Current Insight Community Cases

Essential Datacenter Tips On Application Performance Monitoring

The Importance Of Skilled Immigrants To The American Economy

Help A New Kind of Music Label Revolutionize The Industry

Mandates To Buy American Should Be More Carefully Considered

Navigating The New Business World After This Recession

Check out our CwF + RtB experiment.
Brought to you by Floor64 and the Techdirt crew.

stories about: "johnson & johnson"
Legal Issues

Legal Issues

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
catheters, health care, patent thicket, patents, stents

Companies:
acacia, boston scientific, johnson & johnson, medtronic



Patent Battles Make It That Much More Difficult To Keep People Healthy

from the what-a-shame dept

The problem with the view that patents should be given out for every little improvement (most of which would have come about naturally thanks to market demand) is that you end up with "patent thickets" where a ton of different companies all claim patents on some small part of a larger offering. This isn't just an argument about "ownership" or "rights" in some cases. It can also have direct impact on keeping people alive.

For example, just witness the patent battle going on in the medical device market concerning Boston Scientific, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic and... famed patent hoarder Acacia. Boston Scientific, Johnson & Johnson and Medtronic have all been suing each other concerning various patents used in stent and catheter technology. Acacia has now jumped into the fray by acquiring patents from Datascope and setting up yet another shell company called Cardio Access.

In all of these cases, everyone is claiming ownership over some piece of the technology used in stents and catheters, basically suggesting that others can't use that part of the technology without paying them. The end result is that we're all put at greater risk. Either stents and catheters won't be able to be as useful as they should be because they can't use the best possible technology -- or if they do use that technology, they get priced much higher to pay for all of these licenses from everyone else. And, of course, with all of these patent lawsuits (and rewards -- since Boston Scientific has already had to pay out the two largest patent fines this year, totaling $750 million), money that could have been spent on making a better product is instead going into lawsuits.

34 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
Legal Issues

Legal Issues

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
red cross, trademark

Companies:
johnson & johnson, red cross



Court Tosses Out Most Of Johnson & Johnson's Trademark Lawsuit Against The Red Cross

from the don't-mess-with-charities dept

Last summer, we wrote about the absolutely ridiculous situation where Johnson & Johnson decided (against all common sense) to sue the American Red Cross (ARC) for trademark infringement over using (get this...) the red cross to sell products to raise more money for ARC. Beyond just being a really bad PR move to sue one of the world's most respected charities, the legal specifics were quite murky as well. Basically, ARC and J&J had worked out an agreement over a century ago to effectively share the use of the trademark (it's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the basic agreement). On top of that, there are laws preventing anyone from falsely using the Red Cross symbol -- and J&J claimed that the companies that ARC licensed the symbol to were doing just that. Luckily, the court has thrown out most of the case, claiming that the law seemed pretty clear in allowing ARC to use the symbol in commercial products, even licensing it out. In fact, the court noted that back in the 80's J&J engaged in a similar promotion where it donated some money from certain products sold to ARC. The judge also noted how ridiculous it is to claim that a charity was doing this for nefarious purposes: "The fact that the ultimate purpose of these licensing activities is a 'charitable purpose' -- i.e. to raise funds that A.R.C., a not-for-profit organization, can utilize for its charitable endeavors -- only further emphasizes their legitimacy." There are still a few parts of the case left unresolved, but the big parts have now all been dismissed.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
News You Could Do Without

News You Could Do Without

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
red cross, trademarks

Companies:
american red cross, johnson & johnson



Trademark Law Gone Mad: J&J Sues American Red Cross Over Use Of Red Cross

from the why-not-kick-some-babies-while-you're-at-it dept

Trademark law can do funny things, especially in this age where many IP lawyers and the popular press have misrepresented the purpose of trademarks. It's reached a point where many people now believe that trademark law is about ownership and control -- when it was really designed for consumer protection (so that consumers wouldn't be tricked into buying "Bob's Cola" thinking it was "Coca Cola"). A bunch of people have been submitting this latest story of trademark-gone-mad, where health-care products conglomerate Johnson & Johnson is suing the American Red Cross for violating its trademark on (you guessed it) the red cross symbol. The thing is, Johnson & Johnson may be on the correct side of the law in this case -- though, the wrong side of decency and common sense. J&J does own the trademark on the red cross symbol and has had a licensing arrangement with the ARC for over a century. However, the ARC has been licensing the symbol to make branded products such as "baby mitts, nail clippers, combs, toothbrushes, hand sanitizers and humidifiers." The ARC then sells these products as a way of raising money for all of its good work. Based on trademark law, of course, J&J will claim that it needs to protect the trademark or risk losing it entirely. But, that only shows one of the more ridiculous aspects of trademark law. And, it's not like J&J is going in with a light touch on this either. The lawsuits wants these products destroyed and is also seeking punitive damages. That's going well beyond the "we're forced to protect the trademark under the law" claim. It just makes them look like a bunch of bullies who would kick babies if it would make them money. While J&J was clearly concerned about the value of its trademark, it's not clear if they realized the value of good PR.

45 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
Search Techdirt
And now, a word from our Sponsors..



Popular Posts
Poll

Which Internet Concern Worries You The Most?

 

 

 

 

 

 


Add Techdirt RSS To Your Reader
rss Add Techdirt to your Bloglines
Add Techdirt to your Google Add Techdirt to your My Yahoo
Add Techdirt to your Netvibes Add Techdirt to your Newsgator
Subscribe to Techdirt's Daily Email Newsletter

Techdirt's Daily Email Newsletter

Older Stuff

Monday

8:25pm: Senators Begin Questioning ACTA Secrecy (30)
6:34pm: Brazil E-Voting Machines Not Hacked... But Van Eck Phreaking Allowed Hacker To Record Votes (15)
5:08pm: FCC Doesn't Think The Lack Of Competition Is A Major Barrier To Broadband? (35)
3:49pm: Heads Of Major Movies Studios Claiming They Just Want To Help Poor Indie Films Harmed By Piracy (47)
2:38pm: USPTO Convinced By Amazon That Online Gift Giving Patent Is Legit (19)
1:31pm: Tiburon Approves Recording Every Car That Enters/Leaves... Despite More Evidence Of Traffic Camera Abuse In UK (86)
12:18pm: Label Exec Arrested For Not Using Twitter To Disperse Crowd At Mall To See Singer (53)
11:01am: Spanish Court Dismisses Complaint From Nintendo Against Counterfiet DS Cartridges, Since They Add Functionality (12)
9:55am: Dear PR People: If Your Exec Has A Comment, Our Comments Are Open (25)
8:44am: What Kind Of Mickey Mouse (And Donald Duck) Lawsuits Are These? (23)
7:30am: Prosecutors Ending Lawsuit Against Lori Drew (13)
6:06am: Dear Rupert: You Don't Succeed By Making Life More Difficult For Users (70)
4:20am: ESPN Writer Suspended From Twitter (59)
2:10am: School Can't Handle Critical Community Message Board; Sends Legal Nastygram (21)

Friday

7:39pm: Liberian Laws Are A Secret Due To Copyright; Even The Gov't Doesn't Have Them (43)
6:56pm: Lily Allen: It's Ok To Sell My Counterfeit CDs, Just Don't Give My Music For Free (97)
6:10pm: EFF Looks To Bust Bogus Podcasting Patent; Needs Prior Art (34)
5:28pm: Google Blocking Set Top Boxes From Showing YouTube Unless They Pay Up? (64)
4:44pm: Entertainment Industry: Yes, Please Keep Negotiating Secret Copyright Treaty To Save Our Asses (43)
4:02pm: If Google's Book Scanning Violates Copyright Law, What About The AP's Book Scanning? (21)
3:05pm: iPhone App Developer Backlash Growing (49)
2:14pm: Norwegian Band Told It Can't Post Its Own Music To The Pirate Bay, Even Though It Wants To (24)
1:08pm: If You Only Share A Tiny Bit Of A File Via BitTorrent, Is It Still Copyright Infringement? (79)
12:00pm: UK Digital Economy Bill As Bad As Expected; Digital Britain Minister Flat Out Lies About ISP Support (25)
10:57am: NPR's Daniel Schorr Blames The Internet For Ft. Hood Shootings (37)
9:49am: No, ACTA Secrecy Is Not 'Normal' -- Nor Is It A 'Distraction' (29)
8:33am: Murdoch's The Times Accused Of Blatant Copying, Just As It Tells The World You Should Pay For News (28)
7:15am: Copyright Extension Moves To Japan (24)
5:46am: Canadian Ebook Store Offers 'Free' Public Domain Ebooks -- Claims Copyright Says You Can Only Make 1 Copy (27)
4:01am: There Are Lots Of Ways To Fund Journalism (14)
More arrow
Quick Links
Close
E-mail It