Posts Tagged ‘google’

Terms of Service and Your Copyrights

Thursday, 26 January, 2012 07:52 Written by Scott Nyman 3 Comments

Upon logging into my Gmail this morning, a mandatory step in my daily routine, I noticed an alert that Google is consolidating the privacy policies and terms of service for all of its various online offerings. Being in the business of law, I felt compelled to read through the changes to see how Google will handle managing information about a user.

For those that are unaware, a privacy policy generally comprises a statement from a company regarding the handling of a user’s personally identifying information. The privacy policy is typically accompanied by a terms of service, which sets out the rules a user must abide by to gain access to a service. The terms of service may often define the legal relationship between a user and a service provider, the ways in which the service may be used, and the procedure to follow in the event the terms are violated.

Of course, being an intellectual property attorney, I immediately look to see how the rights relating to user owned copyrights and other IP is handled. Google’s terms of service reads:

Some of our Services allow you to submit content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.

Sounds amazing, right? But, if you read on…

When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps).

So, if a user posts one of his or her copyrighted materials on onc of Google’s services, the user in effect grants Google a non-revocable license to use the material, essentially, how they see fit, for “operating, promoting, and improving service, and develop new services,” a pretty broad group of categories.

This peaked my interest as to how a user’s copyrighted materials are handled on other popular social sites, such as Facebook.  Again, things start out rosy:

You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings.

 But the devil is in the details:

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).

To my surprise, Facebook seems to make less of a grab on your copyrighted materials than Google. Of concern, Facebook claims the right to transfer and sub-license your content. However, it appears that any and all of Facebook’s rights in your content ends upon deletion of the content from Facebook’s system by the copyright holder and those with whom the content has been shared.

As a little bonus, section 5.6 of Facebook’s terms of service states, “You will not use our copyrights or trademarks (including Facebook, the Facebook and F Logos, FB, Face, Poke, Wall and 32665), or any confusingly similar marks, without our written permission.” So, allegedly, the word “face” is now owned by Facebook. If this turns out like the Superbowl-”Big Game” situation, we may have to start referring to our faces as our “head fronts.”

SOPA and PIPA vs The Internet: The Epic Copyright Battle

Wednesday, 18 January, 2012 15:40 Written by Danie Roy 2 Comments

Danie Roy

Before we begin, I’d like to make some statements that you may remember from when I discussed embryonic stem cells: this article is largely meant to be informative, although it is very difficult to stay completely unbiased when I am informing you about the opinions of other people. I apologize in advance if my own opinion shines through too brightly, largely because this seems to be an issue that is polarizing people more than stem cells ever could. Add the previous sentence to the list of things I never thought I’d say. Then again, this is the internet.

By now, you’re probably aware that you can’t access Wikipedia or Craigslist as you normally would. You’ve gone to see teh lolcats or hang with your bronies, and you’ve been greeted with a popup begging you to take action. The Google doodle is now a black box. Even the news stations are talking about the sites going down. What’s going on? Just a preview of what could happen if SOPA and PIPA pass in their current forms.

SOPA and PIPA are bills in the House of Representatives and Senate, respectively, that were intended to stop online piracy from overseas sites like The Pirate Bay. Currently, nobody can touch The Pirate Bay, as evidenced by their response letters (or, as Scott called them, f/u letters). The language of the bills is entirely too broad, however, and reeks slightly of “did not do the research.” For instance, you don’t have to infringe to be taken down, you just need to be capable of infringing: that is, have a comment box, text, links, a link to someone else’s link, etc. And you may be guilty until proven innocent.

These are popping up everywhere today.

I’ll be the first to admit that most people have no idea what’s going on in Congress most of the time. I personally would rather read image file wrappers, watch paint dry, or have a root canal than watch C-SPAN. It’s boring, and in a language called “legalese.” Great for curing insomnia, though.

Before I get too far into this, I’m going to be perfectly clear: I am FOR protecting intellectual property. I’d be an out-of-work hypocrite if I wasn’t; protecting intellectual property is my job as a patent agent. However, I personally believe that SOPA and PIPA can’t protect intellectual property in their current forms.

Here’s why people are protesting and your favorite sites are dark:

  • A site does not necessarily have to infringe to be taken down. A site that could infringe, in other words, has a comment box, links, or any upload capability, can be targeted.
  • If you’ve been accused, there is no real defense: you’re assumed guilty until proven innocent, and the bill makes proving yourself innocent extremely difficult. In order to be innocent, your website must not have the functionality to infringe; which of course, all websites have. So, you’re either infringing or you’re perjuring yourself. Take your pick.
  • Takedowns are incredibly easy to initiate. The RIAA already has a history of using questionably ethical legal tactics to take out legitimate businesses. Imagine what they can do with SOPA and PIPA on their side.
  • Ever posted anything to any website? YouTube, ICanHasCheezburger?, even Facebook? Yep, you’re a potential target.
  • Ever used Gmail, Yahoo! mail, or AOL mail? Same deal.
  • Fair use will be practically considered obsolete… and ignorance will not be a defense.
  • Anyone working for the government (like our wonderful Congresspeople) is immune from the consequences of violating SOPA and PIPA.
  • The link I posted to the f/u letters? That could be a violation of SOPA/PIPA, due to The Pirate Bay’s unsavory activities.
  • Earlier versions (and possibly later versions) allowed for destabilizing the infrastructure of the internet in order to “protect” IP. That is, addresses could be removed from the universal internet lookup system, DNS, which would make site spoofing that much easier… hello viruses and stolen personal info!

To quote a godly entity, you “should pretend like it is a big deal, because it is.” Whether you’re for or against SOPA/PIPA, you really need to speak up about this issue. It affects the internet as we know it, and it affects intellectual property, too. If you’re like me, you’re for protecting intellectual property, but against seriously inhibiting the free flow of the internet.

To read more:
Tim O’Reilly’s thoughts (with some from Nancy Pelosi)

Wikipedia’s two working English pages: SOPA and PIPA

LA Times: Three congresspeople drop support, including FL Senator Marco Rubio

PCWorld’s rather factual take

Not a Flying Car Patent, but Getting There…

Wednesday, 21 December, 2011 23:46 Written by Danie Roy 1 Comment

Danie Roy

The year 2011 is closing out, which means reflection on the past, and looking to the future.  In some cases, one might reflect on old cartoons and predictions of where technology would take us by now… and the timeless question “where’s my flying car already?”

Admit it.  You’ve wanted one at some point or another.  While we still may not have flying cars, we might have self-driving cars.  At least, that’s what Google’s new patent says.

Basically, the patent allows for a car to pick up some sort of external stimulus (QR code, radio signal, phone signal, pictures, etc.) and drive to a desired location and/or through a desired route.  The car is not completely autonomous (electrical devices glitch all the time, after all.  Most folks are guessing QR codes on the road, but I think QR signs or wireless signals are more likely.  Guess we’ll find out soon enough, when Google decides to listen to the cries of “SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!!!”

“There’s Nothing Like This Out There” and Other Quotes That Are Common For Inventors

Friday, 16 December, 2011 14:55 Written by Mark Malek 0 Comments

By: Mark R. Malek

Many times during a patent consultation I will hear a very common line used by many inventors.  “This must be patentable, because there’s nothing like it out there.” My first response is usually “where did you look?”  The issue is that the very idea you came up with might not be found at the local Wal-Mart or Home Depot.  That does not necessarily mean that it is not “out there.”

Think of this – there are over 8,000,000 patents out there.  That’s just the issued patents.  As you probably know from many of the stories that we have done on the patent application backlog (see past stories here, here, and here) so, as you can imagine, the number of patent applications pushes the amount of “prior art” out there even higher.  At the time of this article, the patent dashboard indicated that the number of patent applications that need to still be examined are 671,409.

The point is that it is not sufficient to just assume that since you cannot purchase one, it has not been invented.  There are several different places to do some research when you first invent something.  For example, two of my favorite sites to look at to do some initial patent searches are Google Patents and FreePatentsOnline.  These are great places to get started on your patent searches.  Many times, this exercise will help an inventor to narrow down the invention.  For example, the inventor may have come up with a broad concept of some sort, e.g., a u-turn signal for a car.  That is a very broad idea and, as such, upon initially searching for this invention, one would notice a great number of patents that are already issued for it.  The next step is to look at all of those patents, and figure out what makes your invention different.  Another great place to do some patent searching is the Patent Office’s website.  There is a quick search available and an advanced search available as well.  I like the advanced search because it allows the inventor to search by classifications and art units.  When all else fails, just do a simple Google search and see what people are posting on the internet.

For great information on patent searching, see this article on IPWatchdog written by Gene Quinn.

 

Google Patent Lawyer Talks Shop

Monday, 14 November, 2011 05:36 Written by Aaron Thalwitzer 0 Comments

The Wall Street Journal interviewed Google’s patent counsel, Tim Porter. Below are some highlights, and my awesome commentary (this is a blog after all).

In the context of Android’s rise to power, and a plurality of the smartphone market, WSJ asks Porter about the ongoing litigation surrounding Android and Google, and his thoughts on our patent system, generally (SPOILER ALERT – he thinks it sucks).

Google has sued by Oracle, Apple and Microsoft. Porter has to deal with that.

On Microsoft’s pressuring for licensing agreement: “When their products stop succeeding in the marketplace, when they get marginalized, as is happening now with Android, they use the large patent portfolio they’ve built up to get revenue from the success of other companies’ products.”

I agree. Porter’s statement is probably conventional wisdom. Microsoft’s response is probably along the lines of: ‘we have legitimate patents, and we have every right to use them.’ Also fine. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.

On patent litigation discouraging innovation: “You didn’t see Microsoft’s first software patent until 1988. By that time it had come out with Word, not to mention DOS . . . you can look back and see that innovation happens without patents. It’s also true that since there weren’t patents, there wasn’t software patent litigation.”

Software patents bother a lot of people. There’s a meme on Slashdot.org where if you add “on a smartphone” you can get a patent granted. This of course follows the “on the internet” meme of several years ago, and probably the “on a BBS” preceding that.

On whether software should be patentable? “[U]ntil 2007, when the Supreme Court finally said that the patent examiners could use common sense. Patents were written in a way that was vague and overly broad. (Companies are) trying to claim something that’s really an idea (which isn’t patentable). There are only so many ways to describe a piston, but software patents are written by lawyers in a language that software engineers don’t even understand.”

Presumably, Porter’s referring to KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). (Google it). What Porter’s doing is blaming lawyers for the system which provides his (and most lawyers) primary basis for employment. You’re not alone, Tim Porter! I happen to think that most of the justice system is broken too! And yet I come to work each day and love every minute of it. How do we manage?

Q: What’s an innovation worth protection and what’s just fodder for patent trolling? “The legal system should say you shouldn’t patent something that’s obvious. . . Patents are supposed to be a form of property. The property system doesn’t work if you don’t have clear boundaries.”

We already do have an obviousness rule. Clear boundaries would make things easier, but might not be as just. I’d like to see a proposal for something that creates a bright-line rule and retains due process.

Q: On Microsoft’s lawyer saying that the current patent lawsuits are unfortunate, but a normal historic event that follows disruptive technologies. Paraphased: it didn’t happen to Microsoft when they were young and hungry, and the last time it happened (during the age of steam) it resulted in stagnation until the patents expired. He ends with, “So what I think we’re hoping to avoid is this intense focus on litigation to the degree that we all stop innovating.”

Porter seems to be calling Microsoft’s lawyer’s BS. I don’t know about the history of steam engine patents, but I do agree that Microsoft didn’t have this kind of litigation to deal with 25 years ago. There’s no way in hell we’re all going to stop innovating. Ain’t gonna happen. There’s still plenty of money to be made, regardless of patent litigation and regardless of infringement. Stifling innovation seems probable though.

Q: Why’s Google buying so many patents all of the sudden? “Google is a relatively young company, and we have a smaller patent portfolio than many others. So it’s certainly true that part of our intent in buying these portfolios is to increase our ability to protect ourselves when people assert patents against us or our partners.”

Obvious questions get obvious answers. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).

« Older Entries

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 07, 2012

Bad Behavior has blocked 1604 access attempts in the last 7 days.