Anderson

The saga of whether Twitter can make a commercial go of it may be reaching a critical juncture. At least, that is the view of Dan Weil of Institutional Investor , in his recent piece (August 23, 2016), “Pro Sports Contracts Not a Winning Strategy for Twitter”. The issue is this—the number of active Twitter users is stuck at slightly more than 300 million (313 million for the last quarter), only a 3% gain from last year and a fraction of Facebook’s user numbers. Profits remain elusive (a loss of $107 million, on revenues of $602 million, for the most recent quarter) and the stock has tumbled from a high of $69 to $19 (as of the date of the article). The generic problem of Twitter is described by Weil as— “It’s too complicated. Casual users often complain that it’s difficult to find what they want, and filter out what they don’t want….” Faced with these challenges, Twitter’s response in an effort to remain commercially relevant appears to be an attempt to capitalize on sports contents. ...

On August 24, 2016, the U.S. Department of Treasury issued a White Paper titled, “The European Union’s Recent State Aid Investigations of Transfer Pricing Rulings,” explaining United States transfer pricing concerns with the EU Commission.  The state aid investigations of note, include Apple, Starbucks, Fiat/Chrysler and Amazon.  There are indications that there may be more investigations launched.  Notably, the EU Commission’s positions, apparently, mostly involve transfer pricing concerning intellectual property.  In February of 2016, Treasury Secretary Lew authored an open letter to the President of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, stating: that the Commission’s “sweeping interpretation” of State aid doctrine “threatens to undermine” the progress made by the international community “to curtail the erosion of our respective corporate tax bases” and described four principal concerns.  First, the Commission has “sought to impose penalties retroactively base...

Four or so years ago, perhaps the most poignant story of a technology leader gone bad was the fall of Kodak. The saga played out on several levels: Kodak versus Fuji, traditional film versus digital technologies, the free-standing camera device versus the embedded camera in a smartphone, and the rise and fall of the value of Kodak's patent portfolio. Much was written about these issues at the time, including by this blogger , but as the several years have passed, the Kodak tale has gradually receded from hi-tech discourse. Scott Anthony, a frequent contributor to Harvard Business Review on-line, has sought to revisit the Kodak tale in a piece published last month, “Kodak’s Downfall Wasn’t About Technology”. The focus: how did Kodak fail the move from film to digital to cellular? He suggests but rejects the following arguments: 1. The company was so much into the traditional film business that it missed seeing the digital revolution —Anthony says this is wrong, because it was Koda...

Despite many years of speculation and recently adjusted claims, there is no empirical support for the theory of “patent holdup.” Various eminent experts refute allegations of systemic “patent holdup.” It is likely that “patent holdup” has not occurred in the context of standards and licensing of standards essential patents (SEPs) because of the fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing contracts and available recourse to the courts have ensured that licensees cannot be forced to pay “excessive” licensing fees.  Free Riders Abound “Patent holdout,” which is also sometimes referred to as “reverse holdup,“ rather than “patent holdup” may instead be a prevalent problem; although calls for remedies have largely been in response to “patent holdup” allegations. Beguiled courts, antitrust authorities, government policy makers and even a standards development organisation (SDO ) are tipping the scales in favour of “patent holdout” by infringing implementers of SEPs. This is...

The Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice announced August 12, 2016, that they are seeking comments on the proposed updated antitrust guidelines for licensing intellectual property.  The prior 1995 guidelines are being updated in light of changing law and additional experience gained by the agencies, according to the press release .  Specifically, the press release states: [T]he agencies have determined that some revisions are in order because the IP Licensing Guidelines should accurately reflect intervening changes in statutory and case law. For example, Congress recently enacted the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, creating for the first time a federal cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets. Also, the change from a 17-year patent term (from the date of grant) to a 20-year patent term (from the date of filing) effectuated by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 was on the verge of taking effect when the IP Licensing Guidelines were issued in 1...

As reported by Ellie Wilson on the IP Kat blog, the Japanese Patent Office (JPO) has announced a program whereby half of the premiums for IP infringement insurance will be covered.  The program is a partnership between the JPO, the Japan Chamber of Commerce and Industry, The National Federation of Small Business Associations, and three insurance companies.  Specifically, the subsidy is directed at making affordable IP infringement litigation insurance for SMEs that are operating in countries outside of Japan. The announcement appears to cover both the need for the SME to fund IP infringement litigation against alleged infringers and to defend litigation.  Notably, the announcement explicitly mentions China as a market of concern; although my guess is that a concern with so-called patent trolls in the United States is also an issue.  This announcement comes close in time to reports of increased enforcement of intellectual property rights in China, particularly a...

Following yesterday's post on the potential for unlocking IP value at Nintendo in light of the Pokemon GO craze, this blogger has just seen today's blogpost from Aistemos—"Patents surrounding Pokémon Go – has someone caught them all"? Aistemos was established by Nigel Swycher, a long-time friend of this blog, who had a lengthy and illustrious career in London as a leading lawyer in IP transactions and strategy before deciding to follow his passion for IP analytics as a means of improving IP decision-making for businesses and their professional advisers. The blogpost provides fascinating information and data about the patent position of Augmented Reality. The post notes in summary that-- "Augmented Reality (AR) technology has seen a surge in innovation since 2010; AR relies on many technologies and has many applications; Main technologies are head-mounted displays and image processing; Siemens were pioneers and hold a large and mature patent portfolio." In...

One of the more intriguing aspects of the current Pokemon GO craze is how it will affect the company's profitability. Nintendo has stated that it does not expect the game to materially add to the company’s earnings,least for the moment (see link below to Reuters.com, July 25th). This blogger does not wish to get into a discussion whether the company is being disingenuous about the ultimate monetary contribution that it ultimately may enjoy from Pokemon GO, it apparently being Nintendo's first foray into the mobile phone market. What this blogger does find of interest are several observations that have been made about how the game may usher in a new area of successful exploitation on mobile of its IP more broadly, beyond the specifics of the Pokemon GO game itself. Consider the following observations that were reported by Reuters on July 17th (“Success of Pokemon GO adds impetus for change at Nintendo”)-- 1. “[T]he success of Pokemon GO - unforseen even by its creators - ...