From Bits to Atoms: 3D Printing and the Future of IP

by Jarred Taylor

The Economist (among others) has recently reported on a rising technology called “3D printing.”  A moderately-sized machine (that you can buy outright or build yourself) reads a design file on your computer and creates a desired object by “printing” it from bottom to top, layer-by-layer.  It’s been used to create everything from jewelry to replacement car parts, and there are efforts being made to print viable replacement bones, joints, and even organs.  And that’s not all: companies are already marketing 3D scanners that can create a detailed model of any object that you rotate in front of it.

That’s right: say hello to Star Trek‘s replicator.

For the past few decades, copyright law has been struggling with the relatively new ability for the average person to create perfect digital copies of music, videos, images, and text at effectively zero cost.  In the coming decades, copyright law will face an entirely new and potentially more harrowing challenge: the rise of the ability to create perfect physical copies of pretty much anything and everything, by anyone and everyone.

The implications are obvious.  Why would I buy a new box of Legos when I can just download the block designs and print my own?  Why would I go to the store to replace that comb I lost if I can just find the design on BitTorrent and print it in minutes?  But the possibilities for creativity are equally plain.  Just like blogging and social networking technology has inspired a world of citizen journalists, so might 3D printing inspire a world of citizen designers and manufacturers.

Many believe that 3D printing will never take off on a wide scale because the hardware is so expensive and the software too difficult to navigate.  Sound familiar?  It’s exactly the same skepticism leveled at personal computers a few decades ago.  Remember that not that long ago, the smallest computers took up entire rooms and operated using magnetic tape and punch cards.  Ken Olson, the former CEO of Digital Equipment Corporation, said in 1977 that “there is no good reason anyone would want a computer in their home.”  Today, that is probably true, because most people want their computers in the backpacks or in their pockets.

It is true that few people today know how to use 3D design software to create models suitable for 3D printing.  But nowadays, these skills are being offered to high school students.  What’s more, the software models are simple digital files: they can easily be traded online just like music and movies are today.  As with computers, the hardware costs are sure to go down as printers are perfected and components are standardized.

Any company that thought it was immune from digital piracy because its products were not readily reducible to or reproducible by 1′s and 0′s has a big surprise in store.  It looks like music and movie sales might have been only the first casualties in the wave of the disruption triggered by personal computing technology.  It will be fascinating to see how the law reacts to a technology that was positively inconceivable at copyright’s inception.  One hopes that lawmakers will reasonably account for the creative potential of this technology, and balance it against the justifiable fears of IP infringement.

by on June 17, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Copyright
Posted by Jarred Taylor on June 17, 2011

http://sips.blogs.wm.edu/2011/06/17/3d-printing-and-intellectual-propert/

Why IPWatchdog is Wrong and Computer Programmers Aren’t “Clueless”

Computer

By Joseph Kamien

Have you ever wished your computer could respond to emails for you? I’m sure you can picture it now; it would be like having your own virtual secretary. You just sit back and relax on a beach while your little machine takes care of all your important correspondence. “But wait,” you may think. “My computer may be pretty smart but it doesn’t know everything. What if there’s an email it doesn’t know how to respond to? Or what if there are certain emails I always want to answer personally?” Simple enough: we’ll just add a feature to this hypothetical computer program which classifies emails into ones that can be handled automatically and ones that require a personal response. “Amazing,” you probably think next. “If I could create this program, I could make a lot of money.” There’s a problem though: another company has already created a program that does this. “So what?” you probably think. “This is America. I’ll just create a better program, and compete with that other company. There’s nothing illegal about doing that, right?” Well, actually…

The program I’ve just described is patented as U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947 (the ’947 patent). This patent has had a long and storied history, and its validity is a rather contentious issue in the blogosphere. One blog, aimed at computer programmers, calls the patent ridiculous and obvious. Gene Quinn at IPWatchdog, a venerable blog on intellectual property law, argues that the patent is not obvious and that computer programmers who complain about software patents are “just about completely clueless, at least with respect to patent law.” Mr. Quinn has two arguments for why the patent isn’t obvious, despite the “rants” of computer programmers who think otherwise. First, Mr. Quinn argues, computer programmers are clueless and didn’t read the claims of the ’947 patent to understand how they limit the scope of the invention. Second, software is often not obvious because it’s so difficult to make software that works (“things don’t go as they are predicted, that there is not cross platform operability, and that there are truly challenged users who deviate from the norm and find new and ever more creative ways to accidentally crash whole systems”). Though I respect Mr. Quinn, he is wrong on this issue. The ‘947 patent should never have been granted because the invention was obvious at the time of invention.

First, computer programmers are not clueless, at least when it comes to understanding computers. They tend to understand what a computer is at its most basic level: a device that takes an input, runs it through a series of rules, and then produces an output. Mr. Quinn’s demonstrates how clueless computer programmers are by quoting the first (and broadest) claim in the ‘947 patent:

1. A method for automatically processing a non-interactive electronic message using a computer, comprising the steps of:

(a) receiving the electronic message from a source;

(b) interpreting the electronic message using a rule base and case base knowledge engine; and

(c) classifying the electronic message as at least one of (i) being able to be responded to automatically; and (ii) requiring assistance from a human operator.

Does this look familiar? It’s essentially a patent on taking an input (“receiving the electronic message from a source”), running it through a series of rules (“interpreting the electronic message using a rule base and case base knowledge engine”) and producing an output (“classifying the electronic message…”). In other words, it’s a patent on using a computer as a computer. To those who understand computers, this is plainly apparent, and that’s why this patent is “ridiculous.” It doesn’t make any more sense than a patent on a process for using a hammer to put a nail through wood or a process for using a typewriter to write a letter. The Supreme Court has made clear that an invention isn’t patentable if it is merely a combination of two previous inventions using each prior invention’s known function. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Logically, using only one existing invention for its known function is certainly obvious. Computer programmers aren’t clueless; it just appears that way sometimes because they see computers for what they are.

Understanding this, it’s clear why Mr. Quinn’s second argument (that the patent isn’t obvious because software is difficult to write) isn’t valid either. Writing a letter is difficult. Most letters don’t work (in the sense that they don’t get their intended messages across). They often contain spelling and grammatical mistakes as well as errors in tone and voice. Still, this doesn’t mean that one could get a patent on a process for using a typewriter to write a letter. The immense effort and creativity required to write a good letter make it a worthwhile subject for copyright law, not patent law.

Ultimately, Mr. Quinn is wrong when it comes to the patentability of this invention and the cluelessness of programmers. The USPTO was right to invalidate claim 1 and many of the other claims of this patent.

Image from Microsoft Office clipart.
Correction An earlier version of this article erroneously summarized the second part of Mr. Quinn’s argument as claiming that all software is patentable.

by on June 17, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Patent
Posted by jtkamien on June 17, 2011

http://sips.blogs.wm.edu/2011/06/17/software-patents-computer-programmers-clueles/

Skaters v. Rappers: Who Gets The Rock?

by John Alford

Normally I turn to ESPN for scores and trivial updates, but today was an exception. Beyond national championships and shootouts, a legal concern has wandered into the sports network webpage. Volcom, the clothing company that caters to the likes of skaters and surfers, is suing Roc Nation, rapper Jay-Z’s management company. All this fuss is over diamonds.

(Left = Roc Nation’s logo. Right = Volcom’s logo.  Image source.)

Wander around a skate park or high school for more than five minutes and you will find someone wearing the Volcom diamond. While those familiar with Jay-Z have seen his hand signal that looks like a diamond for some time in videos and album covers; it was when his management company capitalized on the image and turned it into a logo that the problems began. Volcom is concerned that the two brands will begin to blend based on the logos’ similarity, which is a particular problem since the parties’ target audiences can overlap. The legal issue here regards trademark infringement.

Under California statute, trademarks are property and the owner can sue for infringement. 59 Cal. Jur. 3d Trademarks and Tradenames § 7. A cause of action for infringement arises when someone, other than the registered owner, uses a trademark in a manner that “is likely to cause confusion…as to the source or origin of the goods or services.” 59 Cal. Jur. 3d Trademarks and Tradenames § 28. Volcom trademarked their logo in 1991, and after investing millions in marketing the image, the company wants to protect its interests. Looking at the two companies’ logos, one can see why Volcom is worried that Roc Nation’s logo will confuse people.

At first blush, I must admit that Roc Nation’s diamond did conjure up thoughts of Volcom in my head. If this case actually gets to the jury, then Jay-Z might have yet another problem to worry about. Case law adds weight to Volcom’s side, for there is no need to actually proof any damages occurred. Hall v. Holstrom, 106 Cal. App. 563, 572, 289 P. 668, 672 (Cal. Ct. App. 1930). In other words there is no need to wait for consumers to mistake Roc Nation products as Volcom, the courts can issue an injunction to stop such harms.

Why does this matter? Imagine for instance that you just purchased what you believed to be a Volcom sweatshirt based on the large diamond image on the chest; in reality, the sweatshirt was produced by a third party with a similar logo. As you put the sweatshirt on for the first time, you notice the stitching is coming undone. If you are grudge-holding consumer, then you might never purchase another item from Volcom again because you wrongfully believe the company produces poor quality products. You might even convince others not to buy Volcom through online and in-person rants. Obviously, this would be bad for Volcom.

Hopefully this hypothetical also shows why intellectual property is important in this instance. A company that owns a trademark wants to brand its products with the logo until consumers are familiar and comfortable with the image. Without property rights in its logo, the company would not have an effective means of advertising to its clientele since any third party could use the same logo and piggyback off the company’s success and hard work.

The court will more than likely enjoin Roc Nation from using the diamond logo. The image is just too close to Volcom’s trademark for comfort. As I stumble back through the main headlines, I see that the top headline for the NFL is also law related. This is not the proper way to distract me from the law, ESPN.

Read the articles where I found my information:

Also check out volcom.com and rocnation.com.

by on April 18, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Trademark
Posted by jralford on April 18, 2011

http://sips.blogs.wm.edu/2011/04/18/skaters-v-rappers-who-gets-the-rock/

Geohot in Hot Water

By: Dennis DeMarco

Currently Playing:  Pilotwings Resort

It appears Sony’s favorite hacker is getting creative, not at his computer screen, but in the courtroom.  George Hotz, a.k.a. “geohot” in the hacking community, is claiming he had no knowledge that Sony Computer Entertainment of Amercia (SCEA) ever existed.

Just before the start of this year, the hacking group known as fail0verflow breached several levels of security contained within Sony’s PlayStation 3 (PS3) home gaming console.  Originally, the PS3 was marketed with and contained the ability for users to install and run less common operating systems (such as Linux) on the console.  However, a firmware update on April 1st, 2010, disabled this feature.  In response, fail0verflow began working on ways to hack the PS3 in an effort to allegedly restore this functionality and they gained some success in December.

Building off fail0verflow’s work, Hotz discovered the PS3’s rootkey, a code that basically acts as a skeleton key and allows users to run and install any code they want on a PS3.  Access to this key would allow a user to easily run unapproved programs or pirated software.  As Hotz explained, “I have read/write access to the entire system memory, and HV level access to the processor. In other words, I have hacked the PS3.”  Despite being on the market for three years, no one had ever been able to hack into the PS3 as deeply as Hotz.   Hotz has claimed that his hack is not designed to run pirated software but he admits that it is much easier for other users to run pirated software once they have the rootkey.

Read the full post »

by on April 11, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Copyright, Copyright Infringement, DMCA, Online Censorship, Online Piracy
Posted by dademarco on April 11, 2011

http://sips.blogs.wm.edu/2011/04/11/geohot-in-hot-water/

Colin Rushing Discusses SoundExchange with SIPS

SoundExchangelogoBy Joseph Kamien

On Thursday, Colin Rushing visited SIPS to discuss SoundExchange. Mr. Rushing is the senior counsel for licensing and enforcement at SoundExchange, which is the sole organization entrusted by the Library of Congress with collecting and disbursing digital performance royalties. He spoke with the group about the nature of royalties in the music industry, and answered questions. He also discussed his own career path in the field of intellectual property law.

by on March 27, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Copyright
Posted by sips on March 27, 2011

http://sips.blogs.wm.edu/2011/03/27/colin-rushing-discusses-soundexchange-with-sips/

SIPS Presents William and Mary Law Alumnus Pam Gavin

By Tony Guo

Yesterday, SIPS member attended a question and answer on what it is like to be an intellectual property lawyer. Ms. Gavin answered student and professor questions during her presentation on the benefits of practicing intellectual property. Originally I thought we should do a PowerPoint presentation on international trademarks but I could not resist using Ms. Gavin’s incredible personality. Therefore, we opted instead to do an open question and answer; none of the questions prepared beforehand. Ms. Gavin shined.

Many questions were job related. Ms. Gavin described the differences between transactional intellectual property and litigious intellectual property simply. If you are quiet, meticulous, and reserved than transactional intellectual property may be a good fit. If you are loud, ostentatious, and cannot stay in your seat than litigious intellectual property may be a better fit. Further, Ms. Gavin discussed working in different firms. After graduating law school, Ms. Gavin joined a large firm. The benefits of a large firm are high pay and legal experience only acquirable at a large firm. The disadvantages are long hours and exorbitant stress levels to meet the required billable hours. One student asked about working in counsel. Ms. Gavin described her personal experiences working in counsel as confusing. After working in counsel, Ms. Gavin became determined to open her own firm, Gavin Law Offices. Gavin Law Offices represents how a firm can be both successful and a great place to work.

Some of the most interesting questions came from Professor Hardy. Professor Hardy is currently teaching the intellectual property elective at William and Mary Law. He was Ms. Gavin’s professor for that course. Ms. Gavin remembers the final well. She took the final on her birthday. Professor Hardy remains one of Ms. Gavin’s favorite professors. SIPS members and Ms. Gavin enjoyed the Professor Hardy’s informative and humorous comments . It was an unexpected but welcome pleasure to have Professor Hardy drop by to a SIPS event.

Ms. Gavin offered several pieces of advice to students interested in pursuing careers in law, particularly intellectual law. She suggested that business experience is an essential tool all lawyers should learn. Lawyers with business experience are more attractive to clients. However, it is not enough to be well versed in general business knowledge. Lawyers should make an outstanding effort to understand how a client’s particular business operates. As the presentation winded down, Ms. Gavin offered one last piece of advice that was echoed by the William and Mary Alumni department. The most important thing for students to learn in law school is how to confidently advertise oneself. Ms. Gavin suggested that whenever you achieve something positive to go ahead and write it down in a journal. Before interviews or trials read the journal and figure out what defines you as a lawyer.

by on February 18, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in General Interest
Posted by kirin on February 18, 2011

http://sips.blogs.wm.edu/2011/02/18/sips-presents-william-and-mary-law-alumni-pam-gavin/

Apple and the inventive spirit

By Tony Guo
Patents, trademarks, and copyrights protect the inventive spirit from burning out. Each era had its great inventors and their iconic inventions. Thomas Edison invented the light-bulb. Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone. George Washington Carver invented three hundred ways to use a peanut. Henry Ford re-invented the assembly line. This era’s greatest inventor is arguably the company Apple. But what is Apple’s greatest invention? It has a long list of inventions to choose from but only one that inspires people to invent, the app.

Apple has stated at various times that it would never go into the market for an e-reader, phone, or inexpensive computer. These are market where many entered and almost all failed. Apple was able to step into these markets by thinking outside the box and may begin to dominate all three markets with the ipad. The website www.patentlyapple.com lists patented inventions from Apple. But Apple’s most iconic invention is not patented.

One of the most inventive patents on patentlyapple is an image diagnostics app that can help solve medical problems. The app has recently been approved by the FDA. Apple’s greatest contribution to the inventive spirit is inspiring others to invent their own applications. Apple’s applications make inventing cool (probably for the first time in history). America prides itself on being an innovative country. However actual inventing has been popularly construed as restricted to geniuses, mad scientists, and the kids you make fun of at the lunch table. Anyone can invent an app. Apple has inspired a generation to invent what it wants to use. Many magazines, like Time, have composed lists of the best apps. I list a few of my favorite below to breadth of creativeness.

Plants vs. Zombies. Both my fiancée’s and I love playing this game. It’s creative and with the ipad touch screen amazingly addicting.

Angry Birds. This app is on many iphones and itouches. The game is just fun. Who wouldn’t want to throw various sized birds at buildings?

Kayak. This app searches for hotels, flights, and car rentals. It has information about the airport which most airport employees do not know.

Yelp. This is my fiancée’s favorite. Yelp allows users to search nearby restaurants. It lists how close a restaurant is, what the general price is, and what is open.

World Lens. This app allows real time translation. It allows you to point the app at a Spanish menu to translate it.

Each application has its own inventors and its own stories. Without Apple many of these applications would not exist. Apple provided the technology and allowed its users to be creative. I would guess if another company invented the ipad/ipod/etc it would dominate the application market for the device. This happens often in the science and medical fields. Companies tend to monopolize great inventions and not want others to modify it. Even with a modifying patent you have to get a license on the original to use the modification. Perhaps Apple will inspire the science and medical fields to allow for modifications on drugs and procedures. Some of these modifications may even come from patients turn inventors. In a hundred years Apple will not be remember for its mac, ipod, or ipad. These things will be replaced with holographic imaging devices (which Apple is developing right now) and other unbelievable electronics. But what Apple will be remembered for, is its recognition that users are the best inventors.

by on February 11, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in General Interest
Posted by kirin on February 11, 2011

http://sips.blogs.wm.edu/2011/02/11/apple-and-the-inventive-spirit/

2011 Student IP Writing Contest

Virginia IP writing contest.  Cash prize 4000 dollars.  See here.

by on January 31, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in General Interest
Posted by kirin on January 31, 2011

http://sips.blogs.wm.edu/2011/01/31/2011-student-ip-writing-contest/

GRIPLA Meetings for the Semester

Please find the GRIPLA meetings here.  SIPS is planning to carpool to each meeting.

by on January 31, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in General Interest
Posted by kirin on January 31, 2011

http://sips.blogs.wm.edu/2011/01/31/gripla-meetings-for-the-semester/

New Patent Bar Exam in April

The Patent Bar Exam gets an update this April. See here.

by on January 31, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in General Interest
Posted by kirin on January 31, 2011

http://sips.blogs.wm.edu/2011/01/31/new-patent-bar-exam-in-april/

« Older Posts
Newer Posts »

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Disclaimer

    The content of this website is not intended to be legal advice, nor should it be interpreted or used as such. The authors and editors make no representations or warranties as to the accuracy of the information posted.