Perpetual Innovation

Category: infringement

  • Photographer Files $1 Billion Suit Against Getty for Licensing Her Public Domain Images

    Photographer Files $1 Billion Suit Against Getty for Licensing Her Public Domain Images [UPDATED] – Hyperallergic:

    Wow. Getty was selling public domain photos to everyone, including the photog herself.

    Getty was notifying people with the images that they must pay money to keep using them (on their own web sites, etc.). So the copyright owner, Carol Highsmith, gets a $120 bill for using her own picture on her own web site.

    Highsmith had donated the pictures to the library of congress for use by the general public at no charge.

    Getty says, no, we were simply providing a service by selling these photos to people.

    You say “potato”, I say “Stolen Tomato”.

    Oh, by the way,

    Highsmith is a really, really good photographer.

    ‘via Blog this’

  • Chinese Hoverboard Booth Raided by US Marshals at CES – Patent enforcement

    Chinese Hoverboard Booth Raided by U.S. Marshals at CES | Watch the video – Yahoo Finance:

    Also, there’s a better story and another video on Bloomberg here.

    That’s very brazen. A Chinese knock-off shows up at a big gadget expo (Consumer Electronics expo) with samples of a single-wheel hoverboard that distinctly looks and functions like the Onewheel patented by Future Motion of California (inventor Kyle Doerksen). The Onewheel utility patent was already issued and this week a design patent was approved.

    Federal Marshals showed up to take the knock-offs off in handcuffs (so to speak).

    It is the responsibility of a patent owner to enforce patents. A willful infringer can be subject to treble damages (civil suit). But to really shut down a determined pirate, requires a diligent effort.

    To do this so quickly and so forcefully, requires some pretty impressive action on the part of Future Motion.

    Note the part that Alibaba, the Chinese answer to Amazon on steroids, plays in the infringement process. If you are buying a one-wheel for $500 but the real manufacture sells Onewheel at $1,500, you might be buying into something that is too good to be true.

    Note the part that Kickstarter played in launching this invention with a massively successful $630k campaign. See here.

    Note, lastly, that there appear to be quite a few patents within this space. (The Chinese company may have been infringing on dozens of patents, not just 2.)

    Well, time to go levitate.

    ‘via Blog this’

  • Apple Loses Patent Infringement Suit, Ordered to Pay $533 Million | Rolling Stone

    Apple Loses Patent Infringement Suit, Ordered to Pay $533 Million | Rolling Stone:

    It seems apropos that Rolling Stone would have a great report on the iTunes (Apple) law suit loss to the tune of 1/2 billion dollar$. The loss rules that Apple did infringe on the 6 patents related to the storing and accessing of songs, videos and games.

    In the suit that might well be called the the Apple vs. the Troll, the ruling was that Apple not only infringed, but willingly did so and consequently results in the terrible treble-damages penalty that makes patents such a powerful weapon.

    The other company is Smartflash. This is a non-practicing entity (NPE), that might unkindly be called a patent troll.

    Apple plans to appeal. Smartflash is aiming for the iPhone and iPad sales/profits because those devices actually play iTunes music that is subject to the infringing patents.

    Imagine how many billion paid downloads from iTunes it takes to make up a $0.5B to pay the fine.? WoW.

    This could get uglier and uglier.

    ‘via Blog this’

  • Anti-Counterfeiting… Should be more than one day of the year…

    Here is an article from the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI)    June 5 is World Anti-Counterfeiting Day   (http://www.ipi.org/policy_blog/detail/june-5-is-world-anti-counterfeiting-day)  It is a scary message counterfeiting of medications.  Note the opening sentence abut the deaths in 2012 from a false medication for malaria treatment.  Then, note that in some parts of the world about 1/3 of all medications are counterfeit.!

    As the author indicates, there seems to be no limit to what can be counterfeited from fake brake pads to fake batteries.  There are serious potential hazards and consequences in these forgeries — far worse than pirated CDs.

    Here in the US, counterfeiting takes a back seat to patent infringements and copyright theft.  At least, from a public awareness perspective that seems to be the case.  But, maybe that low cost product on eBay or Amazon is not licensed and is suspect.

    The old adage, if it looks too good to be true… it is too good to be true. Probably most of the books on Amazon and eBay are not legal. We have had experiences were our printed books were available for sale, but there were no physical copies of the book in distribution yet… Hmm…

    At least, when you buy the ebook on Amazon in Kindle format you know that it is a legal copy and the majority of the payment goes to the creator/author, not to the pirates.
    Minor edits: 12/17/2014

  • IP Monetization Yearbook from IAMmagazine.

    Intellectual Asset Management magazine (http://www.iam-magazine.com/Intelligence/IP-Monetisation-Yearbook/2013) publishes a set of reports each year.  One is the “IP Monetization Yearbook.”  The 2014 issue has 11 articles- one of which is Monetization of Royalties and Revenue Streams.  As the techniques for monetization of the enterprise’s asset leader, IP, mature, the ways in which to monetize it should evolve to keep pace.  Here, the subject is the multiple ways in which to monetize royalties and other revenue sources from the IP portfolio.

    As with most things, there are risks as well as benefits.  This makes due diligence and risk assessment mandatory.  A sample of the risk factors:
    –  Revenue stream sensitivity to changes in consumer preferences
    –  Technological, product or market obsolescence
    –  Infringement risks
    –  Risk of invalid IP

    These factors potentially impact royalty interest purchases, IP securitization, multiple licenses, etc.

    The article summarizes the basic structure of the licensing techniques, the pros and cons, the advantages and disadvantages.  What the article does not explore are the internal demands on the enterprise to develop the business strategies and revenue potentials against other internal revenue sources. (Product Management)  These licensing techniques  have much in common with a financial line of business requiring sophisticated financial plans.  This is not your IP Father’s Patent Licensing Agreement from decades ago.

    Already, IP Law and corporate finance are seated at the table.  Business Development and Strategic Planning need to join along with IP business managers.  And, once the royalty agreements are implemented, someone will have to manage the royalty collection and certification processes.

    What organization in the enterprise owns these license agreements?