FC NOW: The Fast Company Weblog

Browse by Category › law

March 5, 2007

Patent Offensive

I find patents fascinating. People aggressively pursue patent protection by suing erstwhile competitors for infringement. Other people collect patents like merit badges, becoming often unsung heroes of innovation. And other people help large organizations free up unused and undercapitalized patents in order to foster further innovation.

Admittedly, I find the patent system to be somewhat of a black box. Many patent infringement cases I find dubious. After all, I patented the thing that helps someone do something years ago. Overly vague and general? Perhaps. But in other cases, prior art -- and where someone got their ideas -- can be extremely clear.

So it's fascinating -- and heartening -- that the Patent Office is opening its doors a little bit. A new initiative will enable people around the world to help review patent applications online. Participants will be able to comment on applications, rate the veracity of other commenters, and otherwise contribute to the process.

I don't envy the task of wading through the inane and unhelpful comments, but it sounds like the project is heading in the right direction in terms of identity control, community ratings, and the like. While it's clear that this could help accelerate how fast patents are awarded, it'll be even more interesting to see whether accelerating the rate of patent assignment accelerates innovation in general.

Is a world with more patents a better world?

Posted by Heath Row at 12:17 PM | 17 Comments

March 21, 2006

Digital Music a la Francaise

Love 'em, hate 'em, the French aren't afraid to buck the norm. While students riot in the streets over a proposed change in the labor laws, the French parliament tossed an egg at copy-protected digital music systems with a law that would force Apple, Sony, and Microsoft to make their music services get along. What started as a review of France's existing copyright laws turned into a 296 to 193 vote approving a measure requiring that copy-protected technology be interoperable. The proposed law goes to the Senate in May. If it ultimately goes into effect, it would force Apple to make iTunes available on non-iPods and require the same of other digital music technology companies, too.

Unlike the myriad choices for digital music services we have in North America, France is still extremely limited. If we believe the news, the choice winds down to about two services, and one is iTunes.

It's a noble legal effort. Wouldn't it be nice if the music you download from the Apple Music Store played on more than an iPod and a handful of computers? Similarly, wouldn't it be nifty to get music from the URGE service, Microsoft's collaboration with MTV due out this year, and listen to it on an iPod? Americans probably see this law as a utopian longshot. Analysts are already predicting that Apple will pull out of France rather than give up its secrets.

The irony is that the reasoning behind the French law was to bring in more paid music services instead of drive them away. According to the newspaper Liberation (article in French), the government wanted to give its citizens more legal paid service alternatives to illegal P2P sharing.

Over in America, we've been wringing our hands over digital music interoperability for ages, despite all of our services. Just a few weeks ago a bunch of industry types gathered in lower Manhattan to do more speculating. Interoperability never seemed more like the holy grail.

Michael Robertson, of MP3.com notoriety, is one of the many people working on a way to make music accessible regardless of operating systems. He introduced a beta version of his digital music locker a few months ago. Its software centralizes a music collection and then makes it accessible (to its legal limits) on multiple devices. Whether Robertson's locker gets widely adopted or not, consumers are putting the pressure on the big guys. When it's too annoying to deal with exclusive formats, we'll head for interoperable alternatives. Most of us are nearly there already.

Posted by Alyssa Danigelis at 2:06 PM | Add Comment

Quattrone Questions

Yesterday, a federal appeals court overturned (subscription required) the May 2004 conviction of Wall Street uber-banker Frank Quattrone on obstruction of justice charges. At issue was not Quattrone's actual guilt or innocence, but rather the instructions that the judge gave to the jury, which were too restrictive and which could have prejudiced the jury against Mr. Quattrone.

Like the Arthur Andersen and the Martha Stewart cases before it, Quattrone's conviction hinged not on whether he actually committed a crime, but whether he lied by trying to cover it up after the fact. Since his first trial ended in a mistrial and the second, a conviction, has now been set aside, the Federal Government must now decide whether to bring a third case against him. It's a tough call, because the mood appears to have shifted away from the pro-regulation foment of the post-Enron era to a sense that it's time to move on. The markets are booming again, Wall Street profits are hitting record highs, and many companies are complaining that the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations are so onerous as to threaten their businesses.

But regardless of what prosecutors decide in the Quattrone case, it's a mistake, in my opinion, to assume that the era of corporate excess that we lived through in the 1990s is gone for good. While much has changed since then, much hasn't. Banks and companies still put undue pressure on analysts, bonuses are still tied to investment banking, albeit indirectly, and the pressure to bring in the fees hasn't loosened up one bit. Quattrone may end up exonerated, but the culture he helped create is still alive and well.

Posted by Jennifer Reingold at 11:06 AM | Add Comment

March 3, 2006

In the Black

BlackBerry users can breathe a sigh of relief. Your hand-held email device won't fail--BlackBerry maker RIM settled its patent-infringement lawsuit with NTP. The final settlement calls for RIM to pay $612.5 million.

RIM's problems may be far from over, though. The company also warned Friday that it had signed on fewer new customers than they previously forecasted for the quarter ending March 4. And as cellphones with email and IM become commonplace, RIM may find itself left behind. Competition from the likes of Palm's Treo and Motorola's Q phone is likely to be fierce, and with additional competitors like Good Technology gaining ground, RIM still needs to differentiate itself from the pack. Adding to the heat, Microsoft is rumored to be introducing an ultra-portable tablet PC next week and Apple will supposedly follow suit next month.

Do you think the BlackBerry will endure? What can RIM do to position itself for future growth?

Posted by Kevin Ohannessian at 5:45 PM | 5 Comments

October 18, 2005

The Papadam Chase

Ask an American lawyer how secure her career is and she'll probably give you the standard flip response: In a litigation-loving society like this one, there will always be a need for our kind. And at first blush, she'd be right: According to a July 2005 study from the NASSCOM Research Group, the U.S. market for legal services in 2003 was $166.8 billion, which was more than five times the second largest country, the U.K., which spent just $34.2 billion. Japan, by contrast, had a market size of just over $1 billion. We love, hate and most of all, are obsessed with the law and the lawyers.

But that doesn't mean it takes an American to practice American law. The report, on legal-services offshoring, says that U.S. companies are increasingly turning to India, which graduates some 298,000 new lawyers every year, for a cheaper alternative to the high-priced hotshots here at home. The advantages are the same we've seen in other industries, such as expertise in English, a familiarity with British legal traditions and, of course, the salaries, which are 20-30% of their American counterparts. The report is further proof that intellectual capital is no longer safe from the global pressures that we've seen elsewhere in the economy. According to a Forrester study cited in the report, 12,000 legal jobs have been offshored so far, and the number is likely to reach 79,000 by 2015. Could a Bollywood version of Law and Order be far behind?

Posted by Jennifer Reingold at 10:30 AM | 1 Comment

August 8, 2005

The Broad Wave of Open Source: Quieting the Alarm

Any time market-leading companies feel challenged by an emerging competitor, or disruptive phenomena, sweeping alarmist generalizations show up from a variety of sources. Lots of business leaders, attorneys and other vested in the software industry have screamed that Open Source is total ruin for a company's welfare, especially regarding its intellectual property (IP).

I am not an attorney, but I have worked extensively in licensing and IP matters in very large and small companies. My observation is that the only categorical threat that lives up to the alarm is in those companies that do a poor job of ANY kind of IP management discipline or process.

Many of the attorneys and business leaders screaming about Open Source have no idea how their developers or other technical staff are complying with the proprietary licenses-in for component and tool software currently in use.

For those companies with an active, diligent program (education, process, etc) and good culture management addressing IP, the managed use of Open Source poses no greater threat than using proprietary software. Where additional work and communication are needed is in the broad perspectives on IP.

Reform in the process for software patents, a rationalization of the reasoning for IP and the "copyright is dead" view, and a curtailing of some extreme litigation strategies by a few rights holders will set the stage for enormously valuable cooperation between the Open Source world and the proprietary software industry.

Do you have a strategy for embracing Open Source? How does it compare with a broader perspective on IP rights and management?

Posted by Don Jarrell at 4:50 PM | Add Comment

July 13, 2005

Web Cites

The Internet Archive has come under fire because of an old Web site used as evidence in a trial. At issue is not whether a public archive of "expired" online resources should be available, but whether voluntary, collaborative standards can be enforced.

How careful are you and your company about what goes on your Web site?

Posted by Heath Row at 11:02 AM | Add Comment

June 28, 2005

Competition in Legalese

It was bound to happen: AMD is suing Intel. This is an antitrust lawsuit alleging that Intel coerced PC-makers like Dell and Gateway, and national retailers like Best Buy and Circuit City, to boycott AMD processors. After Microsoft was bombarded with antitrust cases, it was just a matter of time before the second half of the 'wintel' equation was addressed.

From what I can tell, AMD has a decent case. We will have to await further details to form educated opinions. In the mean time, I worry that this could start a new trend. Is a competitor trouncing you? Sue him. Do you feel your product is underperforming due to unfair opposition? Take your rival to court. It does seem at times that America is a nation built on litigation, but capitalism is about competition. Such lawsuits should make competition more fair, and not replace it altogether. Let us hope the next year proves this to be the case.

Posted by Kevin Ohannessian at 11:14 AM | Add Comment

June 23, 2005

Unjust Compensation?

The Supreme Court recently ruled that local governments can seize the homes of private citizens for private development as long as the home owners are given "just compensation."

When should business and economic development interests win out over private citizens? The decision assumes that local governments are motivated by something other than pure altruism and love of their communities. What if there are alternative plans that would be better for the communities involved? Shouldn't local officials be compelled to consider those?

I doubt that the same local governments would seize the new Home Depot in town because it's driven the local hardware store out of business. The case involved a neighborhood in New London that was nowhere near slum conditions that would warrant covernment action. Eminent Domain abuse is real and the Supreme Court all but ignored that today.

Should local governments be allowed to do anything just for the sake of economic development? What happens if the deal falls through or the plant closes down leaving the town in worse shape than before?

Posted by Kerry-Ann Austin at 3:14 PM | 5 Comments

March 30, 2005

Lawful Entry

There has been a plethora of companies involved in lawsuits. Just this morning, it was announced that Blockbuster was settling over their confusing 'No Late Fees' advertising. Of course, it is only $600k and will barely dent their bottom line.

Earlier this week the company Immersion won a settlement against Sony. Microsoft settled out of court with Immersion in 2003 and paid $26 million (and bought a piece of Immersion) to use vibration in their game controllers. Sony decided they would take it to court and roll the dice. It now seems like a bad bet, to the tune of $90 million.

These two suits are quite a contrast. The Blockbuster suit involves the public directly, and settled for so little. The Sony suit is with another company, and reaches $90 mil. Part of the reason for the disparity is that Sony has been selling their DualShock controllers for years and the Blockbuster snafu is recent. But I wonder how much of it is because corporations can afford to drag such lawsuits out. Shouldn't the public get their due process as well? Maybe if the public made more of a stink such consumer settlements would be more than crumbs.

Posted by Kevin Ohannessian at 1:29 PM | Add Comment

February 2, 2005

Eiffel Tower: Repossessed

You need look no further than Mickey Mouse in the US, or Elvis in the UK, to understand how copyright, for better or worst, affects the marketplace. But while Disney resorted to legal means to get more life out Mickey, those that oversee the Eiffel Tower came up with something far more clever.

The Eiffel Tower's likeness had long since been part of the public domain, when in 2003, it was abruptly repossessed by the city of Paris. That's the year that the SNTE, the company charged with maintaining the tower, adorned it with a distinctive lighting display, copyrighted the design, and in one feel swoop, reclaimed the nighttime image and likeness of the most popular monument on earth. In short: they changed the actual likeness of the tower, and then copyrighted that.

Continue reading "Eiffel Tower: Repossessed"

Posted by David-Michel Davies at 5:46 PM | 190 Comments

February 3, 2004

Munus Publicum, No See 'Um

Starting in mid-February, New York City will implement a new online bidding system to help settle personal injury cases filed against the city. Similar to EBay, the tool, called Cybersettle, allows plaintiffs and defendants to enter offers for settlement. If the offers overlap -- or near each other -- the system sends both parties an alert, and the settlement is reached.

While I can understand and appreciate the efficiencies introduced by this system, this abridgement of the legal system and process frightens me somewhat. It must benefit the city, if the city is implementing it. But in the case of personal injury claims made against the city, it feels as though some power and access to city leaders is being taken away from the citizenry. Especially given the recent accidental pedestrian electrocution, I question whether this better meets the needs of area residents -- or furthers justice.

If your Latin is rusty, the "munus publicum" in the title of this entry means "public office." Now, "You can't fight City Hall" no longer applies. Enter, "You can't see City Hall."

Posted by Heath Row at 11:34 AM | Add Comment

August 13, 2003

Fair and Balanced

So, Fox News is suing Al Franken for using their trademarked phrase "Fair and Balanced" in the title of his new book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. The lawsuit refers to Franken as "unfunny" and "a parasite," and claims Franken's "intent is clear -- to exploit Fox News' trademark, confuse the public as to the origins of the book and, accordingly, boost sales of the book."

Funnily enough, the lawsuit itself has spurred Franken's book to leap up the best-seller charts. "Any publicity is good publicity" holds true.

There are rumors that the fight is spurred by Fox's resident blowhard Bill O'Reilly, who, during a debate at Book-Expo America with Franken and Molly Ivins, resorted to calling Franken an "idiot" and repeatedly telling him to "shut up."

In another interesting development, in response to the lawsuit, all around the Web, weblog authors are adding "Fair and Balanced" to their blog titles, including cartoonist Tom Tomorrow.

Posted by Kevin O'Donovan at 12:55 PM | 3 Comments