Priorities for the Next President: An Urgent, Measured Innovation Policy (Part I)

Earlier this week, I attended the Third Annual BNA/ABA Patent Litigation Conference (as a result of a wonderful invitation by Barry Grossman of Foley and Lardner–thanks Barry!), where the considerable controversies associated with current patent law were explored in great detail.   In particular, I listened with great interest to a speech by the Honorable Paul Michel, who is currently serving as the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.   He highlighted ongoing unease with:

*  the congressional efforts to reform patent law, which have taken over three years and not been conducted in a transparent manner that reassures the interested constituencies that patent reform will ultimately address ongoing controversies in a sufficiently even-handed manner;

*  the increased activism of the Supreme Court in the area of patent law (a trend which I view with less skepticism than Chief Judge Michel);

*  the ongoing ferment over the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office–over both its policy-making role and the under-staffing that will continue to impact its crucially important examination role; and

*  the coming crisis in staffing at the Federal Circuit, which may experience at least eight retirements in the next four to eight years.

Chief Judge Michel’s remarks summarize some of the problems roiling the patent community at present, but a whole host of additional problems are also asserting themselves.   

Continue ReadingPriorities for the Next President: An Urgent, Measured Innovation Policy (Part I)

Scrabulous Not Infringing (Copyright) in India

When it rains, it pours. This week there has been a slew of developments in copyright law. The motion picture studios have sued RealNetworks over its RealDVD application, claiming that RealNetworks violated the license it signed to get the decryption keys to DVDs. Congress passed a measure designed to ease the pressure on small webcasters after the Copyright Royalty Tribunal suddenly increased their fees. Congress also passed a version of the PRO-IP bill, which, ignoring a district court judge’s call to reduce copyright penalties, actually adds to them by allowing civil forfeiture of computer equipment in certain cases.

But the development I want to highlight here is the apparent decision by a court in India that Scrabulous does not infringe on the copyright for Scrabble. (The name, however, was held to infringe on the Scrabble trademark.) I wrote a four-part series for Prawfsblawg back in August that analyzed the case and copyright in games generally. (Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV.) Unfortunately the only news of the decision is from the Agarwalla brothers, the creators of Scrabulous, themselves; we don’t have the judge’s reasoning. But I’d be eager to see if it matches any of the points of my analysis.

Continue ReadingScrabulous Not Infringing (Copyright) in India

Talk Back! with Bruce Boyden

Ethan Ackerman was kind enough to respond to my recent post on ProCD v. Zeidenberg, in which I suggested that “the case for contracts somehow expanding copyright rights is vastly overstated, and perhaps illusory.” Sure, Ackerman’s post is critical, but I’m happy to generate even critical responses. Ackerman suggests that a recently filed case in the Virginia courts shows, allegedly contra me, that “there’s an open, ongoing and unsettled problem with parties attempting to reverse, by contract clause, an issue that is addressed and settled by federal copyright law.”

The problem is, that wasn’t my argument.

Continue ReadingTalk Back! with Bruce Boyden