I have to hand it to the Jordan School District.  They have done a great job of playing the victim and spinning the facts.  Their PR people should be proud.

 For nearly a decade the Jordan School District poured money into building new state of the art schools on the west side while all but ignoring the aging schools on the east side of the district.  After years of frustration, the residents on the east side finally decided to leave and start a school district that would take their children's safety and comfort a little more seriously.  

Right out the gate residents on the west side complained that they did not get to vote.  Of course, there is no doubt how they would vote.  Why let the east side leave then all that tax money from the east side was busy building new, state of the art schools on the west side? Who cares if kids on the east side are going to schools built in the 1960s and 1970s that do not meet earthquake codes, if our kids are getting the latest and greatest?

So when the east side voted to leave, did they cash in.  No!  To the contrary, the new Canyons School District has to pay nearly 59 percent of the debt service on all of those new schools on the west side.  ($20 Million per year).  This while it is estimated that Canyons School District needs to spend nearly $650 Million on its aging schools.

Having received a $20 Million annual subsidy, the great PR department for the Jordan School District came up with yet another way to extract more money from Canyons.  When Canyons left, the tax revenue per pupil went up in the Canyons and down in Jordan School District.  There is now nearly a $1,000 per student variance.  Ah! Jordan can claim victim status once again by demanding that Canyons District give some of that disparity to Jordan.  Of course, when arguing its case to the media, the Jordan School District completely omits the fact  that it has a stable full of brand new schools while Canyons District needs $650 million for capital improvements.

If Canyons were to keep that $1000 per student difference, it would take 19 years  to make all of the renovations needed for its aging schools.  However, legislators from the cities in the Jordan School District are now seeking an addition $15 million annual tribute to "equalize" tax revenues.  Why don't they propose anything to "equalize" the great disparity in physical assets?  Because, despite the claim to being a conservative state, many of our legislators love a bailout.  Any time you can get your hands on other people's money, count them in.

Here is a really radical idea.  The residents of the Jordan School District actually raise their taxes to provide adequate funding for their school district.  Otherwise, you are doing the same thing you are complaining about OBAMA.  Redistribution is redistribution, regardless of who votes for it.

        

Every so often a large entity gets the crazy notation that having a trademark gives them ownership of a word, rather than the exclusive use of the word for their goods or services.  The NFL is notorious for trying to own the word SUPERBOWL, even though there are numerous contexts in which use of the word by others would be fair use.

Not be be outdone, the International Olympic Committee apparently believes that it owns everything involved in the Olympics, right down to the names of the athletes.   While some companies may legally challenge the IOC's silly position, others have responded with a flair that demonstrates the baselessness of the IOC's position while simultaneously having a little fun.  Check out the retort by UVEX, when an athlete who uses their products, Lindsey Vonn, wone the gold medal in the downhill.

UVEX should post the letter from the IOC, just to give everyone a good laugh.

        

One of the things that frustrates many people with our courts is the inability to resolve matters quickly.  A plaintiff with a lot of money can drive a competitor under regardless of the merits of its claims.  In part, it has to do with judges not just stepping up and saying that there is no way a jury could find for the Plaintiff.  Even if it would not totally resolve the case, such action by a judge could really streamline the litigation.

One case that seems to beg such action by the court is The North Face Apparel Company v. Williams Pharmacy et al.   Williams Pharmacy  sells product of The South Butt, LLC another of the defendants.

While North Face has trade dress claims based on its "iconic" coat design, the major issue is whether the mark THE NORTH FACE is infringed by the mark THE SOUTH BUTT.   Apparently, North Face believes that consumers cannot determine the difference between North and South or between a face and a butt.


Clearly, the THE SOUTH BUTT mark is a parody on THE NORTH FACE.  Not only does South Butt parody the name, it also makes fun of THE NORTH FACE slogan "NEVER STOP EXPLORING" with the retort NEVER STOP RELAXING.  On top of SOUTH BUTT's website, it also adds the question "Why climb mountains?"

It is clear that THE NORTH FACE does not like being the "BUTT" of the joke.  But does anyone actually believe that consumers are likely to confuse the two marks as originating from a common source.  One is clearly mocking the other.  (Apparently the Court believes that a jury in Missouri could find a likelihood of confusion.) 

"Winkelmann and The South Butt also argue that the marks are so dissimilar that The North Face cannot possibly prevail.  I do not find it to be implausible that the marks cannot cause a likelihood of confusion or dilution."

That does not speak well for the jury pool in the Show Me State.

What is even more frightening is that, not only did the Court deny the motion, the Court suggested that the motion bordered on the frivolous.  The Court noted:

"I remind counsel of their obligations under Rule 11 and that, with each filing, they certify to the Court that the motion is not being presented to harass, cause unnecessary delay or needlessly increase the cost of litigation and that the legal contentions are warranted by existing case law or nonfrivolous  arguments for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.  Although this filing may not reach the level of frivolity, it approaches the line."


 WOW!  So much for parody and the First Amendment.

        

No one doubts that the U.S. is no longer a manufacturing giant.  We have lost most of those jobs.  So where does our wealth come from.   According a presentation by Ocean Tomo (the largest marketer of intellectual property) at the Utah State Bar IP Summit, the value of U.S. intellectual property is worth between $5-5.5 Trillion dollars.  That is greater than the gross domestic product of any other country.    This makes up roughly 75 percent of the valuation of the S & P 500.

One of the eventual goals to is create a market for trading intellectual property analogous to the commodity exchanges in Chicago.  One thing that is clear is that IP has become an asset separate from the operating entity where it is created.

        

Being a patent attorney is enjoyable because you get to see cutting edge technology and some creative solutions to problems that have plagued people.  Some solutions, though, are a little odd.  One example is the Easy Inter Burial Container in which a body is a placed in a giant screw and then drilled into the ground.   It would definitely be more efficient - but may a little less solemn as grandpa spins into the ground.

        

It is ironic that it is illegal to open accounts in your children's' names and go into debt.  It is identity theft and you can do jail time.

In contrast, you can steal much more from your children by simply electing politicians who will continue to run up the national debt.  Currently, our national debt is just shy of $40,000.00 per person.   A family of four owes $160,000.

So how are we dealing with our debt?  The same way that we got into our current mess.  This coming year the federal budget will be $3.83 Trillion.   That works our to just shy of $12,500.00 per person, or $50,000.00 for a family of four.  (The medium household income in the U.S. for 2007-2008 was $51,233). 

So what will we do when the interest we pay on the federal debt exceeds the total revenues collected by the federal government (an event that could happen relatively soon if interest rates spike)?  Simple, we will borrow more and pass the debt onto our children.  We will have bankrupted the wealthiest nation on earth.  We should be so proud.

        

It looks like Apple has made yet another mess in its trademark department.  A few years ago Apple launched a revolutionary new telephone, only to get mired down in the fact that Cisco already had a registration for IPHONE for computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks.  Apparently Apple was able to work out a deal and get its own registration.

Having already been through that mess, you think Apple would have thought through the IPAD a little more carefully.  The problem is that Fujitsu Transactions Solutions already has a pending trademark for IPAD and has use going back more than 8 years.  Of course, Apple has filed for an extension to oppose Fujitsu's mark.  Apple's likely position will be that it owns anything with an I in front of it.  The odds of winning on that ground seem pretty slim.  Thus, Apple will probably pay off another company.  One wonders why not put a little more effort on the front end to naming your products so you avoid trademark conflicts.

        

The record setting patent awards continue.  Recently a Federal judge ordered Abbott Laboratories to pay $176 M in interest to Centocor (a division of Johnson & Johnson) for sales of the drug Humira.  That was on top of the $1.67 billion awarded for the infringement of Centocor's patent .  A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you are talking serious money.

        

Google has lost a major round in its attempt to put digitized copies of books on the internet.  Somehow Google thought it could overcome the copyrights of the authors whose works it was copying.  A French court, however, recently disagreed, ordering Google to stop scanning French books and awarding $430,000 to copyright owners who sue Google for infringement.  While the idea of having books on the internet is a great idea that will spread knowledge, Google does not get a free pass regarding infringing others copyrights.

        

There has been a fair amount of press on the intention of the FTC to penalize bloggers for not disclosing renumeration (money, free product, etc.,) that they receive when the write posts endorsing products.  When you think about it, disclosure makes sense.  Do we really want to have friends tell us things that are in reality just a commercial.  The $11,000 potential fine, on the other hand, may be a tad on the excessive.

While the disclosure requirements on blogs has caught the media's attention, the new FTC rules actually go much further.  If you advertise, you probably will want to make sure you aren't walking into a hornet's nest.

Everyone has seen the ads for the guy who went from a 250 lb. marshmallow to a ripped Men's Fitness model in a couple of months.  (Much as most of us would like - it usually does not happen that way).  If you look carefully, the advertisement will almost always have a disclaimer "results not typical."   One of the big changes is that the safe harbor disclaimer will no longer be allowed.  Now you will have to identify what typical results are.  So if the your spokesperson is a freak of nature who lost 50 times your customers' average of 2 lbs, you are going to have to disclose that typical results are two pounds.

The disclosure requirement is also going to extend to peer to peer advertising.  If you are are giving award points to a million teenagers who proselyte their friends for you, be aware that those "spontaneous" endorsements have to be disclosed as advertising.  Yes, it kind of ruins the effect of peer to peer advertising when people realize that you are paying people to be their friends.  However, failure to do so may bring down the ire of the FTC.  "Hey Johny, that new video game I bought rocks - This has been a paid commercial for Jimbo's new video game."

Another interesting change in the rules is that the endorser may now also be liable for violations of the rules.  Thus, if you make your living endorsing people's products, what you do not say may be just as important as what you do.

What to do - read the rules and make sure that your latest ad campaign won't get you a visit from the FTC.

Here is the FTC Announcement

Here is the Revised Endorsement Guide