Via Bill Zame, there is an article in the New Republic about the role of intellectual property in assuring that you don't own your digital camera

While you might own the plastic, glass, and metal in the camera, you don't actually own the software that makes it run--you only have a license to it. And that license is pretty restrictive. If you let anyone outside your immediate family use the camera--if you lend it to a friend for the weekend or even ask a stranger to take a picture of you and your wife--Canon could technically sue you for breach of contract.

The article is here, but unless you have a subscription (I don't) you won't be able to read beyond the first paragraph. [Correction: Scate points out I was too hasty here - you just need to register to read the article...]

Over at research on innovation the current issue of their newsletter is out. A nice article about the hot topic of user innovation.

Techdirt reports that a court will review the constitutionality of fines levied in civil suits for downloading or sharing copyrighted material. The case was brought by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the defendants questioned the size of the compensation asked. The court ruled that the issue is germane. You can read the whole piece here. It is worth looking at the comments as well, as they discuss what is a reasonable fine and discriminate between a criminal and a civil case.

In a move parallel to that of YouTube, MySpace expands the effort against posting copyrighted material on its website. It has licensed a technology to compare member uploads of music against the licensor's music database and block any that are copyrighted (link here).

It says it has always been willing to take down material at the copyright-owner's request, but now the material won't ever see the webwaves. Apparently, the move is motivated by MySpace plans to sell music downloads and doesn't want free competition.

NTP, the company which extracted $612.5 million in its patent infringement lawsuit against BlackBerry maker Research In Motion, is now going after Palm, maker of Treo smart phones and personal digital assistants (PDAs) that can send and receive e-mail by way of radio frequency to mobile processors, capabilities that NTP has patented, according to its complaint (link here).

NTPs patent claims continue to be questioned, but the litigation is costly and prolonged.

RIM folded because the threat of losing cast doubt over its continued existence and potential customers decided to buy a different product. Will Treo face the same fate?

Charles Lane writes in the Washington Post on who makes patent law (Washington Post link here). He gives pride of place to the Solicitor General, representing the Patent and Trademark Office, who is invited by the Supreme Court, feeling its own lack of expertise. The competition is the specialty court for patent and trademark law established by Congress in 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the 10 Supreme Court patent cases in which the solicitor general has participated since 1995, he always won.

Lane provides a current example, KSR International v. Teleflex, where the issue is the proper meaning of "obvious" in patent law, e.g., an extension on a vehicle's accerator to accomodate short people. Read the article for the details. Lane opines that the Solicitor General leans toward limiting the meaning of new and non-obvious.

Not exactly earth shaking.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) representing five record companies sued a woman for downloading and sharing music. She denied the charge and fought the suit. The plantiffs lacked proof but then turned around and sued her two children. The RIAA claims one of them admitted downloading, but their lawyer, present at the hearing, denied that an admission was made. It also charged them with sharing recordings (link here).

I wonder if it is possible to fight back by organizing a boycott of those five record companies. One can dream.

I'm travelling in Mexico right now, but some interesting IP news from the register . In Spain a judge has apprently ruled that downloading is legal.

The ruling sent shockwaves through the music industry as the decision allows Spain's 16 million internet users to swap music without being punished. Spanish recording industry federation Promusicae says it will appeal against the decision.

Meanwhile, the manager of the rock groups Clash and Pink Floyd is quoted as saying

They [the big label managers] don't [believe in DRM]. Not anymore.

And that was done by Sony BMG - what the fuck was that [rootkit DRM] about? The other was iTunes - and they've seen how kids don't like it. The unitary payment doesn't suit the technology, it doesn't suit how they're actually using downloads - which is to explore and move around. You don't want to pay a dollar for each track when you want to explore music.

"But he's also optimistic that for almost everyone else [except the big labels] - indie labels, musicians, songwriters and budding entrepreneurs - as well as network providers - the future's going to be pretty bright."

And so am I. And no, I don't think they should "go out and sell more T-shirts." There are a lot of better revenue generating models, although none quite so lucrative as Jenner's proposal for government tax financing.

Forgent Networks has claimed for some years to own a patent covering JPEG compression. Those it sued generally concluded that it was cheaper to pay than to defend their right, although for several years the patent has been challenged as involving prior art. The Patent office agreed to review the case last winter but the process is a long one. Seeing the end of this gravy train, Forgent has now settled the last of its claims for $8 million. Forgent had about 60 license deals worth $100 million in royalties. (Links include news.com, techdirt, techdirt, and techdirt)

This case makes it pretty clear that our patent system is busted.

A British research organization, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), is pushing for a change in British law so that it reflects widespread current practice in copying music and videos from one format to another, as from their iPod to their computer or MP3 player. Such a "private right to copy" for individual use by people who have bought the material makes sense as long as they don't transfer it to others. (For a good discussion of the pros and cons see this yahoo news link.)

There doesn't seem much chance that the right will be enacted, but its nice to have someone on the side of reason.