IP Thoughts

Should The Courts Redistribute Wealth?

Rand Bateman — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 08:01:44 GMT

This morning I heard a number of interviews that Senator Obama gave back in 2001. In the interviews Obama suggests that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed. He also criticized the Warren Court (known as the most liberal era of the Supreme Court) because it did not "break free" of the limitations placed on the Court by our founding fathers. (I thought that was the point of the Constitution).

In the interviews Obama argued for the redistribution of wealth. Is that really what this country stands for? Do we want economic equality or economic opportunity?

As the saying goes, "Capitalism is a great system for making people unequally rich, socialism is a great system for making everying equally poor."

I Do Not Choose To Be A Common Man

Rand Bateman — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:23:17 GMT

I ran into this quote on Dave Ramsey's Website. I think it sums up what our ancestors who revolted against the British or made their way here later believed. I hope it is still the case for most of us.

I Do Not Choose to Be a Common Man

It is my right to be uncommon—if I can.

I seek opportunity—not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me.

I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed.

I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia.

I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any master nor bend to any threat.

It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act for myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations and to face the world boldly and say, “This I have done.”

By Dean Alfange

Every time we ask the government to do something for us that we should do for ourselves, we lose a little of our ability to do it for ourselves the next time.

Why Doesn't The Media Question Pelosi's Attempt to Blame Bush for the Mortgage Crisis

Rand Bateman — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 23:35:51 GMT

While I disagree with Pres. Bush on many issues, it is a shame that the media has allowed Rep. Pelosi to blame Bush for the credit crisis. The Bush administration has been warning of the very crisis we are now facing since 2001.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&feature=related

Who Really Caused The Subprime Meltdown

Rand Bateman — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 23:17:14 GMT

Sen. Obama and Rep. Pelosi have done a good job of hanging the credit crisis around the necks of Republicans. John McCain has repeatedly pointed out that he sponsored legislation two years ago to reign in the irresponsible lending. However, the issue goes much deeper than that. The Democrats have been fighting regulation of the mortgages for years. Listen to the following and hear Democratic reps. berating regulators who were warning of the pending crisis. Even Pres. Clinton admits that his own party was blocking attempts to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related

Won't it be ironic if John McCain loses because of the very issue he and other Republicans were warning about years ago. Any guess why the media does not run any of this video?

Things That Make You Go - Hmm!

Rand Bateman — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:44:46 GMT

We know that the banking system is messed up - in large part due to the Federal Government (ie. Sen. Dodd and Rep. Frank) blocking efforts to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's subprime mortgage gluttony. Well this week I had my own banking crisis. It seems someone somehow got a hold of one of my credit card numbers and spent $1200+ at Overstock, Amazon, Newegg and BUY.com. Fortunately, it was a card I had not used in a long time so the charges were very easy to spot.

Now the part that makes you go - Hmm! The companies which charged my card are not allowed to give me additional information about where the fraudulently purchased goods went. Yes, they were billed to my card, but since I didn't order them, the shipments are apparently none of my business. Good thing that the government is protecting the privacy of credit card thieves. It would be really bad if people were able to find out who was actually ripping them off. Perhaps we will get some rational people in Washington once we vote them all out and start over.

Pres. Bush Signs New Law Against Copyright Infringers

Rand Bateman — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:24:54 GMT

Pres. Bush has signed the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act of 2008. The act is designed to give increased penalties against infringement and specifically against counterfeiters. The bills increases the amount of statutory damages available and provides for trebled damages in the case of counterfeiting. It also broadens a Court's ability to impound the materials used to make infringements, i.e. an infringer's computer.

The legislation also includes the creation of a new post in the Executive Branch to oversee IP enforcement. Gone from the legislation, however, is a provision that would allow the Department of Justice to file civil actions and turn the proceeds over to copyright owners. The Bush Administration insisted that the provision be removed, because the Department of Justice should not be "pro bono" lawyers for Intellectual Property holders.

Of course, all of the new provisions can be avoided by simply being honest and not infringing other peoples work. If you want it - just pay for it.

Oversight - The Blind Leading The Stupid

Rand Bateman — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:15:52 GMT

As our Congress gets ready to vote on a $700 Billion bailout ($2667 for every man, woman and child) for the "credit crisis", Congress assures us that they have put in provisions for increased "oversight." They blame Wall Street and clueless or greedy consumers for creating this mess. Their assurances of oversight, however, should be concerning because no one in Congress or the Administration seems to appreciate where the credit crisis started. Who is to blame - Democrats . . . and Republicans. Since our elected officials created this mess - how can we have any confidence that they can fix it - or that there will be proper oversight.

In 1992 Congress mandated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - (two quasi government businesses where politicians send their friends as political rewards) - increase their purchases of mortgages to low-income and medium income borrowers. In the late 1990s, the success of the program was heralded. It was referred to as "one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era" by the LA Times in 1999. Fannie and Freddie were required to devote 42% of their portfolios to such loans. Congress was applying pressure to increase even more of the risky loans, while Fannie argued that a higher target would produce more loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers.

In 1999 Franklin Raines from the Clinton Administration took over Fannie Mae.   Over the next six years Raines managed to make $90 million from Fannie Mae, while another Clinton official - Jamie Gorelick walked out with $75 million. They finally had to resign and Fannie Mae ended up paying a $400 million civil fine for accounting irregularities - i.e. overstating earnings. Mr. Raines is apparently now an economic adviser to Sen. Obama. That is all we need is more fudging of the books in Washington.

While the Democrats set Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac - as well as the market as the whole - on the same course as the Titanic, the Republicans assumed the helm and did . . . well - nothing.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were able to survive because property values kept going up. If someone got in over their head on a mortgage, they could sell the house for more than they bought it before foreclosure.   The cook the books scandal at Fannie Mae should have been a wakeup call for Republicans. They had control of both houses of Congress and the Administration.   So where was the oversight? Even Fannie may had predicted six years earlier that pushing these loans would result in more defaults. Numerous financial types were warning that this train wreck was coming.

So who do we trust for oversight? The Bush administration that has been asleep at the wheel for the last 8 years? Senator Dodd, the chair of the Senate Banking Committee? You know, the guy who has been the No. 1 recipient of Fannie Mae political contributions and received sweetheart loans from Countrywide - the first mortgage company to tank when property values started to drop.

Compounding the loan debacle, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley act several years ago. Put in place in response to Enron, the act has accounting practices that are amplifying the current problem. Companies must report their assets in current market value. Because no one wants sub-prime mortgage back securities, many companies must post massive losses, even though the mortgages behind the securities are worth many times the current trading prices.   For example, Merrill Lynch recently sold over $30 Billion in mortgage-backed securities for 22 cents on the dollar. If you have securities backed by $25 Billion in mortgages, the current value is not a little over $5 Billion.  You just lost $20 Billion - even though the odds are that only a few percentage points of home owners will actually default on their loans.

Simply put, the American people cannot trust any of our politicians to exercise oversight over the largest bailout in American history.  They have already loaded it up with money for special interests and will fail again as they trade real oversight for campaign contributions.

Should the Wall Street gurus who bought these risky loans be fired? Sure, right after the people who started the problem in the first place - Congress.

Yes, once again, the inmates are running the asylum - and they have your unlimited access to your checkbook.

Building a Financial Fence

Rand Bateman — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 23:44:57 GMT

Much has been said about building a fence to keep people out of the United States. However, the government has also built a fence to keep people in. Not literally, they do not care if you leave - as long as you keep paying taxes here. This summer Congress passed a new law which levies a 45% tax against Americans and resident aliens to renounce their citizenship or return their green card. It is one thing to make sure that people pay taxes on what they earn. It is another to take nearly half their assets if they want to leave the country.

Perhaps rather than trying to steal people's property if they want to leave we should structure our economy and tax law so successful people do not want to leave. The concept of private property was a cornerstone of the founding of this country. How far we have strayed.

The Appeal of Palin

Rand Bateman — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:58:58 GMT

Recently I had a discussion with a conservative attorney who was vocal in his position that Gov. Palin was not right for the Vice Presidency. He believed that we needed someone with more education and experience. She only has a bachelors degree and did not go to an Ivy-league school. Ironically, it appears the American people disagree. The polls suggest that the public is giving her the thumbs up.

I think one of the reasons that the public likes Palin is because she is not from the educational/political elite. While Harvard and Columbia may be nice, a degree from these institutions does not guarantee that you have common sense. Some would argue that the opposite may be true. Palin comes across as a genuine member of the middle class - someone most of us can relate to.

The meltdown on Wall Street this week will likely reinforce this view for many Americans. Dave Ramsey and other pedestrian financial advisers have been warning for years that sub-prime mortgages are a train wreck waiting to happen. The Ivy-league geniuses on Wall Street, however, gobbled up the mortgages. What could be wrong with lending to people with no equity and a house payment that would adjust up significantly within two years? While it generated great bonuses for a few years, now the financial geniuses have tin cup in hand seeking a hand out from the American tax payers.

The upside of Palin is that she appears to be an ordinary person. The average voter can relate to her and have a degree of confidence that she is not going to try some sophisticated economic scheme that neither she nor they understand. In other words, they like Palin because they get her - and it sounds like she has common sense - a very rare commodity in Washington, D.C.

The meltdown on Wall Street will probably make Palin even more likable to most middle class voters. Ironically, it may have the exact opposite effect on Obama. Two of Obama's chief economic advisers were executives at Lehman Brothers and Fannie Mae. In fact, one made $90 Million from Fannie Mae while Fannie Mae was buying up sub-prime loans and while Obama was becoming one of the top recipients of contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While Obama has been playing up negative news in the economy, it could be a liability for him if voters associate his economic advisers with the poor decisions and greed that lead to Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy and Fannie Mae's bailout by taxpayers.

Why Not Debate the Issues?

Rand Bateman — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:57:07 GMT

One of the biggest problems that we have in the United States is the lack of civility in our political discourse. The purpose of politics is to make decisions that will effect each of our lives. Thus, the focus should be on the issues which politicians must vote, rather than on silly gamesmanship. We should be able to have discourse without acrimony and without each side waiting for the other side to make a misstatement that can be misused for political advantage.

While both candidates claim to be reformers, both campaigns have been engaging in politics as usual. It is a disservice both to the candidates and the American people.

The latest example is the professed outrage over Obama's comment that "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig." I listened to Obama's speech and it is clear that he was referring to his views of John McCain's policies, not Gov. Palin or even McCain himself.  Ironically, when I was listening to Obama's speech I was thinking how he could more precisely make his point rather than the drawn out lead up before the lipstick comment. I thought of the very same quote a moment before Obama said it. A few seconds later, I though - oh no, now this is all we are going to hear about tomorrow.

It is appropriate to criticize the policies of the other candidate, that it what campaigns should be about. It may also be appropriate to criticize the behavior of the other candidate that is inconsistent with their position. For example, Rep. Charlie Rangel of New York is the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee. He has been an outspoken advocate of raising taxes on the "rich." It was revealed this week that Rep. Rangel has not paid taxes on $75,000 of income received for a house he owns in the Dominican Republic.   He is also currently undergoing an ethics investigation for renting 4 apartments at below market rates.   That from the man who has the most control over tax policy of any member of Congress. Has anyone noticed that Nancy Pelosi has forgotten the phrase "culture of corruption" now that it is Democrats who are having ethics issues.

Ironically, the common tactic of both parties is to accuse the other side of "going negative" whenever a candidate's record is discussed.  Honestly relating your opponents voting record is not "going negative" - it is exactly where the debate should be focused.

The American people would be far better served if both sides stopped playing gotcha politics and instead focused on the real issues in this election. Do you want a larger government or a smaller government? Should we raise taxes on the "rich" and redistribute that money to people who don't pay any taxes at all? Do we want more energy exploration? Do the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan make us safer?

By focusing on gotcha politics we only guarantee more of the same. While Pres. Bush's popularity is remarkably low, the ratings of Congress are even lower. Simply put, while the skirmishes may be temporarily entertaining and they may be welcomed by extremists on the right and left, the American people are getting sick of such tactics by both sides.

The next time a statement is made that "could be" sexist or racist, etc., etc., etc., the allegedly aggrieved party should simply come out and say - "I know he/she did not intend for it to be taken like that - lets get back to the issues." Such a response would be well received by the vast majority of voters.

Did Law Firm Announcement Constitute False Advertising?

Rand Bateman — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:02:43 GMT

Under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), it is deemed unfair competition to misrepresent the nature or quality of ones services or the services of a competitor. While many people consider their advertising to ensure that they are not violating this federal law, more care should be given to press releases and other announcements as well.

For example, recently a Salt Lake City law firm made an announcement that they had been named among the top firms in the United States based on the number of trademarks obtained according to Intellectual Property Today magazine. The firm, which ranked 82nd nationally, then went on to state that they were “the only Salt Lake City based firm included in the 2008 rankings of 328 law firms and individuals.”

While the statement sounds impressive, it is factually inaccurate. There were at least two other Salt Lake City based firms (not to mention several firms with Salt Lake City offices) which also made the list. Morris O’Bryant & Compagni was ranked 229th and Bateman IP Law Group was ranked 233rd . Ironically, both Morris O’Bryant & Compagni and Bateman IP Law Group had substantially higher trademarks per attorney than the firm making the announcement. The firm in the announcement averaged fewer than four trademarks per attorney, Morris O’Bryant & Compagni averaged nine per attorney, and Bateman IP Law Group averaged 17 per attorney. Thus, it is a clear misstatement to suggest that they were the only firm listed in the rankings.

Everyone wants to get good news about their company out for their clients and potential clients to see. However, in the process of doing so it is important to make sure that one’s facts are correct. Otherwise, the inaccurate press release or announcement can actually become a negative and could even raise liability for false advertising.

The Pinnacle of My Blogging Career

Rand Bateman — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:11:28 GMT

Last week I was trying to track down why I have an unusual spike in views on one of my blog posts. I presumed that someone with a greater audience had linked to the article. I never found that link, but I did discover that I have been cited on the great source of all knowledge - Wikipedia. Yes it is buried in a foot note - but alas I have left my mark on history.

A Few Thoughts on Governor Palin

Rand Bateman — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 06:57:19 GMT

It has been an interesting week in Politics. The Republicans finally nominated a woman to the Presidential ticket.   Gov. Palin looked great at first. She attacks corruption (a full time job in Washington D.C.). She hunts, she can shoot and gut her own moose. If the Bubba vote will ever go to a women, Sarah Palin is the one.

Now many of the political pundits on the left are attacking Gov. Palin, claiming that she is a hypocrite. The attacks, however, are likely to backfire.

First, the several pundits from the left assert that Gov. Palin abused her position by trying to get her former brother-in-law fired. He is a state trooper in Alaska and allegedly threatened to kill one of her family members, drives while intoxicated and used a TASER on her 11 year old nephew.  (The officer apparently has a long history of misconduct). If those facts are accurate, who is going to blame her even if she did intervene? If a police officer threatened to kill a member of my family and used a TASER on another, you bet I would try to get them fired - no matter what my position was. I just hope she would intervene likewise for a similar situation that did not involve her family. I think "troopergate", as some on the left are calling it, puts a very human face on Gov. Palin and will make her more attractive to voters. Of all of the candidates she appears to be willing to do the right thing regardless of how it may look politically.

Second, the media has revealed to the whole world that Gov. Palin's 17 year-old daughter is pregnant. Like it is any of our business? The news media will not even publish the names of most teenage criminals.  Would you rather know about Ms. Palin's pregnancy or that the 16 year old down the street has been convicted of rape? Despite this, young Ms. Palin is now front page news.

Some of the pundits have argued that the unplanned pregnancy shows that her family values stand is phony and that she is not a good parent. So now parents are responsible if their children make a mistake? I did not hear any of these same people arguing that Hillary Clinton was unqualified because her husband keep his pants zipped. She claims, after all, to be a feminist and made it clear when her husband ran the first time that the allegations of adultery were not true, because she would not stick around if they were.

Rather than showing Gov. Palin to be a hypocrite, I think that the situation actually bolsters her social conservative stance. He daughter got pregnant - ok. How did she handle it. Did she take the easy way out and rush her daughter to an abortion clinic. No, her daughter is planning on having the baby and marrying the father.  Add to that the birth of Gov. Palin's son, who has downs syndrome, and it looks like the Governor's family has faced the two most common reasons for abortion and voted for life both times. It is pretty clear that the Gov. practices what she preaches - a rarity in politics these days. (The position also contrasts pretty clearly to Senator Obama's statement that he wants abortion to be legal so his daughters would not be "punished with a baby" if they ""make a mistake".) Gov. Palin's family did not take the easy way out.

Going after Gov. Palin on "troopergate" and her daughter's unplanned pregnancy is a dumb strategy for those who support Obama. Many voters, women especially, are going to warm to a woman who will take a political risk to address domestic violence head on. Likewise, a lot of voters will have had a wayward child and will not warm to the argument that they are bad parents because their children made a mistake. If Obama is smart, he will come out and clearly state - this is none of our business and we should focus on Gov. Palin's record.   Otherwise, the negative statements of the leftist pundits will be attributed to his campaign.

Best of Competitive Insight - Keeping it Together Edition

Rand Bateman — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 06:33:30 GMT

Every week, The Competitive Insight lists the Utah patents and trademarks pursued by Utah businesses and individuals. These filings are insight into the competitive landscape here in Utah. I give recognition to the most interesting ones (by completely arbitrary and capricious standards at the moment I decide) that come across my desk. Here's my favorites from this week.

Patent of the Week

7,415,735

Grip enhancing glove and method for maintaining a grip that enables a user to maintain a prolonged grip without incurring undesirable effects

Erickson; Spencer K. (Ammon, ID), Lorenzon; V. Gregory (Holladay, UT)

Erickson & Lorenzon Enterprises, LLC (Salt Lake City, UT)

Have you ever been told to "get a grip"? Here is your chance.

The patent actually describes a glove that provides a neat little trick. It uses wires within the fingers that run to the wrist. A fastener is placed at the wrist to hold the wire in place. It's the same idea as a drawstring, only applied to fingers.

Of course, you can't let your friends know that you have got a grip. It would be like owning a truck. As soon as your friends know they either want to borrow it or they ask you to help them move.

Trademark of the Week

This week was a great week for trademarks. I'll mention two.

SNAP-CARPET

Snap Lock Industries, Inc.

Salt Lake City, UT

I like the mark. On the shallow end, it says exactly what I should expect from the carpet. It is a collection of smaller carpets that join together through a fastener. Secondly, more deeply, snap means easy (that was a snap). Finally, it links their product with their brand. Give marketing a raise!

Speedpitching

fundinguniverse.com

Orem, UT

If you've ever pitched to venture capitalists, this name will hit home. Have you ever pitched a VC and had them tell you to "get to the good stuff." This is even more crazy with 4 minutes per round in front of potential investors. The fun part of this trademark is that it conveys the excitement twice with speed and pitching. Add the monetary element of pitch and you've got a home run (pun intended).

Taking Intellectual Property Seriously

Rand Bateman — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:56:28 GMT

Historically the United States has faced an uphill battle getting many other governments to take intellectual property infringement. Many countries in Asia and South America did not see the importance of protecting the rights of inventors or authors - or at least those from other countries.

Such attitudes have been changing. This morning I received a report from a firm in Brazil announcing a $4 Billion (yes with a "B") judgment against Strand Center and its retailers for selling pirated computer video games and other software. Strand Center was a popular mall in Sao Paulo.

U.S. Companies would be wise to also take intellectual property seriously. The difficulty in making out a copyright case is finding the infringement. If a company is pirating software it is usually hard to tell. The way most internal piracy is discovered is that a disgruntled employee or former employee contacts the maker of the software or the Software Business Alliance.

While pirating software saves money in the short run. I may destroy a business in the long run. More importantly, it is dishonest, unethical and illegal.

Put It In Writing

Rand Bateman — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:42:38 GMT

I am continually amazed how many people enter into oral agreements that can have a substantial impact on their financial well being. I have seen companies ship hundreds of thousands of dollars in goods without a contract or clear terms on payment. I have seen individuals invest hundreds of thousands of dollars without anything in writing about how the money will be used or whether it is a loan or an investment. (If the business goes south, the owner will decide it is an investment. If it is successful, it will be a loan).

In our excitement to move forward on a deal, we often forget to think rationally about how we will prove our position if the deal goes sideways. Whether it is hiring a builder to construct a house or entering into a distribution agreement, there is hardly ever a situation in which it is not advantageous (to an honest person) to have something in writing.

There is an old saying that an oral agreement is not worth the paper it is written on. While this is not true legally, proving the terms of the agreement is much, much harder if it is oral. When were the goods to be delivered?, how many?, who is paying shipping?, when is payment due?, etc. If the person you are dealing with is not honest, even a written agreement may be insufficient to protect you from harm, but it will minimize the damage. However, even honest people can have a dispute as to what the terms were. It may be due to poor memory or simply that each sides understood the conversation differently.

Be concerned if the other party wants to do everything over the phone, or is taking a long time to get a contract back. Is their some reason they do not want things in writing? While having a written agreement, signed by both parties, is prefered. At a bare minimum the terms should be memorialized in a letter or email.

"Thanks for the call. Pursuant to your request we will deliver the fifty boxes next Friday and will need payment of the $25,000 by the end of the month." Such a confirmation will either confirm the agreement, or will alert the other side to the misunderstanding. You may get back. "No, we need 25 of the boxes this Friday and we need 45 days to pay." A simple note prevents both parties from feeling like the other party has broken the agreement. If the modified terms are not agreeable, it is better to find out before you shipped $25,000 in product. If the party is trying to pull a fast one, the written communication with help preserve the agreement at the time it was made. An email the day the agreement was made will be much more convincing than the recollection of either party six months later.

If the agreement is for something more substantial, it is also advisable to have a written agreement prepared or at least reviewed by an attorney. Skipping the attorney may save some money in the short run, only to cost much more in the long run. I have seen many situations in which a couple hundred dollars of attorney's time would have saved $30-40,000 in legal fees when the deal went bad.

If a deal is worth doing, it is worth writing down. This also applies to family and friends. If the agreement is written out, there is little room for misunderstanding or selective reinterpretation when one party is required to act. Rather than showing that you do not trust your family or friend, a written agreement will make it more likely that you will still be friends in the future. The loan you make to your brother-in-law will not magically become a gift, and the family will be less likely to stop speaking to each other if the terms of the business deal are clearly written out in the begining.

Yes, it can be a pain - but much less painful than trying to enforce an oral agreement.

Patents and the First Sale/Patent Exhaustion Doctrine

Rand Bateman — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:49:25 GMT

Many people know that a patent conveys with it the light to make, use, sale and offer to sell an article covered by the patent, or the use of a method covered by the patent. The right, however, is not absolute. U.S. Patent law acts to limit the ability of a patent owner to control the article downstream from the first sale. In other words, a patent owner cannot prevent the resale or dictate the price of resale of an article after the original sale. Rather, the patent rights has been "exhausted."

In Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. the Supreme Court upheld the applicability of the first sale doctrine to methods. Intel obtained a license from LG to make computer chips that performed part of a patented function. The chips, however, were useless without a bus and other components. Intel sold the chips to Quanta who used them in computers. LG then sued claiming that Quanta was infringing the patent.

The Supreme Court found that LG's patent rights were exhausted by the original license to Intel and that LG had no right to sue Quanta for infringement.

The Supreme Court's decision raises significant questions that patent owners should consider prior to entering into license agreements where the licensee has anything over than complete rights to sell the licensed product.

The Digital Divide

Rand Bateman — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:32:53 GMT

The last month was to be my month for dropping out of the digital world. A week at scout camp in the Uintas, a long week end on Lake Powell followed by a a ten day vacation in Mexico. So here is what I found.

Verizon gets reception in the Uintas. ATT got reception at one spot about two miles from camp. Thus, my cell phone became the community phone. This was not too bad as I had hoped to stay in contact. Lake Powell was virtually impossible to get a signal.

Mexico, has been a disappointment. Not because they are technologically out of it. Just the opposite. I got emails and calls from my clients at Chichen-Itza - two hours into the Yucatan jungle. I got better cell phone reception there and at Xcaret than I do in parts of Sandy. On the bright side, I can at least do a blog post while overlooking the Caribbean Sea.

Unfortunately, I cannot use the - I didn't get your email excuse. So much for relaxation.

Nokia and Qualcomm Bury The Hatchet

Rand Bateman — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:27:42 GMT

For over three years, on three continents, the battle has raged. Nokia and Qualcomm have fought over the patent landscape in the cell phone industry. Now they have decided to bury the hatchet and reach a settlement. This should be particularly good news for Qualcomm who has been involved in several high profile patent suits over the last few years, including a bruising brawl with Broadcomm. It is less of good news for the armies of attorneys that they have employed around the globe. Few of the public, or economists, for that matter, over overly stressed by attorney layoffs. Certainly there is a neither battle in some other industry.

Why Do Terrorists Get More Rights Than Americans

Rand Bateman — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:10:51 GMT

Since the Supreme Court issued its controversial ruling granting enemy combatants in U.S. custody the right to Habeas Corpus, I was waited to hear the outrage from the American people. Apart from a few legal types, I have heard relatively little discussion of the matter despite the fact that it overturns numerous prior Supreme Court decisions. It is a sad day for Americans when enemy combatants have more rights than some Americans.

Habeas Corpus - which literally means "you have the body" is the right we enjoy to challenge our detainment by the police, etc., in front of a civil court.   Prisoners of war and enemy combatants, in contrast, are traditionally tried in military courts. While Habeas Corpus is a well respected right for Americans, it has been suspended even for U.S. citizens during prior wars - including its suspension by Abraham Lincoln. It has also historically not applied to foreigners and those taken on the battlefield.

The bizarre ruling by the Supreme Court, however, extends the right of Habeas Corpus not only to foreigners - but to foreigners who are enemy combantants detained outside of the U.S. - i.e. taken on the battle field attempting to kill members of the U.S. Military. Under the Geneva Convention, enemy combantants are not even afforded the rights of Prisoners of War because they do not fight in uniform. (The intent of the Geneva Convention was to minimize civilian casualties by forcing military personnel to wear uniforms that distinguished them.)   Historically, enemy combatants were often simply shot as spies.

Those who have addressed the Supreme Court's decision have noted that our soldiers and marines should simply shoot the enemy combatants rather than take them into custody. However, this could lead to a charge of murder or war crimes against the soldier or marine. The soldier or marine will be tried before a military tribunal.   Yes, the same military tribunal that the Supreme Court does not believe is good enough for terrorists is good enough for the soldiers who risk their lives defending us.

Sometimes its pretty embarrasing being a lawyer.