Steerpike’s Techdirt Profile


About Steerpike

Steerpike’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 19th, 2016 @ 9:15am

    (untitled comment)

    Glad to see this update regarding the Getty Museum. It's a great museum, and I'm pleased that they've gone down this path.

    Not sure why people can't make the distinction between the museum and Getty Images, particularly given that it is explicitly stated in the first line of this article.

  • Jul 7th, 2016 @ 11:37am

    (untitled comment)

    Should be a Fair Use. Despite the fact that Huckabee is a jackass, positions on Fair Use should remain consistent. Of course, the $25K settlement is far less than it would cost to take the case to trial, even if Huckabee could win.

  • Jun 24th, 2016 @ 3:21pm

    Re: Re:

    They do have viable common law rights, and it's too bad you have to do things defensively to protect against abuse of the system. But these days particularly, with every business on the internet, it makes sense to spend the $1000 or so to get the registration. If Comodo hadn't dropped this, Let's Encrypt would spend a lot more than that having to oppose these marks or deal with a Comodo registration.

    The problem here, apart from Comodo's bad behavior, is that the trademark examiner didn't conduct a proper search. If he had, the Let's Encrypt common law mark would have turned up.

  • Jun 24th, 2016 @ 2:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    They do have the ability to search that. I have received rejections based on non-registered uses that the examiner found on the internet. But often it seems like the trademark examiners just rely on their application/registration database (like patent examiners rely on the pending/issued patent database) and don't look beyond that.

    You can still get a registration even if a non-registered entity is already using the name, but you can't go in and stop them. Traditionally this is limited by geographic location. For example, if I own a chain of restaurants in Los Angeles, and you're in New York and we have the same name...if I was there first but didn't register it and you did, you have presumptive nationwide rights to the name EXCEPT in Los Angeles, where I priority over you. You can't come into L.A. and stop me using the name.

    This was relatively easy to figure out in the pre-internet days, but of course now everyone is online so the boundaries become a bit more fuzzy.

  • Jun 24th, 2016 @ 1:58pm

    Re: Re:

    Zarvus - with respect to the mark you linked, it looks like the USPTO is about to let that one go through to publication. The Examiner has send there are no confusingly similar registered or pending marks. Just some formalities, and they're going to let it through I predict.

  • Jun 24th, 2016 @ 1:56pm

    Re: Re:

    The trademark examiner might well let it go through to publication, though he shouldn't. But that's what the opposition proceeding is for - to make sure that marks the USPTO has let go through wrongfully to publication can still be opposed by a third party before they actually get registered.

    The problem is, maintaining an opposition proceeding isn't exactly cheap.

  • Jun 24th, 2016 @ 1:48pm

    (untitled comment)

    Let's Encrypt can oppose if/when the Comodo applications are published.

    Let's Encrypt should have filed for registration previously, and they wouldn't be in this situation. Even if Comodo get the registration, however, they can't stop Let's Encrypt from using the mark in places where Let's Encrypt has priority (and when you're talking about the internet, that's potentially anywhere, though I guess it would be limited to places where they can show "sales").

  • Jun 24th, 2016 @ 9:42am

    (untitled comment)

    Looking in PAIR, it doesn't look like General Mills even had to fight for this. There was never a rejection of the patent. That's not so uncommon in design patent cases, but still...

  • Jun 23rd, 2016 @ 12:58pm

    (untitled comment)

    Asinine decision. There's no new "authorship" happening here. No new creative aspect to the photocopied work. You can see how a photo of, say, a sculpture might have independent copyright based on photographer decisions about angles, lighting, photo settings, and so forth. Running pages through a scanner has none of that.

  • Jun 14th, 2016 @ 4:56pm

    Re: Re: Another example of ignorance being beneficial

    You're better off not looking, in one sense, not because a bad search result can't be dealt with, but because they're a pain to deal with (requiring putting in place formal opinions of non-infringement, for example). I generally discourage a search unless there is a compelling reason to have one done.

  • Jun 14th, 2016 @ 4:54pm

    Re: Another example of ignorance being beneficial

    I don't think checking with a patent lawyer and nevertheless missing a patent is going to hurt you. That's not going to be a sufficient basis for willful infringement.

    If a patent is found that might be a problem, but your counsel concludes that it is not a problem and also writes you a competent opinion that it is not a problem, you'll also be protected from willful infringement.

  • Jun 6th, 2016 @ 1:30pm

    (untitled comment)

    NOTE: When I try to contact 1337 Institute of Technology via their website contact form, I get a 404 error.

  • Jun 6th, 2016 @ 1:26pm

    (untitled comment)

    Purchased the deal and created an account on 1337 Institute of Technology. I received the email confirming my account creation, but I can't log into the site. Numerous attempts made. The site continues to show that I need to Sign Up or Login.

  • Jun 1st, 2016 @ 4:37pm

    (untitled comment)

    Maybe he has a problem with Google due to some of his other clientele:

    "As part of his tech and media practice, Jonathan represents some of the world’s most notable industry participants, including: Microsoft, News Corp, Yelp, Getty Images, Roku, Spotify, Time Inc., AppNexus, and others. In addition, Jonathan advises companies regarding the use of technology and data in traditional industries including healthcare, energy, commodities, retail, and financial services."

  • May 18th, 2016 @ 4:00pm

    Re: uhm, how?

    The patent has not been granted. As indicated in the article, above, it is an application.

    It does set forth a method for accomplishing the result, so unless there is some art out there, it'll probably get through the USPTO in one form or another.

  • May 9th, 2016 @ 4:30pm

    (untitled comment)

    uBlock works against ads on both Forbes and Wired, but the sites don't seem to realize I'm using a blocker (whereas with AdBlock they did).

  • Apr 18th, 2016 @ 4:56pm

    (untitled comment)

    The Author's Guild said today that the Courts focused too much on the public benefit of what Google was doing, and then said this:

    "The price of this short-term public benefit may well be the future vitality of American culture...."

    A bit of hyperbole there!

  • Mar 24th, 2016 @ 1:30pm

    (untitled comment)

    This isn't really a role for the courts, who are supposed to be with "cases and controversies." Doesn't seem like there's even a basis for a Declaratory Judgment at this point. Why doesn't Murphy research (or have researched) the copyright registration and renewal data to get an idea of whether the underlying work is still protected. If that comes back favorably, then you take the risk of proceeding and having to deal with the trust.

  • Mar 23rd, 2016 @ 8:19am

    (untitled comment)

    The trademark suit is far-fetched, no doubt. This quote from the article misses the mark, though:

    "Here's a fun thought experiment: precisely how many times would the average person have to hit themselves in the head with a hammer before they found themselves standing before a Land O Lakes spinner bait lure trying to decide if it was actually a stick of butter?"

    They wouldn't have to think the lure was butter, they'd just have to be confused about whether the dairy products and the fishing tackle have the same source of origin (i.e. ultimately stem from the same company). That's also a stretch, and I doubt there are many dairy companies that dabble in fishing tackle or vice-versa. But it's the source of the products, not confusion about the identity of the products themselves, that is the issue. The court was right in its assessment of this.

  • Mar 11th, 2016 @ 11:16am

    Re: Re:

    A lot of those registrations are probably for merchandise leveraging the popularity of the movies. Toys, board games, video games, clothing, replicas of movie props, etc.

More comments from Steerpike >>