Welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, the subject is litigation strategy and why Wizards of the Coast is suing Cryptozoic on a number of different intellectual property grounds.
https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp14
As discussed by Scott and Tom during last week's Current Geek, it was publicly announced last week that Wizards was suing Cryptozoic for infringement of IP relative to the iconic trading card game Magic the Gathering. In short, Wizards believes that Cryptozoic's new video game TCG called Hex is an illegitimate copy of Magic that should be stopped.
This interesting case between two gaming industry titans could be ground-breaking in a field close to our nerdy hearts. As a result, this segment will look at some important aspects we can learn from this litigation over the next couple weeks.
This week, let's focus on the threshold question many are asking: why is Wizards is suing Cryptozoic on so many different grounds?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/224144304/Wizards-of-the-Coast-v-Cryptozoic-Entertainment-et-al
Comparison Photos from Complaint in W.D. Washington District Court filed by WOTC.
Wizards has three distinctive claims in the Complaint against Crptozoic, specifically patent, copyright, and trade dress infringement. Each of these three types of intellectual property provides a different scope of protection and each has a different test or burden of proof that Wizards must meet to prove that Hex is infringing. To put it most simply, Wizards is taking every bite at the apple it can because winning on any of these grounds will likely be fatal to Cryptozoic's game.
In addition, IP rights do not last forever. For example, the patent that Wizards is suing over is set to expire in June 2014. At long last, TCG designers will have "tapping" a card in the public domain for use in future designs. Thus, while the patent may have the best chance at obtaining profits and damages from Cryptozoic, the rights of Wizards to stop Hex from future sales based on patent rights will be moot in just over a month.
The copyright and trade dress actions are not based on soon-to-expire IP, so these items could lead to a long-term shutdown or redesign of the Hex game. Also, the likelihood of confusion test used to determine trade dress infringement is drastically different than construing and applying patent claims or determining the protectable authorial expressions covered by copyright. By making Cryptozoic prove a lack of infringement under each of these various standards, Wizards is banking on Cryptozoic not being able to rebut all of the different tests and arguments.
Bottom Line: The scorched earth approach of litigators is nothing new, and Wizards is making Cryptozoic jump through the most hoops possible to avoid infringement. Even if some of the claims are more shaky than others, it is worthwhile for Wizards to fire every bullet it has in the litigation gun.
Next week, we will look at the merits of some of these claims and predict how this case might come out.
-----------
Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy or in the comments below
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Legal Geek No. 13: Do Blackberry Phones Finally Have a True Successor?
This week, the subject is whether a new phone to be released in June will finally be a true successor to Blackberry phones in the business world.
https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp13
The smartphone industry, like many technological fields, generally hits booms and busts based on widespread acceptance by the corporate world and by government. When employees in the business world could remain connected to the job everywhere on a secure connection with a keyboard and e-mail capabilities, the Blackberry became the crown jewel of the smartphone market.
Indeed, at its height, Blackberry held more than 20% worldwide market share. But that crashed quickly to less than 3% in five year thanks to the iPhone and other competitors blazing new trails while Blackberry was left behind. Perhaps the only reason Blackberry remains in business is the corporate world, which is slow to adapt to new technologies thanks to data security and privacy concerns, among other items.
But have we now finally found the true successor to Blackberry phones?
The Blackphone was announced early this year and is designed by Phil Zimmerman, who is known as the inventor of PGP. It is touted as the Spy-Proof phone, which is precisely the type of marketing scheme that works wonders in the corporate world. Although some would argue only idiots leave phone communications unencrypted or unprotected these days, it's hard to stop the onslaught of data collection in nearly every phone application and there will always be plenty of non-saavy tech idiots in the business world.
Thus, reports are flooding in this week that corporate giants such as those in the Fortune 50 are pre-ordering the Blackphone in high amounts. Considering the phone has comparable specs as android phones slightly above entry level, this could be a cost-effective option for finally replacing the Blackberry in many business settings.
Businesses want to keep all proprietary data such as trade secrets and future patent subject matter such as R&D away from prying eyes that will sell out or possible include foreign and domestic competitors, and this phone is promising the world on that front. Especially if the general public buys in for the purpose of privacy from big brother interests like the NSA, this phone could be the next sensation.
It's unclear if any of this technology is patent pending, although that might not matter if the marketing clicks. Make no mistake: Blackphone is intended to be a play on Blackberry, which again might bring up some interesting trademark questions that likely won't matter to the commercial success of the device.
Bottom Line: In this era of increased focus on privacy, the Blackphone is well positioned even without IP protection to be a huge player. Look for this star to continue to rise.
-----------
Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy or in the comments below.
https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp13
The smartphone industry, like many technological fields, generally hits booms and busts based on widespread acceptance by the corporate world and by government. When employees in the business world could remain connected to the job everywhere on a secure connection with a keyboard and e-mail capabilities, the Blackberry became the crown jewel of the smartphone market.
Indeed, at its height, Blackberry held more than 20% worldwide market share. But that crashed quickly to less than 3% in five year thanks to the iPhone and other competitors blazing new trails while Blackberry was left behind. Perhaps the only reason Blackberry remains in business is the corporate world, which is slow to adapt to new technologies thanks to data security and privacy concerns, among other items.
But have we now finally found the true successor to Blackberry phones?
The Blackphone was announced early this year and is designed by Phil Zimmerman, who is known as the inventor of PGP. It is touted as the Spy-Proof phone, which is precisely the type of marketing scheme that works wonders in the corporate world. Although some would argue only idiots leave phone communications unencrypted or unprotected these days, it's hard to stop the onslaught of data collection in nearly every phone application and there will always be plenty of non-saavy tech idiots in the business world.
Thus, reports are flooding in this week that corporate giants such as those in the Fortune 50 are pre-ordering the Blackphone in high amounts. Considering the phone has comparable specs as android phones slightly above entry level, this could be a cost-effective option for finally replacing the Blackberry in many business settings.
Businesses want to keep all proprietary data such as trade secrets and future patent subject matter such as R&D away from prying eyes that will sell out or possible include foreign and domestic competitors, and this phone is promising the world on that front. Especially if the general public buys in for the purpose of privacy from big brother interests like the NSA, this phone could be the next sensation.
It's unclear if any of this technology is patent pending, although that might not matter if the marketing clicks. Make no mistake: Blackphone is intended to be a play on Blackberry, which again might bring up some interesting trademark questions that likely won't matter to the commercial success of the device.
Bottom Line: In this era of increased focus on privacy, the Blackphone is well positioned even without IP protection to be a huge player. Look for this star to continue to rise.
-----------
Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy or in the comments below.
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Legal Geek No. 12: Students Lose as College Textbook Market Gets Desperate
This week, the subject is whether textbook publishers will succeed in destroying unfavorable parts of copyright law, or the consumers supporting the business of college textbooks itself.
https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp12
College textbook publishers have long wielded every protection possible under copyright law to try and discourage the resale market as well as counterfeits, citing second hand stores as serious threats to the industry. However, one limit in copyright law is the First Sale Doctrine, which serves to exhaust the publisher's right to control resale of the physical goods after selling them to the first purchaser. This has long been the worst enemy of this very lucrative entire industry.
But will recent actions by publishing companies overcome this First Sale Doctrine problem?
Rather than embracing more digital distribution models such as the music industry and the videogame industry to combat resale, textbook publishers have chosen to double down on high prices and force student consumers into impossible choices. Aspen has begun e-mailing law school professors to inform them that the next editions of their popular textbooks will come with a so-called lifetime access to a digital copy of the text, but the physical book must be returned to the publisher at the end of the class. In other words, students pay an exorbitant $200 or so for a book that they will not really own, and is not really sellable or useable by second hand shops and libraries.
If there's anything the tech world has learned over time, it is not to trust so-called lifetime digital access from providers such as this. Plus, the publishers are touting these added digital benefits come without increasing the cost of the book, but the price should actually be dramatically dropping if all the consumer gets is a temporary license to the physical copy and a questionable digital copy.
You can bet if this flies in the high-cost law school setting, all publishers will force this change down students' throats in all academic fields, and maybe even primary, secondary, and homeschool settings as well. Consumers will then really be paying money for nothing, and the publishers will rake in the profits while doing an end-run around the First Sale Doctrine established as early as 1904 and reconfirmed by the Supreme Court as recently as last year's term.
Bottom Line: Sometimes consumers need to step up and fight via petitions or supporting organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and this appears to be one of those times. Otherwise, college and other schooling could become out-of-reach for the worst reasons possible: corporate greed and profit margins.
-----------
Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy or in the comments below.
https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp12
College textbook publishers have long wielded every protection possible under copyright law to try and discourage the resale market as well as counterfeits, citing second hand stores as serious threats to the industry. However, one limit in copyright law is the First Sale Doctrine, which serves to exhaust the publisher's right to control resale of the physical goods after selling them to the first purchaser. This has long been the worst enemy of this very lucrative entire industry.
But will recent actions by publishing companies overcome this First Sale Doctrine problem?
Rather than embracing more digital distribution models such as the music industry and the videogame industry to combat resale, textbook publishers have chosen to double down on high prices and force student consumers into impossible choices. Aspen has begun e-mailing law school professors to inform them that the next editions of their popular textbooks will come with a so-called lifetime access to a digital copy of the text, but the physical book must be returned to the publisher at the end of the class. In other words, students pay an exorbitant $200 or so for a book that they will not really own, and is not really sellable or useable by second hand shops and libraries.
If there's anything the tech world has learned over time, it is not to trust so-called lifetime digital access from providers such as this. Plus, the publishers are touting these added digital benefits come without increasing the cost of the book, but the price should actually be dramatically dropping if all the consumer gets is a temporary license to the physical copy and a questionable digital copy.
You can bet if this flies in the high-cost law school setting, all publishers will force this change down students' throats in all academic fields, and maybe even primary, secondary, and homeschool settings as well. Consumers will then really be paying money for nothing, and the publishers will rake in the profits while doing an end-run around the First Sale Doctrine established as early as 1904 and reconfirmed by the Supreme Court as recently as last year's term.
Bottom Line: Sometimes consumers need to step up and fight via petitions or supporting organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and this appears to be one of those times. Otherwise, college and other schooling could become out-of-reach for the worst reasons possible: corporate greed and profit margins.
-----------
Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy or in the comments below.
Thursday, May 1, 2014
Legal Geek No. 11: Patent Trolls Lose Another Battle at Supreme Court
This week, the subject is whether the tide is turning against patent trolls in the Federal court system.
https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp11
The Supreme Court issued two related opinions this week that related to patent law, and specifically how to apply the fee shifting provisions applied for so-called "exceptional circumstances." This is one of the ways that frivolous litigating parties like patent trolls can be held in check, as paying the legal fees of the other party can be a deterrent when risking litigation against big pockets who have expensive legal counsel.
But how important will these decisions be in solving the patent troll problem?
The Supreme Court is giving far more discretion to the District Courts to determine what are exceptional circumstances meriting a loser pays all legal fees situation. This is not quite so far as some Congressional proposals have been, up to and including fee shifting to the loser in all patent cases, but it does make it more risky to force alleged infringers into court, especially when the case for infringement is shaky.
Another interesting part of the ruling is that the Supreme Court explicitly said an unreasonable manner in which a case is litigated can lead to fee shifting, which means patent trolls must play a little nicer or else run the risk of incurring the wrath of the court. Furthermore, the Supreme Court increased the standard fro review at the appeals court level is to look for abuse of discretion in shifting fees to a losing party, which is very different than the de novo standard that the Federal Circuit has been using (which allows for a fresh look and determination rather than giving deference to the District Court).
At the District Court, the proof now needed to show that the exceptional nature of the case is a preponderance of the evidence, not clear and convincing evidence. In other words, it is much easier for the District Court to shift fees to a losing patent litigation party and much harder for the court of appeals to overturn such fee shifting.
Although not explicitly targeted at patent trolls, these two decisions will likely affect some of the more egregious litigating parties that threaten lawsuits just to try and collect settlement paydays. Furthermore, this keeps legitimate inventors who cannot practice an invention but want to stop infringement or protect their own licensing rights from being harmed by overly harsh fee shifting rules. If you are litigating or threatening litigation and acting with poor tactics to disadvantage the opponent, that will eventually bite you when a court applies the fees from a winning party.
Bottom Line: The patent troll problem of companies buying up patents just to monetize them by threatening litigation is not going away with any one change, but making the courts more of a risky proposition for these entities should help in the long run. The patent troll may be slayed sometime soon!
-----------
Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy or in the comments below.
https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp11
The Supreme Court issued two related opinions this week that related to patent law, and specifically how to apply the fee shifting provisions applied for so-called "exceptional circumstances." This is one of the ways that frivolous litigating parties like patent trolls can be held in check, as paying the legal fees of the other party can be a deterrent when risking litigation against big pockets who have expensive legal counsel.
But how important will these decisions be in solving the patent troll problem?
The Supreme Court is giving far more discretion to the District Courts to determine what are exceptional circumstances meriting a loser pays all legal fees situation. This is not quite so far as some Congressional proposals have been, up to and including fee shifting to the loser in all patent cases, but it does make it more risky to force alleged infringers into court, especially when the case for infringement is shaky.
Another interesting part of the ruling is that the Supreme Court explicitly said an unreasonable manner in which a case is litigated can lead to fee shifting, which means patent trolls must play a little nicer or else run the risk of incurring the wrath of the court. Furthermore, the Supreme Court increased the standard fro review at the appeals court level is to look for abuse of discretion in shifting fees to a losing party, which is very different than the de novo standard that the Federal Circuit has been using (which allows for a fresh look and determination rather than giving deference to the District Court).
At the District Court, the proof now needed to show that the exceptional nature of the case is a preponderance of the evidence, not clear and convincing evidence. In other words, it is much easier for the District Court to shift fees to a losing patent litigation party and much harder for the court of appeals to overturn such fee shifting.
Although not explicitly targeted at patent trolls, these two decisions will likely affect some of the more egregious litigating parties that threaten lawsuits just to try and collect settlement paydays. Furthermore, this keeps legitimate inventors who cannot practice an invention but want to stop infringement or protect their own licensing rights from being harmed by overly harsh fee shifting rules. If you are litigating or threatening litigation and acting with poor tactics to disadvantage the opponent, that will eventually bite you when a court applies the fees from a winning party.
Bottom Line: The patent troll problem of companies buying up patents just to monetize them by threatening litigation is not going away with any one change, but making the courts more of a risky proposition for these entities should help in the long run. The patent troll may be slayed sometime soon!
-----------
Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy or in the comments below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)