Do Androids Dream of Cell Phones?

The Wall Street Journal reports that an heir to the estate of sci-fi author Phillip K. Dick has alleged that Google’s “Nexus One” phone infringes the author’s intellectual property estate. Mr. Dick is the author of “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?”, which was the basis of the sci-fi cult classic “Blade Runner“. In that futuristic film-noir classic, Harrison Ford plays a bounty hunter who tracks down androids referred to as Nexus-6 models.

The Google phone is not the only phone that borrows from sci-fi cinema to boost its branding appeal. Motorola’s much celebrated Droid cell phone references the many robotic characters that play a key role in the “Star Wars” films. There are, however, important differences between the two cases. Lucasfilm, owner of the “Star Wars” franchise, registered the trademark Droid in 1985 for use with action figures. They maintain that registration and several others related to Droid. No other parties have registered Droid as a trademark. All that meant Motorola required a trademark license from Lucasfilm.

The estate for Philip Dick would have a much stronger claim against Google had they registered Nexus-6 as a trademark. Instead, other companies have registered the word Nexus for various types of goods and services. The critical question is whether the use of Nexus One for the cell phone market creates a likelihood of confusion with regards to sponsorship or source in relation to the Dick estate.

Another interesting twist arises if Google’s future versions of the phone increase sequentially. At some point, the phone may be branded as Nexus Six. By claiming an intellectual property dispute early on, the Dick’s estate may be pre-empting the controversy.

J.D. Salinger Wins Copyright Lawsuit

A federal judge in New York upholds J.D. Salinger’s copyright and issued an injunction to prevent a modified version of “Catcher in the Rye” from being published in the U.S. The New York Times reports the story here.

To learn more about the lawsuit click here.

To the Folks at Twitter: Use Trademarks to Monetize Your Traffic

I just read an article on a packaging blog that mentions how companies are adding their Twitter ID on product packaging. I agree with the article’s conclusion that it’s a smart marketing move that allows a company using this strategy to stay in touch with customers. Pepsi, for example, added “twitter.com/pepsiraw” to its Pepsi Raw beverage packaging.

Here’s an idea for the folks at Twitter, who have been criticized for not monetizing their customer base. Try licensing your trademarks to companies who want to add the Twitter ID to their product packaging. After all, you own the Twitter trademarks! You can license the brand name and logo for premium royalties, in my opinion.

I ran a quick search and found six live trademarks federally registered to Twitter.

J.D. Salinger Sues Author of Catcher in the Rye Sequel for Copyright Infringement

catcher(5)

J.D. Salinger, author of the classic Catcher in the Rye novel filed a lawsuit in Manhattan alleging that the authors of a sequel to his acclaimed novel have committed copyright infringement. In the complaint, Mr. Salinger alleges that the unauthorized sequel involves an elderly Holden Caulfield who leaves a retirement home to spend a few days in New York City.

Salinger asserts that his copyright to the first work grants him the exclusive right to authorize any derivative works of that prior and seminal work of fiction. The complaint alleges that the new sequel is an unauthorized derivative, and Mr. Salinger requests the court to grant an injunction against its publication, sale and distribution.

Given the nature of Mr. Salinger’s copyright, and if the injunction is granted, many of us will probably never know how phony or lousy that sequel may have really been.

To read the full complaint click here.

Can you copyright a tweet?

With the rise of Twitter it was inevitable that intellectual property issues would surface regarding “tweets” (information snippets under 140 characters in length).

Some are concerned that copyright might stifle the ability to reproduce tweets for collaborative projects. Twitter itself states, “We claim no intellectual property rights over the material you provide. Your profile and materials uploaded remain yours.”

So the website tweetCC has decided to take action, and create a list of Tweetsters who have agreed to license their tweets under open terms, using the creative commons license.

Here is the result of my own search:

tweetcc

Blogger Sues Goldman Sachs For Domain Rights

It would be an understatement to say that Michael Morgan dislikes Goldman Sachs. Mr. Morgan expresses his vitriol against the large investment bank in not-so-subtle terms. Mr. Morgan writes on his blog: “Yes, I am short Goldman Sachs stock. I believe this company is evil and should not exist. We need to begin to break up companies that have as much control over world finances as Goldman Sachs.”

His explicit contempt, however, is not what drew the ire of Goldman Sachs and its attorneys. Instead, it’s the domain name that Mr. Morgan reserved to express his views. The domain name for Mr. Morgan’s blog is goldmansachs666.com. As Mr. Morgan writes, his blog’s purpose is to serve as “an open forum for facts and discussion about what part Goldman Sachs and their executives played in the current Global Economic Crisis.


goldman

On April 8, 2009 Goldman Sachs’ attorneys fired-off a cease and desist letter to Mr. Morgan. The letter states “your use of the mark Goldman Sachs violates several of Goldman Sachs’ intellectual property rights, constitutes an act of trademark infringement, unfair competition and implies a relationship and misrepresents commercial activity and/or an affiliation between you and Goldman Sachs which does not exist and additionally creates confusion in the marketplace.”

gs_letterimage

Mr. Morgan had several options at that point. He could have ceased using the domain name as requested by the letter. He could have ignored it and risked further legal actions. Or, sue Goldman Sachs and petition a court to uphold his use of the domain name as a legal use, and not a trademark infringement as claimed by Goldman Sachs. Mr. Morgan chose this last option, and has filed a complaint in the United States District Court – South Florida. Click here to read the complaint.

Knock-Off Awards

Can you tell the difference?
Can you tell the difference?

Shame on you. That’s the purpose of Plagarius, a German cereremony that awards the most blatant knock-off  artists. The purpose of the awards is to send a message that stealing innovations is not acceptable.

Having their innovations knocked off in this manner can be an innovator’s worst nightmare. With some money and determination, they can shut down the knock-off artists. This kind of behavior really highlights the law of the market: if you succeed others will imitate.

Click here for the full BusinessWeek story.

Acknowledgment: Thanks to Arvind Natarajan for sending me the link to this story.

Kauffman Foundation Lecture

I just finished leading an intellectual property workshop for entrepreneurs here in Houghton, MI. The event was sponsored by the SmartZone, a local high-tech business incubator.

The FastTrac TechVenture Program is a learning program administered by the Kauffman Foundation. Here are some of the topics covered in this program:

  • Determine market opportunities and business strategies and pursue them successfully.
  • Define your target customers.
  • Develop a solid marketing plan.
  • Learn to assess and build a top management team.
  • Calculate the funding needed at each stage of your business and discover the best ways to access it.
  • Learn the importance of protecting your intellectual property through licenses, patents, trademarks, and copyrights.
  • Hone your elevator pitch and investor presentation.

One question was asked, and I think it would be useful to highlight. A participant asked,  “If a small technology entrepreneur has a valuable idea, what can they do to save money and protect their idea from a large company that just takes it without permission?”

Here’s a brief checklist:

1. Make sure you are an expert in your technology space. The more you know what the state of the art is, the less time and money you will spend defining your invention during the patenting process.

2. Understand the nature of your intellectual property rights. If you have a broad and solid patent, you can obtain, or threaten to obtain, a speedy injunction to stop competitors from copying your technology.

3. Patent litigation can be very expensive, with a full patent trial costing millions of dollars. A technology entrepreneur can share the expense of a patent trial with a contingency fee patent litigator. Several law firms specialize in taking these cases if: the inventor has a strong patent, there is a clear case of infringement, and the accused infringer has deep pockets. Here is one law firm that specializes in these cases.

Art for Free?

Robert Smith, lead singer of The Cure, has recently gained a lot of attention by publicly criticizing the growing  “art for free” movement.

Here is what Smith says on his site, speaking about Radiohead’s decision to release their In Rainbows album under a donation pricing model:

“ANY FAMOUS ARTIST WITH A HUGE AND DEVOTED FAN BASE(OFTEN ARRIVED AT WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM A WEALTHY AND POWERFUL ‘PATRON’ ORTWO?) CAN AFFORD TO DO WHAT HE, SHE OR IT WANTS… INCLUDING GIVING THEIR ART AWAY AS SOME KIND OF ‘LOSSLEADER’ TO HELP ‘BUILD THE BRAND”

The follks over at TechDirt, however, argue that Smith misses the point. Smith is criticizing the general rule that all art should be free, claiming such a rule or social norm is not beneficial to artists, and is more damaging to those who are not famous. The folks at TechDirt, on the other hand, claim that the point of the “art for free” movement is about business, and that giving some art for free allows artists to share some of the value of art and charge money for related complimentary products or services.

Which viewpoint do you think is the right one?