How IP-Protected Innovation is Driving Economic Growth

22 01 2018

IP-protected innovation is now the principal driver of corporate value and is driving economic growth nationally. Developing an IP portfolio is now a basic requirement even for tech startups that hope to raise early stage financing… A large portion of the market cap of Silicon Valley companies can be directly attributed to intangible – or in other words intellectual property – assets. IP law is the primary tool used to protect the value of that innovation, and as we see from countries without meaningful IP laws there is simply no way to protect innovation absent a strong intellectual property system.

more

The content in this post was found at http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/01/21/ip-protected-innovation-driving-economic-growth/id=92564/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



“Free TV” box lawyer says video industry is “digging its own grave”

18 01 2018
The entertainment industry is lining up against the maker of a “free TV” box in a lawsuit that alleges piracy, but the defendant’s lawyer says the industry is in for a difficult and dangerous fight.

“I think this is a very, very dangerous lawsuit by plaintiffs,” lawyer Erik Syverson told Ars yesterday. “If the case does not go the plaintiffs’ way, they will have established very unfavorable law to their business models and they may be digging their own grave.”

Syverson represents Dragon Media Inc., whose “Dragon Box” device connects to TVs and lets users watch video without a cable TV or streaming service subscription.

more

The content in this post was found at https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/maker-of-free-tv-box-vows-to-fight-lawsuit-filed-by-netflix-and-amazon/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



A Patent For Geotagging IP Packets Raises Important Internet Law Questions (Guest Blog Post)

16 01 2018

by guest blogger Marketa Trimble

On September 12, 2017, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a patent on a technology that could significantly affect the functioning of the internet and the course of internet-related law and policy, and achieve an ultimate territorialization[FN] of the internet.

[FN: “Territorialization” is the action of territorializing, i.e. “mak[ing] (something) territorial; to organize on a territorial basis; to associate with or restrict to a particular territory or district.” Oxford English Dictionary, 3d ed., 2011.]

Patent US 9,762,683 B2 covers the “use of packet header extension for geolocation/geotargeting.” The patented technology should enable the insertion of geolocation information into an IPv6 packet and the transmission of that geotagged IPv6 packet into a communication network.

Packets are the carriers of data on the internet; they consist of user data (a payload), and also of control information about where the data should go (a header). A packet identifies its sender and addressee by their IP addresses but (currently) does not include any information about the sender’s or addressee’s physical location (geolocation); while IP addresses may indicate, generally, a geographical location, they are not an exact and perfectly reliable determinant of the location – for reasons that include, among other things, the possibility of spoofing IP addresses.

The patented technology makes it possible to tag packets with information about the physical location of the sender’s device; the location could be determined based on various data from the sender’s device, such as “a GPS, cellular or other source.”

more

[Eric’s note: I have a strong view on that normative question, and I wrote a brief post about it in 2007.]

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2018/01/a-patent-for-geotagging-ip-packets-raises-important-internet-law-questions-guest-blog-post.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Netflix, Amazon, and major studios sue maker of “free TV” box

13 01 2018

Netflix, Amazon, and the major film studios have sued the makers of “The Dragon Box,” a device that connects to TVs and lets users watch video without a cable TV or streaming service subscription.

Joining Netflix and Amazon as plaintiffs in the suit are Columbia Pictures, Disney, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal, and Warner Bros. The suit asks for financial damages and an injunction preventing Dragon Media from continuing the alleged copyright infringement.

“Defendants sell illegal access to Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works,” the complaint says. (Hat tip to DSLReports.) “Dragon Box uses software to link its customers to infringing content on the Internet. When used as Defendants intend and instruct, Dragon Box gives Defendants’ customers access to multiple sources that stream Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works without authorization. These streams are illegal public performances of Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works.”

more

The content in this post was found at https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/netflix-amazon-and-major-studios-sue-maker-of-free-tv-box/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



PTAB Errors Fatal to Hundreds of Legitimate Patents

11 01 2018

There have been 220 patents upheld as valid in real courts and also subject to a final written decision in the PTAB. The PTAB only agreed with the real courts on 52 patents, while disagreeing with them on 168 patents. If the U.S. legal system is the gold-standard, that means the PTAB is erroneously invalidating patents 76% of the time… In the PTAB, generally only two grounds of attack are available – 35 U.S.C. §102 for novelty and 35 U.S.C. §103 for non-obviousness. But in the real court four grounds are available as a defense – along with §102, §103, accused infringers are also afforded validity challenges under 35 U.S.C. §101 for basic patentability and 35 U.S.C. §112 for specification. So how is it that the PTAB invalidates three times as many patents with only half as many grounds available? The only answer is because it is specifically designed to help infringers by bypassing due process protections afforded to inventors in real courts. Apologists will go on to argue that the PTAB had better evidence, better prior art, better experts, better judges – nonsense! The real courts have rules and procedures which are tremendously more thorough, developed, proven, and fair. The PTAB has not and cannot measure up.

more

The content in this post was found at http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/01/07/ptab-errors-fatal-legitimate-patents/id=91457/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.