The media made the NSA and its super-secret PRISM data-gathering program the subject of nationwide debate about the public's right to privacy. Agency officials contend they are just doing their jobs to protect the nation's communications by mining dangerous data from foreign-based emails, videos, files and chats.
]]> The shockwave began when media sources reported that the government's surveillance program was solidly in place among the country's largest service providers including Google, Facebook and Skype. News reports hint that an Orwellian "Big Brother" may be keeping constant tabs on anyone and everyone.What has NSA got to do with intellectual property laws? At least one entrepreneur has been stung by trying to capitalize on the trendy topic. By his own account, a businessman who opted to place the government's PRISM logo on T-shirts and other products and sell them is already in trouble.
The man's Zazzle.com merchandise was pulled offline when the sales platform received notification the businessman's products contained "conflicting content." The letter to the seller stated an unidentified intellectual property holder complained about possible copyright infringement.
The businessman made about seven dollars before his Zazzle sales ended. The entrepreneur suspects the NSA was behind the complaint. The de-Zazzled businessman has written to the Internet company for confirmation. At the time of his report, the man had yet to receive a reply.
Perhaps because it is funded by taxpayers, the government's intellectual property is normally not copyright protected. A law does forbid personal possession and profit making from federal insignias.
Entrepreneurs anxious to cash in on current events can seek advice from attorneys for intellectual property rights and wrongs.
Source: gawker.com, "The NSA Sent a Takedown Notice Over My Custom PRISM-Logo T-Shirts" Max Read, Jun. 08, 2013
]]>Money used to protect intellectual property is an expense that fortifies but does not expand a company. Limited budgets prevent new entrepreneurs from shielding the uniqueness of their products. Startups easily fold without funds to safeguard merchandise.
]]> Some established companies like fashion house Tory Burch use a no-holds-barred approach to thwart thieves. The business's legal team said during the past year it helped close down 1,200 online sites selling copycat Tony Burch products. Authorities also confiscated half a million counterfeit items.The company launched a furious string of legal actions. A trademark lawsuit was filed in March against two individuals followed recently by a claim against four wholesalers, who allegedly pilfered Tony Burch designs and logo.
The aggressive intellectual property position paid off in April when Tony Burch won a $20 million award in federal court. The bank accounts and domain names of a group of infringers became the fashion company's property. Similar Tony Burch cases in the last two years led to damage awards exceeding $164 million.
Tony Burch officials believe forceful litigation puts wrongdoers out of business and deters other counterfeiters from trying to make profits off the company.
Successful copyright and trademark protection starts with knowing the limits and depths of intellectual property laws. Businesses must be able to differentiate between marketed products that are obvious duplicates and acceptable merchandise with "inspired" designs.
Originality overlaps with common-ground elements of design. For example, jewelry designers work with a limited number of shapes to create rings, earrings, necklaces and bracelets. The shapes can't be copyrighted, but the way designers incorporate them into jewelry can be.
Intellectual property attorneys can explain how laws are fine-tuned to individual products and services.
Source: securingindustry.com, "Fashion brand Tory Burch files four lawsuits" No Author Given, Jun. 03, 2013
]]>The state and Rich Soil logos depict the Statue of Liberty highlighted against a farm field. The words on the shirts differ. The state-generated emblem says "Pride of New York" while Kardashian's version states "Rich Soil New York." The fonts appear to be the same.
]]> State officials were quick to contact Kardashian's enterprise and order the top-end clothing company to stop selling the T-shirt. The "cease and desist" order also compelled the 28-year-old fashion executive to tally up the profits her company made from the sale of the shirt.The profits could be used against Kardashain in an intellectual property battle over copyright infringement. The reality star had no written or verbal response. The alleged copycat T-shirt was removed from the Rich Soil website within hours of the governor suggesting a lawsuit might be in the works.
A reporter asked the head of the agriculture department whether New York's image could benefit by Khloe Kardashian wearing the questionable shirt. In fact, the state might profit by taking a different angle. Kardashian's signature on a licensing agreement would allow her to sell the product for a fee. Pulling the shirt from the Rich Soil website only preserves the copyright.
Settlements in copyright infringement lawsuits frequently include licensing contracts. The agreement can be valuable for plaintiffs and defendants provided both are satisfied with the terms.
Attorneys realize some companies do not want copyrighted property to be associated with the owner or reputation of another business. New York officials may feel connecting its logo with the reality star could devalue the state's brand.
Source: nydailynews.com, "Khloe Kardashian's clothing line yanks T-shirt Gov. Cuomo eyed for copyright lawsuit from its website" Glenn Blain and Jonathan Lemire, May. 20, 2013
]]>Businesses are not entirely helpless victims of cybersquatting provided they carry Internet insurance or can support a domain name dispute. Regrettably, many of the individuals who launch online attacks have current or former company connections.
]]> Business owners can avoid cybersquatting victimization by exploring the motivations of domain name burglars. Who has the most to gain by stealing a company's URL? Enemies may be closer than many businesses realize or care to admit.A fast-moving, professional cyber-thief can make money by swiping a stranger's domain name. Quick money from any source satisfies the purpose. Insidious perpetrators sometimes lurk close at hand -- business partners, disgruntled ex-workers, investors, managers, competitors and full-time or contract employees.
One legal expert admitted one in four of his intellectual property clients filed domain name complaints about company partners or other owners.
A Wall Street Journal article published in 2007 found entrepreneurs-in-waiting and startups were the most vulnerable to cybersquatting. Thieves love victims who lack the money and power to wage war.
The first U.S. cybersquatting conviction was less than two years ago. A New Jersey man was sentenced to five years in prison after trampling the rights of P2P.com. The thief boldly swiped the domain and sold it on eBay for $110,000.
The head of an online religious tourism business is a cybersquatting victim turned domain name protection champion. The CEO of World Religious Travel Association now educates other travel business owners about how to avoid what his company experienced - total bankruptcy after a cybersquatting attack.
Alert businesses are no longer waiting until they have to play offense following a domain name theft. Intellectual property lawyers are a critical part of a company's cybersquatting defense.
Source: newsfactor.com, "Domain Theft Bankrupting Small Businesses" No author given, May. 17, 2013
]]>The FBI director complains current communication and Internet laws defining the agency's surveillance reach are seriously outdated. The government official says the FBI risks "going dark" without open access to criminal suspects' online activities.
]]> The latest FBI plan is an altered version of a 2010 measure that would have mandated wiretap-friendly systems at Internet companies, large and small. The first proposal was designed to supplement a 1994 act requiring network carriers and phone companies to install eavesdropping systems the government could use.Critics said startups would be discouraged and overburdened by the plan, so the FBI came up with a new one. The latest bureau idea focuses on noncompliance fines for powerhouse tech companies like Google that fail to cooperate.
Federal law enforcers say they have no intention of listening in on conversations of anyone but suspected wrongdoers. Any wiretapping would be done by court order. The plan would fine companies, including foreign-based businesses with U.S. customers, up to $25,000 per day for failing to cooperate.
The costs for surveillance systems and potential daily fines are frightening expenses for vulnerable, cash-poor startups. The FBI dismissed worries by claiming that wiretapping rarely would be necessary at the small business level.
Opponents feel the second proposal is no better than the first. Detractors warn that hackers would swarm and innovators would bolt overseas if the plan were to be effected. The Obama administration is considering but not commenting on the proposal.
To survive, communicate and thrive, most California businesses require a strong presence on the Internet. The FBI wants online access to do its job. An attorney can explain how the proposal would impact the security of a company's intellectual property.
Source: nytimes.com, "U.S. Weighs Wide Overhaul of Wiretap Laws" Charlie Savage, May. 07, 2013
]]>The judge in the domain name dispute chided the social media giant's lawyers for failing to sort the 11 defendants' misconduct into bad, worse and egregious categories.
]]> The court designed a formula to break down violations according to the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and award damages. Facebook had requested $100,000 for each of the 105 infringing domain names.The judge said each defendant willfully acted in bad faith to take advantage of Facebook's trademark. Damages were dependent upon actions: the number of infringing registries, domain activity, concealed registration, the direct or indirect rip off of the Facebook name, and evidence of "serial" cybersquatting.
Damages ranged from as little as $5,000 per domain for ownership of up to nine infringing domains. Violators with 40 to 49 registries, the highest among defendants, were liable for $25,000 per domain.
Damages were doubled for defendants with histories of repeated cybersquatting. Double damages also applied to defendants who deceived Internet users by redirecting them to landing sites that appeared to be Facebook owned.
The court also made damage distinctions between infringers who registered domains with the correct and incorrect spellings of "Facebook." All defendants apparently engaged in typosquatting. Added damages were tacked on to infringers who used the correct spellings of "Facebook" and other domain name words.
Damages totals for individual defendants varied, from $5,000 for a single violation up to $1.3 million for multiple infringing offenses. The biggest violator was Newgate with 47 infringing registries and four domains that sent unwitting users to a Cleanser Product site.
Intellectual property attorneys advise businesses on method cybersquatters use to steal profits. The knowledge helps California businesses design effective strategies to protect themselves.
Source: thedomains.com, "Facebook CyberSquatting Judgement: 105 Domains; 10 Domain Holders; $2.8 Million in Damages - Draft" Michael Berkens, May. 01, 2013
]]>An armory of so-called defensive patents strengthens a company’s position in case of a legal assault for infringement. A hefty patent collection can encourage plaintiffs to settle out of court, saving litigants time and money.
]]> Licensing agreements are frequently part of settlement terms in patent disputes. Having plenty of defensive patents also bolsters chances for a company to countersue for patent infringement.In some cases, potential lawsuits are thwarted by the sheer quantity of patents in a company’s portfolio. That may have been Google’s intention when it snapped up more than 17,000 patents from Motorola Mobility LLC. Google’s ever-expanding portfolio overwhelms Groupon’s mere 25 patents.
Business analysts say Groupon’s steady increase of patent possessions is a positive sign. The half dozen patents Groupon secured last year -- two of which were directly related to Internet group purchase ideas -- were highly rated in a review for influential Crain Communications.
Other patents owned by Groupon deal with flexible merchant pricing and customer buying preferences, tools which competitors would find valuable. Portfolio expansion is planned. Thirteen additional Groupon patents are under consideration by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Patent lawsuits are taken seriously because of the effort and money that litigation can sap from a business. Consumer confidence in a company brand is also at stake. Patent lawsuit losses weaken business reputations and may make companies vulnerable to other legal actions.
The interpretations of offensive and defensive patents vary among business experts and analysts. To obtain a clear idea about patent strategies, businesses turn to intellectual property attorneys, who understand the legal advantages and pitfalls of patent ownership.
Source: chicagobusiness.com, "How Groupon bought its way to patent prominence" John Pletz, Apr. 29, 2013
]]>Justices debated Myriad Genetics' intellectual property rights to hold on to a patent sanctioned by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The company argues the patent led to the development of a vital medical test for women, whose genetic makeup shows ovarian and breast cancer susceptibility.
]]> The other side of the argument comes from scientists who say their medical research is limited by Myriad's patent lock. Breast cancer patients are also plaintiffs in the court battle championed by the Public Patent Foundation and The American Civil Liberties Union. Patients contend Myriad holds an unfair monopoly on expensive predictive cancer testing that obstructs alternate diagnostic opinions.The lawsuit was filed in 2009 claiming Myriad had no right to patent a natural product - human genetic material. A federal circuit court sided with Myriad with the contention that the company's invention was "new and useful."
Several Supreme Court justices seemed to agree "products of nature" were off limits to patentability. A justice stated that Myriad could secure a patent for the way it uses gene sequences, but should not have an exclusive claim to the "underlying substance" of DNA segments.
Another justice used simpler term. He stated Myriad could not patent a "snip" of human DNA any more a researcher could claim exclusivity for another natural product like a plant leaf. The U.S. patent office has a 30-year history of granting isolated living cell patents, which seems to conflict with the justices' arguments.
California intellectual property attorneys are anxious to learn what justices will decide in June. A ruling in either direction would have considerable implications for intellectual property clients in the scientific business community.
Source: latimes.com, "Supreme Court critical of patents on human genes," David G. Savage, April 15, 2013
]]>What if one news group steps on the other's toes, duplicating news material while racing to air or print the story? Is that copyright infringement? According to the "hot news doctrine," the answer is maybe. Intellectual property laws say some parts of a news story are copyright protected while others are not. Word-for-word theft of content is a violation but, even then, legal exceptions still exist.
]]> Take the case of two Los Angeles competitors, each dependent upon late-breaking news about Hollywood celebrities. The Hollywood Reporter recently settled out of court with the owners of Variety and Deadline Hollywood over alleged intellectual property theft.Penske Media Corporation wanted $5 million for damages from Prometheus Global Media, the parent of The Hollywood Reporter. Reports said the settlement came to a fraction of the requested amount -- a little more than $162,000. Why?
PMC said The Hollywood Reporter blatantly harvested computer source code, complete articles, parts of stories, designs and software particularly from TVline.com. Prometheus officials admitted they were guilty, but not directly. The "error" was blamed on a third-party consultant. Prometheus said it acted promptly to delete the disputed material after Penske complained. An apology was issued.
The copyright lawsuit dragged on for more than a year, reportedly due to the hot news doctrine. According to applicable federal law, the "expression" of ideas and opinions can be copyrighted, but facts and events are common ground without copyright protection. Translation -- stories may be copyrighted, but unoriginal content falls outside intellectual property law.
PMC officials intend to keep an eye on The Hollywood Reporter's future practices. Companies often hire intellectual property attorneys to do just that -- monitor rivals for infringement.
Source: businessinsider.com, "The Hollywood Reporter Admits It Stole Code From Rival," Lucas Shaw, April 1, 2013
]]>Los Angeles companies are familiar with the damage illegal cybersquatting can cause. Individuals purchase domain names containing well-known trademarks with the intent of making a profit, frequently by selling the domain to the trademark owner. Trump apparently would rather fund a domain dispute than buy out the website addresses from the current owner.
]]> Trump has tried since 2011 to get the 33-year-old to turn over ownership of four domain names, which "The Donald" claims break federal cybersquatting laws. The ex-marine refuses to comply, claiming Trump uses "frivolous" legal actions to intimidate people.The man, who serves as his own legal counsel, argues that he has the right to retain the domain names he bought in 2007. The former Marine apparently uses the four websites to post comments about Trump's "Apprentice" television series. A disclaimer is included that disassociates the often-critical posts from the Trump Organization.
Trump alleges the current owner of domains like trumpindia.com is a blatant cybersquatter. The ex-marine denies he ever tried to make money from the sale of the names of Trump, although the man apparently has written and done plenty to provoke the billionaire's famous fury.
Damages of $100,000 per domain name were requested in Trump's recent counterclaim. Within days of the filing, all four of the Trump-named websites were shut down. The man still holds the ownership of about 200 other domains, some with clearly-recognizable connections like goldmansachsgroup.com.
The federal Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act is intended to keep Internet profiteers from infringing upon company trademarks. Some companies think it is easier and cheaper to pay off cybersquatters than fight them in a courtroom. Intellectual property experts say the practice only encourages illegal Internet activity.
Source: wtvr.com, "Trump seeks damages in 'cybersquatting' case," Laura Ly, March 31, 2013
]]>Customer lists, intellectual recipes, financial data, trade secrets and expansion plans fall into the hands of hackers, many of whom double as trusted employees. Security professionals say one-time-only, insider hack attacks swipe about 10,000 pieces of confidential information. External hackers get away with a lot less sensitive material than that.
]]> No organization is entirely immune from theft. Wireless giant Verizon admitted one-fifth of its security hacks were perpetrated by people within the company. Businesses are responding to theft by securing as many open doors to intellectual property as possible, starting with the hiring process.Security experts suggest paying more attention to the resumes and backgrounds of job applicants. Lawful pre-job tests and screening weed out applicants with suspect employment histories.
Lax security policies invite trouble. Employees who get away with petty theft in the workplace set an example. The middle manager who occasionally uses a company car or cell phone for personal use may not seem harmful until the practice sets up an "it's-okay-to-steal" attitude among other employees.
Technology can monitor workers' physical and online activities. Real-time and backup scanning increase security, but monitoring computers, conversations and other tools and actions must be done within legal boundaries.
Detailed monitoring and company privacy guidelines should be included in worker handbooks. Businesses are advised to create security rules as conditions of employment and strongly enforce them.
Companies can schedule independent audits and designate internal theft investigators. Workers can be encouraged to report incidents anonymously and without threat of backlash. Insurance is also available to cover cybercrime losses.
Strengthening intellectual property security is time-consuming for company owners. Intellectual property attorneys can help streamline security plans that are effective and legal.
Source: hreonline.com, "A Brief Guide to Fighting Employee Cybercrime," Spencer Hamer, March 20, 2013
]]>The Vatican's policy of keeping a tight lid on Holy See communications may have been loosened by the abrupt announcement of Pope Benedict XVI's retirement. The surprise was opportunity enough for Internet law manipulators to race to buy and profit from Bishop of Rome-related domain names.
]]> The College of Cardinals had barely released the white smoke signal of Pope Francis's election before cybersquatters went on a buying spree. Popefrancis.org was one of 600 domain addresses that were snapped up hours after the leadership change. The goal for most of the buyers was quick profit through short-term cons of misguided users or domain name resales to parties with authentic religious interest.Cybersquatters look for online opportunities that skirt Internet laws to prevent bogus domain name transactions. The textbook cybersquatter will purchase trademark domains in haste, throw up temporary money-making sites and close down before detection.
Businesses sometimes wage intellectual property wars by purchasing domain names that mirror competitors' brands. Unsuspecting users are then redirected to the rival's home page.
Many consumers have learned to spot false-front domains, but some innocent users still get lured into scams. Tech-smart businesses like Facebook screen questionable profiles, but the company doesn't rein in all of them before financial or brand harm is done.
Users fooled by false domains are vulnerable to identity theft. Legitimate businesses suffer trademark damage and incur profit-depleting costs to police and prosecute elusive cybersquatters.
Online brand protection can be a round-the-clock effort. Costs are reflected in high consumer prices. California intellectual property attorneys are prepared to prosecute cybersquatters. The hard part is catching them.
Source: ca.news.yahoo.com, "Three ways 'cyber squatting' messes with your online experience," Greg Hughes, March 16, 2013
]]>Entrepreneurs may not know that playing music in businesses comes with intellectual property rules and punishments for breaking them. In most cases, "when you play, you pay" or the business can be plunged headlong into a copyright infringement lawsuit.
]]> Music is an intangible but unique asset that belongs to the person who creates it. Copyright owners control music and what happens to it. Laws governing copyrights permit music to be played by businesses under certain conditions that are occasionally free but, in most cases, at a cost.U.S. radio stations purchase statutory licenses to broadcast music. Licensing agreements are also available for individuals and other companies through Performing Rights Organizations (PRO).
A single PRO agreement may be insufficient to satisfy copyrights owned by various composers, publishers and performers. PROs negotiate business user fees for access to the music in their protected collections. The organizations proactively search for copyright violators by sending investigators into suspect businesses.
Some businesses take risks by playing music without permission. When they are caught and convicted, legal fees are added to copyright damage awards that range from $750 for each violation to $150,000 for willful use.
A provision in copyright laws allows some small businesses to play music without licensing contracts. Qualifying companies must fit legal standards that dictate the size and type of business, the music source, the use of speakers and other limits.
Los Angeles intellectual property attorneys work in the heart of the West Coast music recording industry and understand complicated copyright laws. Lawyers help business clients negotiate licensing fees, take advantage of legal exceptions and options and defend compliant companies from unjust copyright lawsuits.
Intellectual property attorneys also represent copyright holders when the music they have created is misused.
Source: entrepreneur.com, "What You Need to Know About Music Licensing for Your Business," Lindsay Lavine, March 12, 2013
]]>Possibly the most publicized arguments over intellectual property involve patents. Patents - obtained through the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - initially belong to an inventor, the person who creates a distinct process or product. The invention may not be so obvious that others easily could reproduce it.
]]> Patent protection allows an inventor to make and market a creation for 20 years. Patents may be bought and sold. Unfortunately, sometimes they are also stolen by competitors.The same is true for trademarks and copyrights. Trademarks surround and enhance a product. Logos, identifying words or phrases, and symbols like the checkmark swoosh that links a consumer's mind with the shoemaker Nike are trademarks.
Copyrights keep original art, music, movies and written works from being duplicated by others. Portions of a copyrighted work may be reproduced as long as the owner is given credit.
A copyright lasts as long as the intellectual property owner is alive and 70 years beyond his death. Once the copyright time has expired, the original piece becomes part of the public domain. An author or artist's works do not have to be published to have copyright protection.
Trademarks and copyrights are protected with or without government registration. Attorneys recommend registering both for maximum legal coverage.
Laws meant to stop people from capitalizing on intellectual properties are challenged daily. Los Angeles film makers lose rightful revenue every time someone downloads a pirated movie. Songwriters wedge snippets of someone else's music in between notes. Technology companies accuse one another of stealing products.
Laws set the boundaries. Intellectual property attorneys help businesses make sure competitors recognize them.
Source: business.time.com, "Keeping Your Intellectual Property Safe," Paul Shread, Feb. 28, 2013
]]>The groups' Center for Copyright Information requires participating copyright holders to share potential piracy findings with ISPs. The ISPs - including Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, AT&T and Cablevision - then let identified customers know their accounts have been linked to alleged copyright infringement.
]]> The first warning is mild and informative with a list of available sites for legal access to films or music. Repeat violators receive increasingly harsh warnings. When five or six instances of inappropriate file-sharing are found, ISPs may move to action. Customers could end up with a restricted bandwidth or lose control of a browser search that defaults to an anti-piracy site.The punishments fall short of a full-fledged denial of Internet service. CCI's current plans do not check streamed or access-protected sites.
Critics say the Internet policing system is loaded with flaws that give the monitoring group too much power. ISP customers who feel they've been wrongly accused can appeal to a CCI-funded arbitrator whose decision is final.
Reports say the real test for the Copyright Alert System is how seriously ISP users respond to it. Users could try to work around bandwidth and browsing inconveniences or switch to an ISP with no connection to the monitoring group. Those aren't the results CCI expects to get.
The group is hoping citizens become sensitive to the differences between legitimate and illegal entertainment sites. CCI thinks warnings will provide enough incentive and information for users to tap in to free, legal movie and music sources.
Copyright concerns are not exclusive to the entertainment industry. The lessons CCI learns from the monitoring experiment could teach legal intellectual property advisers and businesses managers in other fields to strengthen copyright protection.
Source: latimes.com, "ISPs become copyright enforcers," Jon Healey, Feb. 25, 2013
]]>