As reported on The Patent Prospector blog,

Inventor Gary Odom, founder of Patent Hawk, has asserted 7,363,592 against Microsoft. '592 claims a feature of the tool groups used in the Office 2007 tool ribbon.

Now, as noted on the Patent Prospector blog, "Microsoft was a Patent Hawk client for years. They had every opportunity for friendly [sic] discussion. The words 'patent tax' were used, and Microsoft chose a path consistent with their corporate culture."

A few observations. First, it is striking that Odom is suing is former client. Second, Patent Prospector whines that Odom just wanted a "friendly" discussion, and big ole' mean Microsoft wouldn't play ball. Hint: it's not "friendly" when you threaten to sic the state thugs on someone if they don't pony up. If the thugs in power didn't make it legal, it would be called "extortion."

Third, Patent Prospector implies that there's something wrong with viewing such a threat as a "tax". There's not. That's exactly what it is. Odom threatens his former client with severe financial damage by the state's thugs, and they call it a "tax." Hey, unfair! They are supposed to just pay their former attorney! Patent Prospector whines that Microsoft's "corporate culture" is a problem here, in viewing such demands as a tax. Would that more companies would openly call these extortortionate demands what they are.

But maybe we're a bit unfair to just take Patent Prospector's word for what really happened between Patent Hawk/Odom and Microsoft. Oh, wait--Patent Prospector is also apparently run by Patent Hawk/Odom.

Correction: In the original post, I referred to Odom as a patent attorney. My assumption was wrong. After someone suggested to me Odom was not a patent attorney, but was a patent agent instead, I checked on the PTO attorney/agent roster and could not find him. On his Patent Prospector site, he describes his fellow blogger as a patent agent, but not himself. And on the site for Platinum Patents, his "patent prosecution boutique," he describes his colleague as a patent agent, and himself as "a pro se prosecutor of his own inventions". So Odom is apparently a "technical consultant" who advises on a variety of patent-related matters.

I think I just may start asking patent attorneys my company hires to include a little clause in the retainer agreement: "and we promise not to sue you, our client, for patent infringement in the future."

Incidentally, Odom and I had a disagreement previously about the patent system, in the comments to this post. Odom takes the typpical pro-patent position. Unsurprising given that he is "a former professional economist who drove his interest in technology into a career in computers, electronics, and software development, areas he made his profession for 17 years. Gary is a long-standing member of IEEE and ACM."

Regarding the typical approach of engineers to policy and their tendency toward scientistm, see my posts Engineers' Syndrome and Galambos and Other Nuts.

Update: See Techdirt's post by Mike Masnick, Microsoft Sued Over User Editable Toolbar Patent, in particular the comments on the "obviousness" of the claims of the Odom patent. Masnick notes there that Patent Hawk (Odom) has "been known to comment here on occasion, employing the style seen all-too-often among patent system apologists commenting on Techdirt posts: insult repeatedly and broadly, offer no actual points, refuse to actually counter anything we say, provide absolutely no evidence and (for good measure) insult again."

For example, as in this previous post about the poor quality of patent applications, where Odom posted: "This little op-ed piece is ignorant tripe, none of it having any factual basis. Nothing but fantasy based on rumor and imagination. Pathetic, really.

Masnick's reply:

Hi Patent Hawk. Here in the real world, when we disagree with something, we actually make an "argument." It's called explaining why something is incorrect and presenting counter evidence.

I've noticed a pattern when I talk about patents. Most (though, certainly not all) of the folks who disagree with me simply stop by and toss insults and never present a shred of evidence to support their position.

It suggests to me that I'm clearly on the right track.

Indeed! See also Odom's similar style of engagement--or lack thereof--with me on the comments to this post.

See also my comment on that thread:

Note one of the derisive comments on Hawk's blog, which concerns this patent's parent patent:

How about the PARENT patent? #7,036,087 that issued on 04/25/2006.

Why didn't you try to assert this one against micro$oft or others? Or did you? Or was it already invalidated? :)

For the record, here are the issued claims from the parent patent #7,036,087.

1. Software from at least one computer-readable medium automatically rearranging at least one tool based upon relative usage frequency of tools within a toolbar group.

2. Software according to claim 1 preventing at least one tool from being rearranged.

3. Software from at least one computer-readable medium automatically rearranging at least one group of a tools on a toolbar based upon aggregate usage frequency of tools within a tool group compared to another group.

4. Software according to claim 3 preventing at least one group from being rearranged.

(Cross-posted at Mises blog.)

Tyler Cowen writes on his blog about a recent book, Michael Heller's The Gridlock Economy: How Too Much Ownership Wrecks Markets, Stops Innovation, and Costs Lives, whose key message is that the "tragedy of the anti-commons" is often a bigger problem than the better-known tragedy of the commons link here.

He provides this example: "Tarnation, a spunky documentary on growing up with a schizophrenic mother, originally cost $218 to make at home on the director's laptop.  It required an additional $230,000 for music clearances before it could be distributed."

Read the whole piece it is short and right on point.

You have probably never heard of the Naked Cowboy who parades around the streets of New York in his underpants, cowboy boots and hat, playing a guitar and singing. You should because it once again demonstrates the absurdity of IP law. The Mars candy people and its ad agency created billboards featuring a naked cowboy link here and here. He sued for invasion of privacy and breach of his trademark. A New York court has thrown out the privacy charge, which seems almost logical, since the cowboy's strutting is clearly not private. Some such "street artists" might even pay for the publicity.

But the trademark invasion remains to be adjudicated. Trial is set for high noon on July 11. I'll bet you can't wait to hear how it turns out. You can read the 23 page opinion link here.link here

Susan Decker of Bloomberg reports "Alberto Gonzales to Help `Special Master' on Check Patent Case" link here. Her lead is, "Former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who was forced from his job amid a controversy over the firings of federal prosecutors, has been hired to provide assistance to a special master on a patent case." Need one say more?

A copyright battle is opening over a poem, Footprints in the Sand, a piece of inspirational saccharine which has been widely believed until now to be in the public domain. According to Washington Post Staff Writer, Hank Stuever, the poem has at least six people claiming authorship link here. The copyright is pretty questionable, since it has been published for years under the authorship of anonymous. Copyright was not claimed until 1986 but there is money, apparently quite a bit, in licensing the poem for imprint on cups and shirts and such, so the fight will now commence and more claimants may emerge.

The lawyers are about to have a feast once again over what is the result of really vague and therefore bad law. But with so many vested interests in the present text, it is unlikely to be changed anytime soon so we all lose.

The quintessential stupidity of copyright law once again confronts us in the case of Barbie vs Bratz dolls (Mattel vs MGA Entertainment) link here. The fight is over who owns the Bratz doll design. It was designed by Carter Bryant. If he did the work on it while he worked for Mattel, it owns the copyright under the terms of his employment contract. If he did it while working for MGA between work stints with Mattel, MGA owns it. The lawyers have made it more complicated than that, which should keep the jurors scratching their heads.

The evidence the contending sides present is contradictory. But is it relevant? Where in this case, is the justification for intellectual property that it fosters innovation?

Why do we have this kind of case?

The Bank of America has come up with another "gee-whiz innovation" that will come as a surprise to almost nobody. It proposes to carry out comparative country studies to determine whether a company should move its operations abroad and if so, where. And it is applying for a patent on the process link here.

The problem here is that prior art is rampant in this proposal. Companies have been doing exactly such studies on their own forever. The graphic that is included in the application is a catalog of the obvious

.

One must wonder too, about the public relations wisdom of including this quote in the application: "A typical American employee,' complains BofA, 'demands a high salary, good benefits, a good work environment, vacation time, and other job-related perks.' Such problems are solved with BofA's patent-pending methodology, which eliminates 'demanding work force' problems by identifying another country for a corporation to relocate its work force to."

For your amusement, a 45 page legal treatise by Andrew Beckerman Rodau entitled "The Supreme Court Engages in Judicial Activism in Interpreting the Patent Law in eBay ,Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C." The treatise opens with a long, cursory, and misinformed discussion about the economics of patents - misinformed not in the sense that Michele and I disagree with the economics, but that all economists would disagree with the economics. But the amusing part is the criticism of the Supreme Court for judicial activism. Their activism? Not respecting a long tradition of allowing permanent injunctive relief. The humor: the patents in question are business practice patents - for conducting auctions, no less - the real activism was of course the activism of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which created business practice patents whole cloth against an equally long tradition of not allowing them. Not surprisingly I didn't see any mention of this by Rodau in his article.

If you are looking for more IP humor, you might try this. Here is a bit from the abstract:

Origin stories serve both ontological and epistemological functions. They in- fuse everyday life and relations with significance by explaining why things are as they are and by providing guidance for how things should evolve based on what we already understand about our world. Origin stories also literally give a culture life by designating a beginning and a history. Finally, most origin sto- ries are political, legitimating or justifying certain relations of power in society. This Article is a comparative analysis of the "origin stories" that structure several branches of United States intellectual property protection: copyright, trademark and patent law.

Sadly this paper by Silbey is probably closer to the mark than Rodau's.