Via Clay Johnson we learn of a "solicitation" from the US Postal Service for help in finding better ways to "monetize" its "intellectual property."

The purpose of this solicitation is to procure services to obtain a supplier who possesses specific subject matter expertise in the areas of intellectual property (IP) strategy, the monetization of IP portfolios and the development of Intellectual Asset Management practices. The purpose of this contract is to evaluate the U.S. Postal Service's ('Postal Service') current IP strategy and define the steps, based on current industry best practices, needed to develop a comprehensive strategy for developing, managing, and monetizing IP.

Now, the US Postal Service is in this weird space where it is not quite a full government agency, but not quite a fully independent operation (or it can be seen as either depending on how you squint). However, it is supposed to be serving the public, and becoming a patent troll (what this is really about) hardly seems like it will serve the public's interest. As is established under 39 USC 101, the Postal Service is supposed to be about serving the public interest:

The United States Postal Service shall be operated as a basic and fundamental service provided to the people by the Government of the United States, authorized by the Constitution, created by Act of Congress, and supported by the people. The Postal Service shall have as its basic function the obligation to provide postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people. It shall provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal services to all communities. The costs of establishing and maintaining the Postal Service shall not be apportioned to impair the overall value of such service to the people.

Separately, the law notes:

In determining all policies for postal services, the Postal Service shall give the highest consideration to the requirement for the most expeditious collection, transportation, and delivery of important letter mail.

I can't see how shaking down competitors like UPS and Fedex will serve that well.

And, of course, that's likely what this is all about. Everyone knows there is tremendous controversy over the US Postal Service and its financial situation (which is distorted by the way it is required to handle its pensions). So the USPS is desperate for alternate ways to get money in. From the brief quip in the solicitation, it certainly sounds like it's looking for ways to jump into the patent game and seek licensing revenue from others. The last thing we really need is the US Postal Service waving around patents, demanding payments from more innovative competitors, but it sounds like that may be what we're about to get.

Last week, the University of Chicago got some attention for posting to its admissions Tumblr page a story about how a package addressed to one "Henry Walton Jones Jr." had appeared in the mail. It apparently took them a little while to realize (a) that this was the "real name" of Indiana Jones in the famous movie series, and (b) that the package was an amazing replica of the journal Jones uses in the first of the movies, Raiders of the Lost Ark. Everyone started to speculate what the deal was, with the UChicago folks wondering if it was an elaborate and creative attempt at getting admitted.

If you're an applicant and sent this to us: Why? How? Did you make it? Why so awesome? If you're a member of the University community and this belongs to you or you've gotten one like it before, PLEASE tell us how you acquired it, and whether or not yours came with a description — or if we're making a big deal out of the fact that you accidentally slipped a gift for a friend in to the inter-university mail system. If you are an Indiana Jones enthusiast and have any idea who may have sent this to us or who made it, let us know that, too.

I love that "why so awesome" question slipped in there... There was also speculation that it might be part of a viral marketing campaign or alternative reality game. But, in the end, the answer was really quite mundane. This was really about... the US Postal Service being helpful (or trying to be). There's a guy named Paul Charfauros, who makes such replicas and sells them on eBay. He told the University of Chicago that the USPS had contacted him recently to inform him that it had lost one of his packages, as it had slipped out of an envelope.

"Somewhere between Guam and Italy the replica fell out of its original external package and was lost in Honolulu, Hawaii," Garrett Brinker, director of undergraduate outreach for the university, said in an interview with Wired. "Then for some reason, with fake postage, no tracking, not even a zip code — it looks like the Postal Service had to manually write in a zip code on the package — somehow without all of that the package landed in our laps in Chicago, Illinois."

Basically, the package above was in another envelope address to the real buyer -- but when the inner package slipped out, the USPS assumed that it was an accurate package, and shipped it on to the address at the University, even without the postage (and, apparently, they didn't even ask for the proper postage from the recipient, which is a little odd). Either way, the seller has agreed to let the University keep the copy in exchange for some UChicago swag. And, back at the University "multiple departments" are now fighting over the journal. Perhaps they should consider buying a few more from Charfauros...

A few years back, we wrote about how a sculptor who had been contracted by the US government to create the Korean War Memorial in Washington DC was suing the US Postal Service because it had released a stamp using a photograph of the Memorial. There were all sorts of issues with this, starting with the fact that the US government should never commission a monument in which it does not also get the copyright. Leaving it with the artist is ridiculous, because now we have a public memorial, which gets photographed a ton, and a single photographer artist has control over it? Why would the government allow this? The second problem was that this seemed like a classic case of fair use. The photo was clearly transformative from the original work, where most of the power of the photo is in other elements beyond the statue (the snow, the lighting, etc.). Unfortunately, however, the appeals court for the federal circuit (CAFC) made one of its all too typical bizarre rulings and decided that the photo was infringing. As we noted at the time, it rejected the transformative nature of the photo by claiming those were "nature's choices," which would effectively eliminate all nature photography from being covered by copyright.

That said, the case has continued, as the follow up fight was about how much the sculptor, Frank Gaylord, should get. The district court looked at typical licensing deals from the US Postal Service and realized they usually pay a couple thousand dollars. The highest amount it could find was $5,000, so they awarded him that. Gaylord appealed, asking for 10% of all revenue from the stamp, which he estimated would be around $3 million on the $30.2 million in revenue made already. That's a pretty big difference. CAFC has once again sided with him saying that the lower court was wrong to just award him $5,000, without taking into consideration how much Gaylord might have wanted to license the work for in the first place. The lower court will now have to reconsider, and the US taxpayer may have to pay this guy a ton of money yet again.

So, can we convince the federal government of a rather simple idea going forward: if you have someone create a memorial or statue or piece of artwork for public display, part of the deal is they put the whole thing into the public domain. If they don't like it, find another artist. The fact that this work is not in the public domain is a travesty. The fact that the photo is not considered fair use on the sculpture in the first place is a travesty. The fact that he may end up getting another batch of money for this is a travesty. And all of it could have been avoided if someone (anyone) in the US government realized ahead of time that artwork created for public display should belong to the public.

You know a service is on its last legs when the best argument a person can make for its continued existence is both a) very likely untrue and b) incredibly depressing. The United States Postal Service, best known these days for its massive accounting losses and quarterly stamp price increases, is being forced to deal with the reality of a world that sends most of its mail via the internet. With deep cuts and office closures looming, Sen. Harry Reid took to the Senate floor to say a few words in its defense, as The Consumerist reports:

Speaking yesterday to his fellow Senators, Reid really sucked the air out of the room with this part of his "Save the USPS" speech:

"Elderly Americans rely on the United States Postal Service... I'll come home to my home here in Washington and there will be some mail there. A lot of it is what some people refer to as junk mail. But for the people that are sending that mail, it's very important. And, talking about seniors - Seniors LOVE to get junk mail. It's sometimes their only way of communicating or feeling they're part of the real world."

Here's Reid in "action:"



It's rare to see someone make a statement that undercuts the "essentialness" of the USPS so thoroughly, especially one made in its defense. If the best argument a person can come up with is that the Postal Service needs to remain intact in order to provide a point of contact between desperately lonely seniors and the companies that prey on them, then it's time to admit that maybe, just maybe, the "service" is actually more of a burden.

In fact, with "austerity" being the watchword (well, not here specifically, but all over Europe), maybe it's time to (and this is an unfortunate turn of phrase, but trust me, it gets worse...) kill two birds with one stone and cut off the flow of junk mail to seniors. Now that they won't have a third rejection letter from Publishers Clearing House to look forward to, perhaps they'll go more gracefully into that good night, thus reducing the strain on the already-overmatched Social Security fund.

Speaking of overmatched retirement funds, most the USPS's massive losses stem from having to prefund retiree health benefits, an issue that could be negated with another "two birds one stone" solution. The USPS could cut loose its potential retirees, shifting them from "mounting losses" category into the more profitable "willing recipient of mass mailing" demographic. We call that "win-win" where I come from (a rural Midwestern area known for its redundancy).

Or maybe it's time to privatize. The USPS seems to believe it can compete if the government takes the, uh, governor off rates and services. If so, the USPS will need to hit the ground running, something massive entities are rarely good at. As the Consumerist has shown, both FedEx and UPS are willing to step in to fill the void. The two companies already have a proven track record for getting packages from Point A to Point B (even if the final destination was supposed to be Point C) as well as making great strides in treating your packages with a government-like callous disregard. This may also hasten the adoption of paperless billing, which should prove to be a boon to the economy as the affected companies will be able to collect "convenience charges" for electronic transactions, something simply not possible in the era of horse-and-buggy pen-and-checkbook.

Of course, paperless billing requires an internet connection and the ability to navigate to secure sites without picking up a variety of obnoxious toolbars and pernicious malware, so maybe Harry Reid is right. Despite the fact that Grandma likely has over 96,000 hours of AOL packed into a file box in the hall closet, the internet can be a weird and dangerous place for those used to more analog experiences. And AOL itself is no help. Signing up for the service seems simple enough for those with landlines, but once you decide you no longer need its portal to the sanitized internet, getting them to cancel your service is about as simple as removing your own kidney. (Actually, it's more difficult than that. It's like trying to persuade the surgeon to remove the faulty kidney and instead being told that what you really want is a third kidney.)

If Senator Reid is right, and the USPS is the only thing standing between seniors and a not-all-that-untimely (but very lonely) death, thanks to its continuous flow of "human contact" via junk mail, perhaps the solution is to move some postal workers over to Meals-on-Wheels and let the private sector decide whether or not it wants the aching loneliness of America's growing elderly population on its hands. My guess is that no matter who's handling the delivery side of the business, junk mailers will still find a way to get their ads into the hands of general population.

As for Publishers Clearing House, it will have to make a few adjustments. For starters, it may have to stop pushing magazine subscriptions, as most magazines at this point are pamphlet-thin and nearly 75% ads. (Except for Reader's Digest Large Print Edition!) As the denizens of the internet march slowly towards their golden years, they're not going to have much patience for an information source with less interactivity than a PDF. And they're certainly not going to be checking the mailbox for contact with the outside world.

US Postal Service's (USPS) desperation is beginning to show. We already noted its new ad campaign that seems to focus much more on how bad email is, rather than on any additional value provided by the USPS. But now, it appears that the USPS is cracking down on illicit use of its mailboxes. As you may or may not know, under US law, home mailboxes (even though they're purchased by the homeowner) are technically property of the USPS, and it's actually against the law to put anything other than US mail with proper postage in a mailbox. But it's one of those laws that just isn't enforced very often. Lots of folks put things in mailboxes directly. For example... neighbors organizing a street-wide event.

But, apparently, the USPS has had enough of that. After discovering that a family in Connecticut planned a Halloween blockparty by putting invites into their neighbors' mailboxes, the USPS sent the family a bill for postage.

"One Monday I had a note it is illegal to put these in mailboxes. Day 2 I had a bill for assumed 80 in the box, times 44 cents for the stamp," the father, Jeff, told WFSB. "I haven't paid it yet. I'm trying to have the conversation that no one is willing to have."

At least they're not seeking fines as well. But is this really a particularly good use of the USPS's time?

It seems the US Postal Service (USPS) is starting to get pretty desperate. Losing a ton of money, it's apparently decided that the time is now to attack the competition. The competition, of course, is email. It's put out two TV commercials that focus on bashing email for not being either secure or reliable: Of course, I'm pretty sure I've had a lot more physical mail "lost" by human carriers than emails just disappear. And you could easily argue that regular mail isn't particularly secure at times either. All in all, though, it seems like a bizarre commercial. Why even bother making silly assertions about email? Do they really think people are going to start saying... "gee, I can't trust this email stuff to communicate with my friends; now I'm going to start sending real letters through the USPS!"

Just recently, we discussed whether or not ceasing Saturday delivery was a good idea for the USPS. John Potter, the US Postmaster General, recently said that the postal service's business model is as outdated as the newspaper industry's. Potter said:

"Twenty years ago we would laugh at the notion that a newspaper would ever embrace the idea that maybe the channel of the future is electronic and that you may have to change your business model,"

Sure, similarities between the industries definitely exist. Craigslist is a much cheaper and more efficient marketplace for local goods than the classifieds section in the newspaper ever was, and email is a much cheaper and more efficient means of communication than snail mail. That said, whereas for the newspaper industry, delivering a daily, physical newspaper to households may actually be an endangered business, the business itself of delivering physical items to households is still very much in demand. After all, with so much shopping happening online nowadays, someone still has to deliver the goods (until replicators, a la Star Trek, are perfected). In fact, for over a decade now, we've been talking about this opportunity to optimize the "last mile," and as of yet, nobody has really even come close to solving this problem.

That said, the USPS is a government institution, and even though it does not take any tax funding to run, an attempt to attack this opportunity may best be mounted by the private sector (like UPS and FedEx), especially when you consider the USPS's projected $238 billion shortfall for the upcoming decade. So, since it's not a private business, the best solution for the USPS may be to simply accept its diminishing role in the daily lives of Americans, and focus on continuing to run as efficiently as possible for as long as it remains useful. That said, the other solution may be to remove the government-mandated monopoly and privatize the USPS, and then let that private entity decide whether or not to invest in the business. Either way, it seems silly to ask taxpayers to invest anything further in the USPS since so many alternatives exist already. We should definitely all be appreciative of the part that the Postal Service has played in the foundation of our country, but what else can be done?

With a loss of $3.8 billion last year, the US Postal Service is facing a challenging business climate. Mail volume fell to 177 billion pieces for 2009, from 203 billion a year before. Outside consultants have estimated a deficit of $238 billion in the next decade. So, the postal service is now considering making many changes to its business, including cutting Saturday delivery from its regular service in an effort to reduce this shortfall. Eric Zorn, of the Chicago Tribune, goes further and asks "Why stop at Saturday?" Sure, with the advent of the digital age, less and less things really need to be sent in the physical realm. However, don't be so quick to write off the USPS. The postal service still did $68 billion in annual revenue for 2009, which is bigger than either UPS or FedEx. At 44 cents, first class mail is still one of the best deals around -- sending a 1 ounce object anywhere in the country within a few days for that amount of money is a modern marvel. Of course, considering that one-third of USPS revenue comes from advertising mail, any change to delivery windows or rates will surely generate flak from that industry. That said, the USPS has had a history of profitability, so these changes just reflect a desire to return to that state, which is good practice for any business, whether they are in the public or the private sector.

Last year, we wrote about the appeal in a case involving a US postage stamp which was based on a photograph of the US's Korean War Memorial in Washington DC. You can see the sculpture and the stamp below: There were a variety of issues involved in the case, including who actually owned the copyright, but in the end, the interesting question is whether or not this was fair use. The lower court had ruled that this was clearly quite transformative, different in nature, and did not harm the commercial value of the original work (which even the sculptor admitted). Thus it was fair use. To us, and many other experts in fair use, it seemed hard to question that logic, but when it comes to copyright, you can always be surprised by how judges interpret the law.

The Federal Circuit has ruled on the appeal and stunningly decided that this isn't fair use, claiming that it's not, in fact, transformative. I'm somewhat amazed -- as is law professor Peter Friedman in the post linked here. The two works are quite clearly extremely different, but the court felt that since they both were designed to honor soldiers killed in the Korean War, it couldn't be seen as transformative. The fact that the photographer took hundreds of images before settling on this one apparently didn't matter. On top of that, the fact that the snow totally changes the character of the image was dismissed by the court as being just "nature's decision." Update: That "nature's decision" line was really bugging me, and Friedman has updated his post to show it's bugging him too, so I wanted to write a bit more. If "nature's decision" makes something non-copyrightable, then it can be argued that all nature photography is not covered by copyright -- which goes against pretty much every precedent out there. It's hard to see how CAFC can make this argument.

While there were other discussions over who actually owned the copyright (the government claimed it should jointly hold it, since it had a lot of input in the memorial) and whether or not the photograph should not be subject to the copyright on the sculptures because architectural works can't have their copyrights cover photographs of buildings (both courts noted that a sculpture is not an architectural work), there's a much bigger issue here: why the hell did the government ever agree to build a public memorial and not get all of the rights associated with the memorial? This omission seems like a stunning failure of the government in creating this memorial in the first place. We've seen plenty of similar cases, involving copyright lawsuits over public displays of artwork -- and they all seem equally ridiculous from a common sense viewpoint. If you're commissioning a public piece of artwork, shouldn't you also make sure you get all the rights associated with it? Leaving them with the artist, and then displaying the artwork in public creates a massive sense of confusion for pretty much everyone. Your average man on the street assumes it's legal to take photographs of public pieces of artwork and to then do what they want with them. It's hard to think of any public policy rationale that would explain why the opposite is true -- and yet, that appears where things stand.

Rulings like this should be quite scary for both amateur and professional photographers. If you photograph things that are covered by copyright, you may be infringing. It's yet another scenario of "accidental infringement" that clearly was never intended to be covered by copyright law.

While Netflix has done a great job building up its business and competing with players who were much bigger and more well established, could it be the US Postal Service that finally does the company in? It turns out that those patented funky red DVD mailer envelopes are a pain for the postal service. They "sustain damage, jam equipment and cause mis-sorts during automated processing," and the postal service has had enough. The Inspector General is asking to charge an extra $0.17 per DVD mailer if adjustments aren't made to make the envelopes more "machinable." While $0.17 may not sound like a lot, a research analyst at Citibank cranked the numbers and found that it would likely cut Netflix's monthly margin per customer from $1.05 to $0.35 -- basically killing 67% of its margin (ouch). Now here's where the situation gets fun. It turns out that Netflix's main competitor, Blockbuster, does not have this problem with its DVD mailers. Remember that Netflix sued Blockbuster over its patents last year. The two firms reached a settlement earlier this year, but could this be a chance for Blockbuster to strike back at Netflix? Anyone know if Blockbuster patented its "working" design for the DVD mailers? I'm sure it would be thrilled to license it to Netflix... at a reasonable fee.