above - Graphic Solar Instrument. Remake this into a Grid-based Helvetian typeface, you are set. Patent found here. Nothing impresses the locals like telling them exactly when Sun will be eaten by Mountain. Also it is helpful when you need to know when happy hour starts.   

Jgarner@leasonellis.com 

www.leasonellis.com 

Res Ipsa Loquiterminator

Res Ipsa Loquiterminator:
         
         French for "I have been replaced by a computer" is a phrase that you are going to hear more and more in law firms. Not really, since I can't imagine anyone at a law firm using such a sweet portmanteau. (Credit given to my good friend M.Cabrera Esq. for coining the term)


Regardless, what you will hear is younger associates griping about how they are unable to make their hours in light of the rapid adoption of Predictive Coding in document production.  If you want to know why computers are going to start eating your lunch, you can check here.  


For those with an aversion to clicking on the Wall Street Journal, it basically summarizes two recent civil cases where predictive coding (that is, computer sorting of documents for discovery based on relevancy of content) were allowed.  Importantly, these permissions were given over the objection of opposing counsel. So the gates are wide open to our new robot masters. 


Super, what does this mean for budding IP attorneys?  Well, document discovery in IP litigation (especially in the pharma area ) was/is pointlessly time consuming. While it will probably still be necessary for some IP specialists (read: doc reviewers with a scientific background) to review large reams of data, it is likely that the time of the 4 and 5 room discovery teams is coming to a close. This means even less demand for specific practice area qualifications (the Maw grinds slow and exceedingly fine) .  While this won't happen over night, it most likely will happen in the next few years. 


I am reminded of a document review in which I participated, where most of my time was spent sifting through bills of sales looking to see if the technology in question was "on sale" prior to the 1 year date.  Most of the documents I was looking at were internal order forms.  I quickly realized these were pointless, even though they had some of the "core" keywords plastered all over them.  


I imagine that predictive coding will allow case managers to make broad sweeps of this type of relevant (but not really relevant) data prior to bumping things up a step in the food chain.


It occurs to me that another place where Cybercoders (wouldn't that make a great Kids TV show...no) could come in handy is the new Inter-Partes Procedures instituted in the AIA. Limited discovery is now allowed.  Normally, this "limited" discovery would be limited by the cost and time involved.  However, with the use of Cybercoders, you could access huge amounts of data for minimal cost. I would wager that more and more Re-Exams are going to employ predictive coding as part of there opening gambits.  


Where I think human IP-based doc coders will still have the edge is searching for "best mode".  It is incredibly difficult for a computer to determine if a lab notebook or result table is disclosing the best mode for carrying out the disclosure.  Furthermore, IP coders are probably still going to be tasked with searching for deficiencies of enablement, or documents that purport to show that the invention failed to clear a statutory bar.  


Unfortunately for Human IP Coders,  Congress Passed the AIA with a specific section that minimizes the importance of both "Best Mode" and "Enabling Disclosures" in invalidating a patent.  Never fear, when tireless thinking machines drop the ball, Congress can recover that fumble and spike it on your career.  

Patenting Deliciousness

This is not a picture of patented deliciousness. Original photographer found here. 

The Internet is reporting that Oklahoma State University (Go Cowboys!) is attempting to patent a "cut" of steak.  While general reporting has focused on the fact that this new improvement in the Steak-y Arts will be called "The Vegas Strip" ( which does sound delicious) no one is focusing on the fact that the Inventors pretty much opened themselves up to a Sec. 103 Rejection based on the interview.  

For those who don't know (and why you would be reading a patent blog without knowing about patents...) merely filing a patent on something is no guarantee that you will actually get a patent on that thing. A lot of  digital ink has been used to decry the patent system as innovation restricting.  However, these garment rending positions are usually taken by people who have less than a common familiarity with the workings of the patent system. Once you apply for a patent, that application (helpfully called a "Patent Application") is examined by a Patent Examiner, and is not automatically turned into a patent.  

It is that Patent Examiner's job to determine if your patent application meets certain legal and procedural hurdles.  In this case, hopefully the patent application for Vegas Strip is given to a Patent Examiner who is an expert in Tastiness (I have a PhD in Tastiness from Finger-licking University, but I don't like to brag). According to OSU, the patent is not for the steak itself, but for the series of cuts used to make the steak.  For those of you aware, OSU just gave away that the patent is to a "Method" and not a "thing".  So the Tasty Expert Patent Examiner would look at this method of steak cutting a see if it has been done before, or if it is obvious (Sec. 103) in light of previous steak cuttings methods.  

The spokesperson for OSU's Steak Patenting Initiative (I just make up the initiative part), when asked how the method works said: 

"If i told you, it would be a hint to where this muscle is," he said. "A knowledgeable person would say, 'Aha!'"

Well, if that doesn't sound like "it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art" I don't know what is.   So, what's the point.  Well, one point is to not give interviews about your specious patent applications. 

A second, better point, is to not freak out every time someone says that they filed for a patent on the color blue, or a user interface, or some stupid Facebook integration program.  Merely filing the patent does not get you from A to B.  The patent office has plenty of mechanisms for weeding out bad, and obvious ideas, and does a pretty good job at it.  I think we can all sleep safely knowing that Oklahoma will not corner the market on deliciousness. 

Jordan Garner, Leason Ellis, Patents

Getting Hired in the IP Field

 Regardless of how you find yourself less than gainfully employed (or about to be less than gainfully employed), it is helpful to know that all IP associates are not equal in terms of their supply / demand curves. 

It is generally assumed that all IP associates (and partners) tend to land on their feet after a major event like Dewey. This, I can say from personal experience, is not always the case. Depending on your technical background (you have a technical background, right?) the market tends to set the going rate of demand differently for different kinds of associates.

So, how does one increase their desirability in terms of greater chance of employment? Well, going to a really good law school is really helpful, but not an indication of success.  Going to a decent (not terrible) school and doing really well is probably not better than going to an excellent law school and not doing so hot, but it is a decent consolation prize. Obviously the preferred option would be to go to a good school and do really well (and date supermodels). So, taking a clutch of associates, all of whom did well in undergrad and went to an excellent law school, who gets hired first? Who is in demand?

Well, if you have been on any recruiter websites (or get the e-mails) you can quickly create a ranking based on demand. While the list moves around a bit depending on Litigation or Prosecution emphasis, the top spots of the list remain largely intact. So who is on top: 

Electrical Engineering

Computer Science

Mechanical engineering

Chemical Engineering 

Civil Engineering

Pharmaceutical / Biotech (PhD. level) 

Biology (Non- Phd.)

Trademark

The best way to get a job in the current IP landscape is to have an electrical engineering degree or a computer science degree.  The hardest way is to not have a technical degree at all. This doesn't mean that Trademark Associates do not get hired (we have hired a few recently), it just means that the supply greatly outstrips demand, and will for the foreseeable future.  

Jordan Garner, Leason Ellis, White Plains NY.

Declining Prospects

 This is not really a post on anything other than the up-coming book by Michel Trotter titled "Declining Prospects".  If you have been paying attention in the legal sections of the NY Times and Wall Street Journal, you know that the once venerable white-shoe firm "Dewey & LeBoeuf" is on the verge of collapse.  One of the reasons is what I called in a previous post "The Maw".  That incessant desire to increase compensation in the face of declining client willingness and decreased economic opportunity. 

I am no Harvard trained economist / lawyer, but Michel Trotter is. Judging by his interview regarding the future of the legal profession found here, we are of the same opinion on the ills facing future. I for one am looking forward to reading his book, available "soon" from Amazon. Hopefully a lot of the senior partners in the Big Law are as well. 

~Jordan Garner  

You got a job, now what?

Even with last week's job report steady employment is still difficult to find for a lot of people. One of the demographics having a slightly easier time achieving the employment dream are those young people with hard science and engineering degrees. regardless of if you are going to work for Microsoft or some garage stat-up, you should keep in mind what is being slipped into your employment contract.

A good illustration of the pitfalls of not properly reading your employment contract can be found in Picture Patents, LLC v. Aeropostale, Inc.  (Google Scholar is a god send for cheap Attorneys who hate to use the Westlaw accounts).  While this case is not new (April 2011) it does provide 2 key point I want to make about employment contracts and keeping your rights.  


A bit of back story. Ms. Baker, a student at Columbia, got an job working for IBM. Excellent right! Well, IBM being a huge, 100-year old multinational corporation who builds Jeopardy winning supercomputers in its spare time, is not an entity to let something like an employment contract be a Staples brand boiler plate. The employment contract has all the obvious provisions about not showing up drunk and sexually-embarrassing your co-workers in the breakroom.  In addition it has this doozy of a IP assignment section. The relevant part states: 

4. I hereby assign (emphasis mine) to IBM my entire right, title and interest in any idea, invention, design of a useful article (whether the design is ornamental or otherwise), computer program and related documentation, and other work of authorship (all hereinafter called "Developments"), hereafter made or conceived solely or jointly by me, or created wholly or in part by me, whether or not such Developments are patentable, copyrightable or susceptible to other forms of protection, and [sic] the Developments: (a) relate to the actual or anticipated business or research or development of IBM or its subsidiaries, or (b) are suggested by or result from any task assigned to me or work performed by me for or on behalf of IBM or its subsidiaries....

The above provisions concerning assignment of Developments apply only while I am employed by IBM in an executive, managerial, product or technical planning, technical, research, programming or engineering capacity....

Humm... restrictive. You invent a newer, better algorithm. It belongs to IBM.  You invent a better toaster, IBM is making your toast. You invent a slightly tastier pancake (impossible you say!, pancakes are already at maximum tastiness! Bah!), IBM is slathering Aunt Jemima all over it. An important note here is "hereby assign" this means today, not some point in the future. So when you develop something in the future, it is already assigned (in a temporal paradox no doubt) to IBM.  You are binding future you to assign things, i.e. you don't get to renege later.

I am pretty sure you know what happens next. Ms. Baker comes up with an idea (not important what) that she developed with the resources of IBM, while at IBM. IBM declined to advance the project further. Ms. Baker decided to take the technology on the road, do some more developing and file some patents.  Later, she decides that a whole bunch of people are infringing said patents, and brings suit....and looses.  Why?

Cause those patents belong to IBM.  Yea, she paid all the maintenance fees, all the filing fees and all the attorney time, but BIG BLUE takes the prize. Ms. Baker failed (or Ms. Baker's attorney failed) on two accounts. One, when the IBM's employment agreement asked her to list all currently developed(ing) projects that were outside the scope of the the IP agreement she wrote "None".  While it was possible that at the time of her signing, she had zero conception of the project, it is not likely. More likely, she didn't think the idea was worth putting down on paper at the time.

What's the lesson?  Always divulge (in confidence, so as not to be considered a disclosure under sec 102 et seq. ) all of you concepts. Sure some of them might sound stupid, or half baked, but you never know when you will develop them into the next killer app, only to have Megacorp take all the cash.  This is easily done with something like a spread sheet that gives a basic description that lists the things you are working on and thinking about. The downside to this is that if you are too descriptive, you run the risk of narrowing your room to claim broader inventions.

Two, do not use your corporate resources to pursue personal inventions or discoveries. They hate that. More importantly, using their equipment lends credence to the fact that you were doing it for them, and it belongs to them (while else would a company let you do stuff, if not for their benefit).

The back-up lesson you kids who skipped to the end is to make sure you read your employment contract thoroughly. If you don't understand something, ask a lawyer. If you are working for a place that has this kind of contact, and you develop something on your off time, as your lawyer how to make sure it does not instantly get grabbed by the boss.

The Future

If only it were this easy

You will notice in the future that I will be putting forward some pretty random, reckless, speculative legal theorizing.  There is a point to this beyond satisfying my desire to investigate future legal developments that may never occur.  

I have a general theory about the future of Intellectual Property and how society will alter, and nurture the concept. Unfortunately, my overall thesis is a bit broad for this format.  Even more unfortunately, I am pretty sure I couldn’t convince anyone to pay me hash it out in one sitting.  Therefore, I have decided to use this forum to piece the concepts together and flesh out the ideas.  Eventually, if I like where I went, I might publish them all together as an ebook or something similar.

I will try to preface those posts with some sort of headline that tells the uninterested that they are about to be subject to some random dissertation concerning Economic Theory of Patents, Molecular manufacturing, Time Dilation and the Patent Office and why super villains must have great in -house counsel.


Jordan Garner


[Ed. Edited for random grammatical errors]

Trademark Scams

The internet is full of scams, scammers, hackers and Nigerian Princes who are only inches away from giving you 10% of billions in unclaimed Federal Government cash and Russian Women who won't care if you are an unemployed baby-boomer living in your son's basement with an infectious skin condition. They love you, and all they want is for you to send them a bit of money.

IP is not immune to these fishing lures deployed by various shadowy groups bent on bilking you out of your hard earned money.  Recently, a client of mine received a letter, and invoice, purporting to be the "Register of International Patents and Trademarks (I am loath to link to them, but be forewarned- www.patent-online.org). I am not sure what tipped my client off to the scammy nature of the communication. Was it the fact that the "Office" was located in Slovakia? Or that the Bank transfer was to a P.O. Box in Austria? Or is it the fine print that states that "this is not a registration by a government organization." Why would the "International Patent Office" be a governmental organization, that is just crazy talk.  Maybe it is the fact that the invoice changes on every page?

This is nothing new. The publishing of Trademarks by the USPTO is done so that legitimate concerns by other users of similar marks can be addressed.  Unfortunately this means that sometimes unscrupulous people can try to take advantage by using a bit of public information and an official sounding name.

Well, if you haven't figured it out by now, these guys are a scam.  While you can get an internationally recognized Trademark, you must go through the Madrid Protocol Process provided by the World Intellectual Property Organization (which, surprise, surprise, is a international governmental origination). As I have stated previously, Trademark Rights are the first thing that most Start-ups and small business should focus on. Your branding is your identity, and you should take seriously the protection of that identity. Let the Twitter situations be a learning experience. While it might sound self-serving, you should always conduct your Trademark Matters through a qualified IP attorney (i.e. someone who has done this before and knows what they are doing).  Definitely what you shouldn't do is pay money to Eastern European scammers in the hopes that you will secure your rights on the cheap.

For you own research, I have produced the redacted letter that my client received. The prices and invoices are so wildly inflated, relative to what a trademark filing normally costs, as to be laughable.  If you have recently filed for a Trademark, please do not fall for this. If you have questions about internationally filing Trademarks, then consult your IP attorney. If they are too busy on the golf course, contact me. What ever you do, don't wire 2800.00USD to Bratislava, you won't even get a photo of a nice Russian Girl who loves you in return.


Bogu Tm Bills Confidential 1