Anderson

In December of 2016, the U.S. Copyright Office released a 94-page Report on Software Enabled Consumer Products [ Report ].   The Report is in response to a request for analysis from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning current copyright law and the ubiquitous nature of software.   Notably, the U.S. Copyright Office believes that, at least in the context of copyright law, that there is not a need for new legislation.   The U.S. Copyright Office appears to believe that current flexibilities in the law can accommodate technological change.   In particular, the Report, in part, “examines how software-enabled consumer products can be resold, repaired or improved, researched for security flaws, or made to interoperate with other products or software.”   The Report concludes that: The Office’s study did not reveal evidence that consumers have been prevented from reselling or otherwise disposing of their software-enabled consumer products.   ...

In an intriguing post , co-Blogger Neil Wilkof recently discussed how essentially elite firms may be beating the competition.   In a recent article on Reuters titled “Facebook Forges Agreement with 17 Universities to Streamline Research,” Dustin Volz discusses how Facebook has entered into partnerships (which includes unstated funding) with 17 major research institutions, including Harvard, Stanford and MIT, for the opportunity to work together on forthcoming research.   The article is a little light on details concerning the agreements.   A s I described Steve Blank's discussion in an earlier post , some firms have placed outposts in technology innovation hotbeds to track new cutting edge developments and companies.   For sure, the nimble survive and those who are not do not—see Kodak .   However, Facebook may be strategically moving one step forward by starting at the source of some of the new major developments.   This arguably gives Facebook the “fi...

The Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) has released a Highlights report concerning its FY2015 annual survey.   The results of the survey are promising.   For example, there was a 15% increase from the prior year of licenses and options executed.   An almost 15% increase in new patent applications filed.   Over an 11% increase in the number of start-ups created.   And, a 5% increase in both research expenditures and invention disclosures.   I am not too excited about using patent applications and grants as a metric for technology transfer success, but the licenses, options, number of startups and research expenditures is positive.   Moreover, the supposed increase in using consultancy agreements and licensed know-how divorced from patents by technology transfer offices may point to even more actual technology transfer happening from university to the private sector.   (I am assuming the reported licenses and options are associa...

Jackie McGuire , at Coller IP, has informed us that she and Martin Brassell , at Inngot, are undertaking a study of the IP valuation market for the UK Intellectual Property Office, including the structure of the IP valuation market, motivations and barriers to engagement, and best practice in different contexts. Jackie notes that prior studies for the Intellectual Property Office have established that the majority of UK business investment, and business value, now lies in intangible rather than fixed, tangible assets. Despite this, companies do not always value their IP or take steps to protect the value that it underpins. The study builds on the report from the European Commission Expert Working Group on IP Valuation and Banking on IP. The results will be used to inform UK policy and to develop solutions to promote the wider adoption of IP and intangible asset valuation. All discussions on this study are using the Chatham House Rule . They will use the information received, and w...

The Economist magazine recently discussed (“The great divergence’, November 12th) an (unnamed) research report carried out by three researchers at OECD (Dan Andrews, Chiara Criscuolo and Peter Gal), which suggests that the Schumpeterian notion of “ creative destruction ” may be stuck in neutral. Leading companies seem more and more to be enjoying a continuing lead in their industries, with less and less challenges from scrappy newcomers. In particular, the report found a major distinction in productivity between the top 5% companies surveyed. These so-called “frontier” companies show productivity gains of 2.6% per year, while the remaining 95% have managed only 0.6% productivity gains. The difference in productivity is even more stark when comes to services: 3.6% for the frontier companies as compared to only 0.4% for the stragglers. Two major themes relating to IP emerge from The Economist article: (i) the role of patents and know-how; and (ii) the transmission mechanism for i...

In recent posts ( here  and here ), I have discussed China’s increased protection of intellectual property rights.  Recently, Ian Harvey , the chair of the IP Center Advisory Board at Tsinghua University x Lab in Beijing, sent me his excellent paper on China’s IP law.  Notably, his paper outlines how China’s enforcement of intellectual property has improved and does not deserve its past reputation.  Powerpoint slides relating to his paper are available, here .  Recently, China’s Supreme People’s Court issued a ruling recognizing Michael Jordan’s rights to his name in Chinese characters.  This decision sends a powerful message both in China and outside China that intellectual property rights will be respected.  Importantly, this is the enforcement of IP rights that were arguably not secured by Michael Jordan in China and there are strong reliance interests by the Chinese company.  I believe the symbolic importance of this decision cannot be overs...

I would like to introduce you to guest blogger Trevor Soames, a leading Brussels based antitrust lawyer with extensive experience of major high tech and IP-related investigations and litigation, having represented several major corporations in various cases over the years including Qualcomm, Nokia, Samsung and Microsoft. The Competition Directorate of the European Commission (DG Comp) has, over the years, become increasingly interested and active in the field of SEPs.  In a series of cases it has investigated a variety of potential competition law issues arising from the FRAND commitment, including allegations of patent ambush in Rambus , the transfer of FRAND commitments in IPCom , the risk of supposed “hold up” resulting from SEP holders seeking injunctive relief in Samsung , and in  Motorola, here , and here . In addition, the European Commission investigated Qualcomm between 2005 and 2009 for, inter alia, alleged excessive pricing regarding its FRAND-committed SEPs. Howev...

It was irresponsible of European Competition Commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, to say in a speech about excessive prices last month that “[o]ne recent study shows that 120 dollars of the cost of each smartphone comes from paying royalties for the patents it contains.” Commissioner Vestager is alleging that licensing prices for standard-essential patents are too high, and she would like them reduced. Nothing could be more important than having reliable support for her allegation. She did not provide this. To the contrary, the quoted sentence is reprehensible for several reasons: The $120 figure, equivalent to a 30 percent aggregate royalty rate on a $400 phone, is wide of the mark. Nobody is paying anywhere near as much. Actual figures paid are, on average, less than one sixth that figure, at under $20 or below 5 percent of total handset costs. Her source is not cited. It is obvious to those who focus on smartphone licensing charges that she has plucked the figure from the much-critici...

The National Football League Player’s Association [NFLPA] (American Football, that is) in the United States has announced a fascinating collaboration called “ OneTeam Collective ” between the NFLPA, NFL athletes, venture capitalists, and Harvard University, among others, in the form of something like an incubator.  Apparently, the gist of the idea is to allow easy licensing and exploitation of IP rights of NFL athletes by start-ups.  The NFLPA basically holds the IP rights of NFL players and now those rights will be available to early stage companies, as described in Tech Crunch  in " NFL Players Association Is Launching An Accelerator to Trade IP Rights For Equity ."  This raises a host of opportunities to utilize those IP rights in, perhaps, new ways.  Here is a description of some of the aspects of the program: The OneTeam Collective will consider business ventures and product ideas related to fan engagement, data analytics, performance an...

From today's draft Finance Bill overview: " 2.13. Patent Box: cost sharing for collaborative Research and Development ( R&D ) As announced at Autumn Statement 2016, the government will legislate in Finance Bill 2017 to add specific provisions to the revised Patent Box rules introduced in Finance Act 2016, covering the case where  R&D  is undertaken collaboratively by 2 or more companies under a ‘cost sharing arrangement’ ( CSA ). The provisions will ensure that companies are neither penalised nor able to gain an advantage under these rules by organising their  R&D  in this way. The new rules provide that: where a company acquires an interest in or increases its interest in a   CSA , an appropriate amount of the consideration paid counts as acquisition cost for the purpose of calculating the   R&D   fraction, to the extent any Intellectual Property ( IP ) assets are held within the   CSA where a company disposes of an interest or re...

As the major hotel brand owners consolidate, more and more brands identifying hotels of differing types of luxury and status (and therefore of price?) are finding themselves under a single ownership roof. This poses special branding challenges, as the conglomerates seek the best way to maintain brand equity in the house mark while at the same time attempting to distinguish each of the separate branded hotels. This can lead to some interesting results. Let us consider two examples. The first relates to a situation where the company is apparently prepared to tolerate actual confusion between two hotels, each owned by the same company. In connection with the 2015 International Trademark Association Annual Meeting in San Diego, this blogger made his way to what he thought was the Hotel Palomar. Upon arriving at the hotel and making some inquires, he was told: “Sir, you are at the wrong hotel. You don’t want the Hotel Solamar, you want the Hotel Palomar” (which is about a 10-minute walk a...