Legal Geek No. 195: Future TV Tech evokes Latest Phone Innovations

Hi, and welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday in the most American way possible...by looking at future television tech that may define Black Friday deals in years to come. 

https://archive.org/details/legalgeekep195 

LG has been one of the top television manufacturers over the past decade, and the Korean company continues to innovate beyond just the resolution level.  LG previously announced in 2019 a rollable TV that can retract by rolling up into a base to make the television blend in with other furniture rather than being a static "black mirror" and centerpiece.  While that is certainly an exciting development for LED television screens, another big announcement may be coming when reviewing the recent patent application publications of this same company.

To this end, a patent application published in the U.S. from LG describes a foldable OLED television.  Much like the rolling design, the goal is to fold up the television screen into a much more compact space when not in use, which can allow for customers to enjoy having a much wider screen like a 21:9 aspect ratio without having to have that equipment always present at full size.  

According to the drawings in the patent, this television design will follow the example of some recent smart phone innovations allowing for foldable phone screens.  In this case, more folds are necessary for the large TV screen, and the patent shows six segments folding in a zig-zag or accordion style on top of one another when moving to the stowed position.  Unlike rollable TV's with a base that holds the core electronics, the foldable TV shown in the patent application proposes end frames on opposite sides that presumably hold the internal electronics for the TV, while also holding speakers and acting as stands for the screen when deployed.

Of course, LG will need to overcome the same hurdles that have plagued smart phone manufacturers like Samsung in making these foldable screens durable and reliable.  However, if LG can successfully solve the problem of a rolling OLED screen, one would think this company can also solve and bring to market some foldable option.  Regardless, until we see a more finalized design on a show floor like CES, the jury will be out on whether this future TV tech will become reality of tomorrow.

A quick legal point before we head back to turkey leftovers.  Patent applications generally publish 18 months after an initial filing, so LG has been working on this design for quite some time.  Patent publications put the world on notice regarding what companies are seeking to patent, but until the national patent offices actually examine and grant the patent, there is no enforceable right.  So LG is far from dominating the market, let alone hitting the sales shelves on Black Friday.  Nevertheless, this gives us a glimpse into the product development process and where the legal battles may be over intellectual property in the tech field for the future.

The Bottom Line is: tech products will never stop innovating, and consumers will generally continue to benefit.  As a closing note about American Thanksgiving, I want to thank Tom and Scott for continuing to make Current Geek in all its iterations and making this segment an integral part of their podcast.  Furthermore, I'm thankful for all you listeners who send feedback and suggestions, and I look forward to providing more legal knowledge and insight in 2020 and beyond.

----------------------------------

Do you have a question? Send it in!

Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy

Legal Geek No. 194: Privacy Law Issues with Facebook and Stalking Apps

Hi, and welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we take a look at a couple more news stories in the always evolving field of privacy law, these being related to Facebook and Stalking software apps.

https://archive.org/details/legalgeekep194  

Retina-X Studios is the maker of three stalking apps designed to keep tabs on computers or mobile devices.  These software apps are called Mobile Spy, Phone Sheriff, and Sniper Spy.  Such apps allow for real-time monitoring and reports of activities and movements of such devices, along with some blocking capabilities.  On their website, Retina-X markets these apps as useful for tracking employees use of computers as well as children.  In other words, people and devices that the software user hypothetically has control over.

However, in 2018 some of the data collected by these apps became subject to public knowledge thanks to some hackers who attacked this company and its technology.  For example, some photographs saved on phones for the user's review were revealed.  This data breach led as most do to a consumer protection complaint to the FTC, which investigated the company and eventually settled on an agreement to avoid significant monetary sanctions.

In addition to the failure to secure all data from the hackers, the FTC found that Retina-X did not do enough to ensure that the applications were used solely for legitimate tracking purposes.  Evidence supporting this conclusion included that Retina-X facilitated surreptitious use of tracking by telling customers how to keep the tracking app icon from showing on the device it was installed on.  Furthermore, the app could be installed without the knowledge or consent of the device user by bypassing manufacturer restrictions such as by jailbreaking devices.  Both of these practices opened the door for significant criminal and dangerous use of the software.

So the FTC settlement requires that the company halt sales of any software that bypasses security protections, while also making the customers affirmatively state that they will only use such apps to monitor children or employees or someone who provides written consent.  The establishment of comprehensive security protocols to protect sensitive data is also being required.  Despite the FCC efforts to protect consumers, we must all understand that such types of software exist and are easily obtained.

This week another big privacy issue hit the news about Facebook, which had its iOS app operating without user consent to activate and capture live video images with the rear-facing camera while the user was scrolling through their news feed.  The live video capture was hidden behind other onscreen content.  Whether this was intentional or an accidental bug, as Facebook assets, Facebook took swift action to patch this issue and remove the problem from the iOS app.  Even with the fix, this is another reputational hit to Facebook, with consumers growing ever more sensitive and aware of the lack of data privacy on that social networking platform.

The Bottom Line is: consumers and private citizens have a lot of help on their side in the battle over data and privacy, including the government agency the FTC as well as all the technophiles who keep close tabs on functionalities within apps like Facebook.  Nevertheless, we would all be wise to be aware of how open and at risk our sensitive and private data and information can be, so that we can opt-in or take precautions based on our own personal preferences.

----------------------------------

Do you have a question? Send it in!

Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy

Legal Geek No. 193: Monopoly and Hasbro define cutting edge in EU Trademark Law

Hi, and welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we review how Hasbro and its Monopoly brand have surprisingly ended up being the center of a seminal case changing how trademark filing practice works in the European Union.

https://archive.org/details/legalgeekep193 

Like many other jurisdictions, the European Union allows trademark registrations on brands and logos that have not yet gone into actual use, but eventually use in commerce must be proven to confirm the validity of the trademark.  Whereas in the U.S. applicants are give up to 3 years to prove use to finalize a registration, in the EU a five-year grace period is provided before proof of use is necessary.  The EU is more liberal as well in that during the grace period, the trademark rights are still enforceable, unlike the U.S. where use is required before final registration or enforcement.

As a result of this set of laws, many trademark owners in the EU have commonly refiled new applications covering their brands before the expiration of the 5 years, thereby resetting the clock on the grace period and avoiding the need to prove use through evidence.  However, this practice is in jeopardy after a case involving Hasbro and its famous Monopoly brand.

Hasbro followed the common practice of re-filing trademark applications for the Monopoly brand in several classes of goods and services before the end of a 5-year grace period in a pending prior registration.  Hasbro's most recent re-filing came under a cancellation attack from a company called Kreativni Dogadaji, specifically for violating a rule prohibiting bad faith in trademark filings, this rule demanding honest commercial and business practices from EU applicants.  While an administrative review panel originally favored Hasbro and the historical re-filing precedent or practice, an Appeal Board reversed this decision last month and sent the EU trademark world into a new reality.

To this end, the Appeal Board held that when a party seeking cancellation of a trademark uses objective factors to support a claim of bad faith, the burden of proof shifts to the trademark owner to prove its use of good faith in the filing.  That can be incredibly difficult to do when the new application contains identical or substantially similar marks or goods and services covered, as was the case in the Hasbro case.  Hasbro appeared to admit clearly on the record that an important reason for the re-filing was the resetting of the grace period to minimize administrative burden of maintaining the trademarks, and the Appeal Board latched heavily onto this in their decision.

So the Monopoly brand is vulnerable to more competition in Europe, which puts Hasbro in a somewhat similar spot as in the U.S., where the suffix -opoly has been deemed to be descriptive and allowed for all similar game competitors to use.  More importantly, the overall filing and maintenance strategy for trademarks in the EU has changed for all brand owners, as now avoiding the proof of use requirement is very difficult.  And it all stems back to a case about the tabletop game Monopoly, go figure.

It will be interesting to see how filing strategy changes for European brand owners moving forward.  Further court decisions are also due which may vary the outcome from the initial ruleset put out in the Monopoly decision.

The Bottom Line is: while the Appeal Board made a drastic change in trademark law and practice in the EU with this decision by shifting the burden of proof in a bad faith/good faith analysis, the end result may be an EU trademark system more in line with how brand owners must prove use to actually obtain an enforceable registration in many other jurisdictions.  Consistency is a good thing for companies doing worldwide business, so this may be a welcome change despite the increased costs that will be incurred for collecting and submitting the proof of use evidence when the grace periods have run out.  One might say the EU no longer has a monopoly on enforcing non-used trademarks, but we don't want to be too on the nose.

----------------------------------

Do you have a question? Send it in!

Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy