Original Story: espn.go.com
For years, the world's two largest shoe and apparel companies -- Nike and Adidas -- have battled for supremacy, with the competition occasionally leading to a lawsuit over a particular design or material, which one considers proprietary.
But on Monday, Nike took it to the next level, suing three former designers who had left the company, alleging they used Nike's trade secrets to sell themselves to Adidas. A Portland Intellectual Property Lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
The lawsuit, filed in the county in Oregon where Adidas has its U.S. headquarters, alleges that some of its biggest designers, Denis Dekovic, Marc Dolce and Mark Miner, while still employees of Nike, began to build a blueprint to replicate Nike's famous Innovation Kitchen and stole secrets from inside its walls to take elsewhere. The Kitchen is where Nike's top designers build out shoes years in advance, testing new materials and concepts. Only a select few on Nike's sprawling campus have access to open its doors.
The lawsuit, which asks for more than $10 million in damages, alleges that before the three left Nike, they were already consulting with Adidas. To further sell themselves and capitalize on their position, Nike says Dekovic had the contents of his laptop duplicated, which gave him access to "thousands of proprietary documents relating to Nike's global football (soccer) product lines" where Adidas and Nike most fiercely battle. A Boston Intellectual Property Lawyer have experience representing clients in intellectual property litigation.
Among other things, the documents included specific designs, including models of team uniforms and products for the 2016 European Championships, plans for Nike-sponsored athletes in at least seven countries, unreleased financial information and projections concerning the company's business and information about Nike's planned launches in the marketplace.
"All of this information is among the most important and highly confidential information in Nike's athletic footwear business, particularly its global football business," the lawsuit reads. "Disclosure of any of this information would irreparably harm Nike, by, among other things, enabling a competitor to effectively undermine and counter Nike's performance in the athletic markets for the next three to four years."
Before leaving the company, Nike alleges the three designers erased emails from their computers and text messages on their phones to destroy any incriminating data that would lead back to their scheme.
"We find Nike's allegations hurtful because they are either false or are misleading half-truths," the designers said in a statement provided to the Portland Business Journal by their law firm. "We did not take trade secrets or intellectual property when we departed Nike in September. The athletic footwear industry is fast moving and rapidly changing and, as creative people, we thrive on innovation and freshness. We are looking forward to bringing new and innovative ideas and designs to Adidas when our non-competition agreement expires." An Atlanta Trade Secrets Lawyer is skilled in the development of trade secret protection programs, buying and selling trade secrets, and licensing trade secrets.
Dekovic was the senior design director for Nike football (soccer), Dolce worked on the shoes for LeBron James and Kobe Bryant and managed historic brands such as the Air Force One and the Dunk shoe and Miner was the senior footwear designer for Nike running, one of the company's biggest growth categories.
Nike says the three had signed a noncompete contract that spanned to September 2015. Yet less than two weeks after the three resigned, Adidas announced that it would back a Brooklyn-based design studio managed by Dekovic, Dolce and Miner.
Even though Adidas said at the time that the three wouldn't work for them until 2015, Nike remained concerned about the trade secrets it claims were stolen from them.
The company says it has spent more than $1.5 million in the past three years alone to ensure that its employees keep information confidential, and said in a statement Tuesday night that "Nike is an innovation company and we will continue to vigorously protect our intellectual property."
Adidas officials did not specifically address the allegations.
"Many of our employees have storied careers and rich experiences, but we have no interest in old work or past assignments as we are focused on shaping the future of the sporting goods industry, not looking at what has been done in the past," the statement said.
Nike's world headquarters in Beaverton and Adidas' U.S. headquarters in Portland are located about 13 miles from each other.
Showing posts with label Intellectual Property. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Intellectual Property. Show all posts
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
THE CAMPAIGN INDUSTRY'S LOOMING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY WAR
Original Story: campaignsandelections.com
A patent war may be on the horizon as the campaign industry becomes increasingly technological. The once sleepy industry dominated by phones, mail, and TV consultants is now experiencing the kind of innovation and growth traditionally confined to Silicon Valley.
The new and old consultant cultures have a new fault line: patents.
Washington consultants are known as vicious turf protectors and some view patenting intellectual property (IP) as a way to defend their business. That view clashes with the growing segment of the industry based on the West Coast where they’ve adopted the laissez-faire approach to patents popular with the tech industry. The belief among Silicon Valley-types in the industry is that patents stifle innovation.
Stifling or not, says Brian Pandya, a patent attorney at Washington-based Wiley Rein LLP, “you’re going to see a lot patent filings by vendors and consultants that operate in this space.” It’s inevitable, explains Pandya, “because campaigns are becoming more high tech and they’re intersecting with patents and IP issues.” An Atlanta Intellectual Property Lawyer has experience in trademark and patent cases.
It worries Seth Bannon, a New York-based consultant who founded Amicus, a fundraising firm.
“The only way that you win with patents is by suing other people,” he says. “It’s better for companies and it’s better for everyone involved if people are trying to build better products.”
He’s not completely against patents. A firm that spends 10-15 years on research and development of a nuclear fusion process should take advantage of IP protections. An Atlanta IP Lawyer represents clients involved in patent infringement matters. “But when you’re talking about something like matching a cookie to the voter file, which is an idea that a lot of people have and will have, that’s an inappropriate place for a patent,” he says.
Bannon subscribes to the view that increased patenting could delay the development of new political technology. “It’s always best if technology companies, especially in the nonprofit, political world, compete based on the quality of their products and not based on patents,” he says.
The harbinger of this pending conflict was the patent granted to Audience Partners earlier this summer for their voter file matching process. The announcement was met with skepticism from other firms who likened it — while requesting anonymity — to “patenting a strategy.”
“I better go patent door knocking, phone banking, and direct mail using the voter file before someone else snaps them up,” says a representative of a rival company. “A patent troll is certainly an interesting mascot.”
Other consultants contacted by C&E declined to be quoted for this story.
Jeff Dittus, co-founder and CEO at Audience Partners, is quick to disagree that his firm has patented a “strategy.”
“If the patent office recognizes an invention, it’s not a trivial thing. It took three-and-half years to get it through,” he says. “It was studied and looked at.”
Dittus, who’s also the inventor listed on the patent, likened his company’s process of cookie-voter file matching to Intel’s patenting of the microprocessor or the Pitney Bowes patent of the Frank mail machine. Still, he admits his firm didn’t invent the wheel when it comes to voter-file matching.
“Yes, direct mail has been here, door knocking has been here using the voter registration file, but the way that you present an ad in a real time environment on the Internet across all these ecosystems is an invention that we created,” he says.
The patent is described as “systems and methods for facilitating and targeting of online ads to voters within a selected political demographic,” according to the filing. “Audience targeting may be accomplished in several ways including: geo-targeting; contextual targeting; behavioral targeting; site placement; and targeted household television ads.”
Audience Partners is not the only company offering this service, which could present legal complications for the patent. Dittus declined to discuss his company’s legal strategy — Audience Partners, which operates in the campaign space through its division CampaignGrid and other licensees, could potentially sue competitors who continue to use similar technology without licensing their patent. But, Dittus adds, “what I will say is that there are many companies that we work with on the publishing side and the technology side that have licensed our patent and we’ve been working with for years and they’re all big public companies.”
Patents are rarely litigated for infringement. But if Audience Partners does decide to pursue legal action, they have a 27-point patent to target the competition with.
“It’s easier to prove infringement on a broad claim than a narrow claim, because it covers more activity,” says Pandya. “Also the flip side is that a narrow claim is more likely to withstand an invalidity challenge, because you’re less likely to capture what people were doing before the filing of the patent.”
Michael Berta, a San Francisco-based partner in the intellectual property group of Arnold & Porter LLP, agrees Audience Partners could have trouble proving a claim.
“The inventor first filed for this idea in 2011, which is relatively recent,” says Berta. “It would seem to me that someone might be able to mount a credible challenge to the validity of this patent if they’ve been in this business longer than the past couple of years.”
Still, the courtroom might not be the only venue for a challenge to Audience Partners, adds Berta. “Patents like this one meet certain requirements for someone to be able to file a challenge with the patent office and try to avoid having to fight validity issues in district court,” he says.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office said it hasn’t received a request to review the patent.
A patent war may be on the horizon as the campaign industry becomes increasingly technological. The once sleepy industry dominated by phones, mail, and TV consultants is now experiencing the kind of innovation and growth traditionally confined to Silicon Valley.
The new and old consultant cultures have a new fault line: patents.
Washington consultants are known as vicious turf protectors and some view patenting intellectual property (IP) as a way to defend their business. That view clashes with the growing segment of the industry based on the West Coast where they’ve adopted the laissez-faire approach to patents popular with the tech industry. The belief among Silicon Valley-types in the industry is that patents stifle innovation.
Stifling or not, says Brian Pandya, a patent attorney at Washington-based Wiley Rein LLP, “you’re going to see a lot patent filings by vendors and consultants that operate in this space.” It’s inevitable, explains Pandya, “because campaigns are becoming more high tech and they’re intersecting with patents and IP issues.” An Atlanta Intellectual Property Lawyer has experience in trademark and patent cases.
It worries Seth Bannon, a New York-based consultant who founded Amicus, a fundraising firm.
“The only way that you win with patents is by suing other people,” he says. “It’s better for companies and it’s better for everyone involved if people are trying to build better products.”
He’s not completely against patents. A firm that spends 10-15 years on research and development of a nuclear fusion process should take advantage of IP protections. An Atlanta IP Lawyer represents clients involved in patent infringement matters. “But when you’re talking about something like matching a cookie to the voter file, which is an idea that a lot of people have and will have, that’s an inappropriate place for a patent,” he says.
Bannon subscribes to the view that increased patenting could delay the development of new political technology. “It’s always best if technology companies, especially in the nonprofit, political world, compete based on the quality of their products and not based on patents,” he says.
The harbinger of this pending conflict was the patent granted to Audience Partners earlier this summer for their voter file matching process. The announcement was met with skepticism from other firms who likened it — while requesting anonymity — to “patenting a strategy.”
“I better go patent door knocking, phone banking, and direct mail using the voter file before someone else snaps them up,” says a representative of a rival company. “A patent troll is certainly an interesting mascot.”
Other consultants contacted by C&E declined to be quoted for this story.
Jeff Dittus, co-founder and CEO at Audience Partners, is quick to disagree that his firm has patented a “strategy.”
“If the patent office recognizes an invention, it’s not a trivial thing. It took three-and-half years to get it through,” he says. “It was studied and looked at.”
Dittus, who’s also the inventor listed on the patent, likened his company’s process of cookie-voter file matching to Intel’s patenting of the microprocessor or the Pitney Bowes patent of the Frank mail machine. Still, he admits his firm didn’t invent the wheel when it comes to voter-file matching.
“Yes, direct mail has been here, door knocking has been here using the voter registration file, but the way that you present an ad in a real time environment on the Internet across all these ecosystems is an invention that we created,” he says.
The patent is described as “systems and methods for facilitating and targeting of online ads to voters within a selected political demographic,” according to the filing. “Audience targeting may be accomplished in several ways including: geo-targeting; contextual targeting; behavioral targeting; site placement; and targeted household television ads.”
Audience Partners is not the only company offering this service, which could present legal complications for the patent. Dittus declined to discuss his company’s legal strategy — Audience Partners, which operates in the campaign space through its division CampaignGrid and other licensees, could potentially sue competitors who continue to use similar technology without licensing their patent. But, Dittus adds, “what I will say is that there are many companies that we work with on the publishing side and the technology side that have licensed our patent and we’ve been working with for years and they’re all big public companies.”
Patents are rarely litigated for infringement. But if Audience Partners does decide to pursue legal action, they have a 27-point patent to target the competition with.
“It’s easier to prove infringement on a broad claim than a narrow claim, because it covers more activity,” says Pandya. “Also the flip side is that a narrow claim is more likely to withstand an invalidity challenge, because you’re less likely to capture what people were doing before the filing of the patent.”
Michael Berta, a San Francisco-based partner in the intellectual property group of Arnold & Porter LLP, agrees Audience Partners could have trouble proving a claim.
“The inventor first filed for this idea in 2011, which is relatively recent,” says Berta. “It would seem to me that someone might be able to mount a credible challenge to the validity of this patent if they’ve been in this business longer than the past couple of years.”
Still, the courtroom might not be the only venue for a challenge to Audience Partners, adds Berta. “Patents like this one meet certain requirements for someone to be able to file a challenge with the patent office and try to avoid having to fight validity issues in district court,” he says.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office said it hasn’t received a request to review the patent.
Monday, June 25, 2012
The Black Keys Sue for Copyright Infringement
Story first appeared in The Associated Press.
The Black Keys are not shilling power tools or pizza, the band said in copyright infringement lawsuits against The Home Depot and Pizza Hut.
The "Lonely Boy" band filed the federal lawsuits Thursday, claiming Home Depot did not have permission to use elements of the hit song in an ad promoting power tools and that Pizza Hut misused "Gold on the Ceiling" in a recent ad.
Both songs appeared on the rock group's seventh album, "El Camino," which was released last year and has sold nearly 840,000 copies. Musician-producer known as Danger Mouse, is also suing the companies.
The experts confirmed that this was copyright infringement, according to San Diego Copyrights Lawyers.
The cases seek unspecified damages of more than $75,000 apiece and an order preventing the continued use of the songs in the commercials.
A spokesman for Home Depot said that they haven't seen the complaint yet, but respect for intellectual property rights is a matter we take very seriously.
A Pizza Hut spokesman said the company also hasn't seen the case, but fully respects artists' rights. He directed inquiries to the ad's creators, The Martin Agency and The Interpublic Group of Companies.
A Martin Agency spokesman said the company doesn't respond to pending lawsuits, and a spokesman for the Interpublic Group of Companies was not immediately available.
The suits claim both companies were given written notices that the ads misused The Black Keys' music. The Home Depot ad touts Ryobi power tools, while the Pizza Hut ad touts its new "Cheesy Bites Pizza."
New York Copyrights lawyers stated that neither company received permission to use musical elements from the songs. The ads do not include any vocals.
"Lonely Boy" and "Gold on the Ceiling" both topped the Billboard alternative music chart after their release.
The Black Keys won two Grammy Awards in 2010 for music from their album "Brothers," which won the Best Alternative Music Album award that year.
The Black Keys are not shilling power tools or pizza, the band said in copyright infringement lawsuits against The Home Depot and Pizza Hut.
The "Lonely Boy" band filed the federal lawsuits Thursday, claiming Home Depot did not have permission to use elements of the hit song in an ad promoting power tools and that Pizza Hut misused "Gold on the Ceiling" in a recent ad.
Both songs appeared on the rock group's seventh album, "El Camino," which was released last year and has sold nearly 840,000 copies. Musician-producer known as Danger Mouse, is also suing the companies.
The experts confirmed that this was copyright infringement, according to San Diego Copyrights Lawyers.
The cases seek unspecified damages of more than $75,000 apiece and an order preventing the continued use of the songs in the commercials.
A spokesman for Home Depot said that they haven't seen the complaint yet, but respect for intellectual property rights is a matter we take very seriously.
A Pizza Hut spokesman said the company also hasn't seen the case, but fully respects artists' rights. He directed inquiries to the ad's creators, The Martin Agency and The Interpublic Group of Companies.
A Martin Agency spokesman said the company doesn't respond to pending lawsuits, and a spokesman for the Interpublic Group of Companies was not immediately available.
The suits claim both companies were given written notices that the ads misused The Black Keys' music. The Home Depot ad touts Ryobi power tools, while the Pizza Hut ad touts its new "Cheesy Bites Pizza."
New York Copyrights lawyers stated that neither company received permission to use musical elements from the songs. The ads do not include any vocals.
"Lonely Boy" and "Gold on the Ceiling" both topped the Billboard alternative music chart after their release.
The Black Keys won two Grammy Awards in 2010 for music from their album "Brothers," which won the Best Alternative Music Album award that year.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
More Intellectual Property Lawsuits for Apple
Story first appeared in The Wall Street Journal.
A California judge threw out Proview Electronics Co.'s lawsuit against Apple Inc. over the iPad trademark in China, the latest twist in the legal fight over the rightful owner of the tablet's name.
The Judge in the Superior Court of the State of California in Santa Clara County on May 4 approved Apple's motion to dismiss the suit, which was first filed in February. The order wasn't previously disclosed, according to a San Diego Trademarks Lawyer.
A California judge throws out Proview Electronics' iPad-trademark lawsuit against Apple, but the suit in China is still pending.
In its suit, Proview alleged that it was deceived when the Cupertino, Calif., company acquired the iPad trademarks from it in 2009.
Proview has made the same claims in a court in China's southern Guangdong province, where the dispute has escalated into one of the highest-profile intellectual property cases for a foreign company in China. That court has urged Apple and Proview to try to reach a settlement.
Proview Electronics is the Taiwanese subsidiary of Proview International Holdings Ltd. and the unit from which Apple acquired trademarks for the iPad name.
After Proview took its legal case to the U.S., Apple argued for the case to be dismissed on the grounds that the parties had agreed to settle any legal disagreements in Hong Kong.
The Judge upheld that view, writing that Proview failed to provide evidence that the selection of Hong Kong was unreasonable or unfair, according to a copy of the order.
An Apple spokeswoman reiterated the company's earlier claim that it had rightfully purchased the iPad name from Proview, adding that Proview refuses to honor their agreement with Apple in China.
A lawyer for Proview said in a statement that the decision to dismiss was not based on the merits of the case, and that Proview is looking forward to presenting the facts in the case to the appellate court. Proview states that they are confident that the facts will show that Apple fraudulently obtained the iPad trademarks.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.
A California judge threw out Proview Electronics Co.'s lawsuit against Apple Inc. over the iPad trademark in China, the latest twist in the legal fight over the rightful owner of the tablet's name.
The Judge in the Superior Court of the State of California in Santa Clara County on May 4 approved Apple's motion to dismiss the suit, which was first filed in February. The order wasn't previously disclosed, according to a San Diego Trademarks Lawyer.
A California judge throws out Proview Electronics' iPad-trademark lawsuit against Apple, but the suit in China is still pending.
In its suit, Proview alleged that it was deceived when the Cupertino, Calif., company acquired the iPad trademarks from it in 2009.
Proview has made the same claims in a court in China's southern Guangdong province, where the dispute has escalated into one of the highest-profile intellectual property cases for a foreign company in China. That court has urged Apple and Proview to try to reach a settlement.
Proview Electronics is the Taiwanese subsidiary of Proview International Holdings Ltd. and the unit from which Apple acquired trademarks for the iPad name.
After Proview took its legal case to the U.S., Apple argued for the case to be dismissed on the grounds that the parties had agreed to settle any legal disagreements in Hong Kong.
The Judge upheld that view, writing that Proview failed to provide evidence that the selection of Hong Kong was unreasonable or unfair, according to a copy of the order.
An Apple spokeswoman reiterated the company's earlier claim that it had rightfully purchased the iPad name from Proview, adding that Proview refuses to honor their agreement with Apple in China.
A lawyer for Proview said in a statement that the decision to dismiss was not based on the merits of the case, and that Proview is looking forward to presenting the facts in the case to the appellate court. Proview states that they are confident that the facts will show that Apple fraudulently obtained the iPad trademarks.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Google Maintains Innocence
Story first appeared on CNET.
After Oracle made its closing statements on Monday morning at the U.S. District Court, Google's representative stepped up to the plate, defending Android's implementation of the 37 Java APIs at question in this lawsuit.
The core defense rested on positioning this as a case of fair use, asserting that Android is not a copy of Java 5.0 SE but rather a "substantially" different work with different success in the market.
It's a whole platform that didn't exist before and transformed the use of Java for a smartphone stack.
The representative outlined four key points to Google's position in this intellectual property suit:
Sun gave the Java language to the public
Google built Android using free and open technologies
Google made fair use of the Java language APIs in Android
Sun publicly approved Android's use of Java
Copyright infringement requires that you copy something. There was no copying here because Google knew that it couldn't use Sun's source code. Also on copyrights, it was pointed out to the jury's instructions about judging "the work as a whole," which actually consists of all 166 class libraries and all that entails (i.e. implementing codes, names, declarations, etc.) -- adding up to 2.8 million lines of code in Java 5.0 SE. Oracle has to prove that it was more likely than not that copyright infringement occurred.
Additionally, a good portion of the closing arguments were based on the testimony of the former Sun Microsystems CEO last Thursday.
Although it was acknowledged that Sun wasn't happy that it couldn't come to a partnership agreement with Google, the former CEO did say that Sun supported Android's use of Java nor did it have any grounds to file a lawsuit.
Again pointing to a November 2007 blog post in which the former CEO congratulated Google for the debut of Android, the jury was reminded that Sun knew Android was written in Java and must have included the Java APIs in question ahead of the SDK release.
To further hammer down Sun and Oracle's previous support for Android, the defense reminded the jury about a video of the Oracle CEO at JavaOne in 2009, where Ellison said Oracle expected to see more Java devices coming from "our friends at Google," and that Google had done "a fantastic job" in opening up Java.
Although specifics about Android revenue and other financial matters have been banned from the presence of the jury in this trial, he reasserted the open source status of Android as a benefit to the developer community. The point is that Google doesn't make any money on licensing or selling Android. Google decided to make it open to foster innovation and get widespread use.
In his rebuttal argument, the Oracle counsel spoke again about how Android has blocked Java from success in the smartphone market, reiterating that it is "impossible" to compete with a free version of its licensed products.
After closing arguments for the first segment of the trial ended on Monday morning, the presiding Judge proceeded with the rest of the instructions for the jury about ruling on copyright infringement contentions.
The jury, made up of seven women and five men, will begin deliberating today for one hour and then pick up again on Tuesday morning. The Judge previously warned both parties that the jury could take up to a week to deliberate, but he predicted that they would come back within a day and a half. The decision must be unanimous.
After they return with a verdict, the case will move into the second segment of the trial, focusing on patents.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.
After Oracle made its closing statements on Monday morning at the U.S. District Court, Google's representative stepped up to the plate, defending Android's implementation of the 37 Java APIs at question in this lawsuit.
The core defense rested on positioning this as a case of fair use, asserting that Android is not a copy of Java 5.0 SE but rather a "substantially" different work with different success in the market.
It's a whole platform that didn't exist before and transformed the use of Java for a smartphone stack.
The representative outlined four key points to Google's position in this intellectual property suit:
Sun gave the Java language to the public
Google built Android using free and open technologies
Google made fair use of the Java language APIs in Android
Sun publicly approved Android's use of Java
Copyright infringement requires that you copy something. There was no copying here because Google knew that it couldn't use Sun's source code. Also on copyrights, it was pointed out to the jury's instructions about judging "the work as a whole," which actually consists of all 166 class libraries and all that entails (i.e. implementing codes, names, declarations, etc.) -- adding up to 2.8 million lines of code in Java 5.0 SE. Oracle has to prove that it was more likely than not that copyright infringement occurred.
Additionally, a good portion of the closing arguments were based on the testimony of the former Sun Microsystems CEO last Thursday.
Although it was acknowledged that Sun wasn't happy that it couldn't come to a partnership agreement with Google, the former CEO did say that Sun supported Android's use of Java nor did it have any grounds to file a lawsuit.
Again pointing to a November 2007 blog post in which the former CEO congratulated Google for the debut of Android, the jury was reminded that Sun knew Android was written in Java and must have included the Java APIs in question ahead of the SDK release.
To further hammer down Sun and Oracle's previous support for Android, the defense reminded the jury about a video of the Oracle CEO at JavaOne in 2009, where Ellison said Oracle expected to see more Java devices coming from "our friends at Google," and that Google had done "a fantastic job" in opening up Java.
Although specifics about Android revenue and other financial matters have been banned from the presence of the jury in this trial, he reasserted the open source status of Android as a benefit to the developer community. The point is that Google doesn't make any money on licensing or selling Android. Google decided to make it open to foster innovation and get widespread use.
In his rebuttal argument, the Oracle counsel spoke again about how Android has blocked Java from success in the smartphone market, reiterating that it is "impossible" to compete with a free version of its licensed products.
After closing arguments for the first segment of the trial ended on Monday morning, the presiding Judge proceeded with the rest of the instructions for the jury about ruling on copyright infringement contentions.
The jury, made up of seven women and five men, will begin deliberating today for one hour and then pick up again on Tuesday morning. The Judge previously warned both parties that the jury could take up to a week to deliberate, but he predicted that they would come back within a day and a half. The decision must be unanimous.
After they return with a verdict, the case will move into the second segment of the trial, focusing on patents.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Cyber Security Is Necessary for NASA
First appeared in USA Today
It sounds like the plot of a campy science fiction flick:
Thieves steal a laptop containing the codes used to command and control the
International Space Station.
Except it happened.
The March 2011 theft of the unencrypted computer was one of
5,408 cybersecurity incidents — many foreign-based — the space agency reported
during the past two years, according to NASA Inspector General Paul Martin. A San
Francisco IP Lawyer finds this curious.
The incidents, which include the installation of malicious
software and unauthorized access to NASA systems, have caused disruptions and
cost taxpayers millions in missing equipment and repairs.
Some cases are clearly more serious than others, such as the
theft of space station algorithms, though there's nothing to indicate the ISS
was affected in any meaningful way.
"The threat to NASA's information security is
persistent and ever-changing," warned Rep. Paul Braun, R-Ga., who chairs a
House Science, Space and Technology subcommittee that conducted a hearing on
cybersecurity lapses Wednesday. "Unless NASA is able to continuously
innovate and adapt, their data systems and operations will continue to be in
danger." A Boston
IP Lawyer watches closely.
These incidents are among those the inspector general's
office says have taken place since 2010:
—Terra and Landsat-7, both Earth observation satellites,
"have each experienced at least two separate instances of interference
apparently consistent with cyberactivities against their command and control
systems."
—An unidentified NASA center released to the public 10
surplus computers connected to the space shuttle program that weren't properly
sanitized and may have contained sensitive data.
—Intruders stole credentials for more than 150 NASA
employees in one cyber attack, while another intrusion provided hackers access
to key information and user accounts at the Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena, Ca.
—A Texas man pleaded guilty last year to hacking NASA
computers, an incident that prevented some 3,000 registered users from
accessing oceanographic data collected by the agency.
Martin told the House panel the agency's vulnerability stems
from two issues: It's a high-profile target that generates plenty of
sought-after data, and it offers potential hackers a wide array of entry
points. A Nasheville
IP Lawyer is familiar with these issues.
NASA manages approximately 3,400 websites — nearly half of
all the federal government's non-defense sites — and is home to some 176,000
individual e-mail addresses. Its assets include 550 information systems that
control spacecraft, collect and process scientific data, and enable NASA to
interact with colleagues and researchers in other agencies and universities
around the globe, according to Martin.
"There are many gates to guard," NASA Chief
Information Officer Linda Cureton told the House panel.
Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., a member of the Intelligence
Committee who rode on the space shuttle, said that while the country's national
security computers are protected, he's concerned foreign hackers could
infiltrate government computers through a back door provided by NASA or another
non-defense agency.
"Of course it's worrisome," he said. "And
that's what we're working on."
NASA has made some progress addressing problems Martin and
his office have pointed out in the 21 audit reports his office has conducted
over the past five years. Of the 69 recommendations the inspector general has
made during that period, all but 18 have been fully addressed, officials said.
Martin said only 1% of the agency's laptops and other
portable devices have been encrypted to prevent easy deciphering, which he called
"very disturbing" given the highly sensitive nature of the
information stored on them. More than half of the computers used
government-wide are encrypted.
In addition, a risk assessment Cureton's office was supposed
to have completed by August 2011 won't be finished until June.
"We are determined to improve NASA's capability to
predict, prevent and effectively contain potential IT security incidents,"
she told lawmakers.
Cureton told the House panel the agency has taken a number
of steps, including accelerating encryption of NASA laptops. But she said
cybersecurity isn't taken as seriously as it should be because of
"culture" issues. And much of the sensitive information is managed
not by her office but by mission directorates.
A Pittsburgh
IP Lawyer wonders who should be in charge.
Martin said Cureton's efforts have been hampered because she
doesn't control much of the budget devoted to improving cybersecurity.
"As we've all seen in Washington," Martin said,
"when you don't control the funding, you have a difficult time getting
folks' full attention."
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Kodak Sees Fewer Patent Fights Ahead
The Wall Street Journal
Kodak Chief Perez Plans to Curtail Patent Lawsuits
Eastman Kodak Co. Chief Executive Antonio Perez said he plans to curtail the aggressive patent lawsuits that have generated cash for Kodak as it struggles to reinvent itself with a focus on making printers.
Since becoming CEO in 2005, Mr. Perez, a former Hewlett-Packard Co. printer executive, has successfully turned Kodak's patents into a lucrative sideline and key source of funding to finance its push into digital printing.
But those printing efforts haven't yet paid off and the slow pace of the company's turnaround has frustrated analysts. Meanwhile, Kodak's once-lucrative film business continues to shrink and its need to invest in printers continues.
"We need [cash flow from patents] right now because we're investing too much for the size of the company in these new businesses," he said in an interview at the company's Rochester, N.Y., headquarters.
"Film will never come back," Mr. Perez said. "Those very, very, very high gross margins that film had will never come back. I don't know of any digital businesses that will even have half of the margin that film had."
Kodak has reported only one full-year profit—in 2007—since 2004. Last year, its loss narrowed to $210 million from a loss of $442 million the prior year. But sales have continued to tumble, falling 19% last year to $7.61 billion from $9.42 billion in 2008.
Mr. Perez says his efforts to transform the 130-year-old company are making a noticeable difference. "When I came into the company [it] had a revenue profile that was 85% based on film and a profit profile that was 130% based on film," he says. Today, the company gets 70% of its sales from digital products.
In March, Kodak's movie-film business, which had remained relatively steady even as camera film sales plunged, suffered a new blow when three big movie theater chains secured financing to convert 14,000 movie screens to digital projection by 2013. The funding is expected to accelerate the digital distribution of movies, giving Kodak less time to adapt to the long-anticipated decline in its film cash cow.
Earlier in his tenure, Mr. Perez pushed aggressively to get Kodak into digital cameras, and now he is making a big bet on consumer and commercial inkjet printers. But he doesn't expect the printer businesses to be profitable until 2012.
Kodak's consumer printer business has gained some traction, with the number of households with Kodak printers doubling last year to about two million. Its printers are priced higher than rivals such as Hewlett-Packard and Seiko Epson Corp., but its ink cartridges, at $10 to $15, cost about half as much. Mr. Perez believes Kodak will finish the year with more than 5% of the consumer printer market in the U.S.
Chris Whitmore, an analyst with Deutsche Bank, says it will be difficult for Kodak to gain significant market share in consumer printers because the market is so competitive and profits come from ink, which requires lots of printer sales.
"We are somewhat skeptical they can actually get to that level [of market share] in that timeframe," Mr. Whitmore says.
In commercial printing, Mr. Perez has high hopes for a fast digital printer introduced in the first quarter called Prosper Press, aimed at publishers and catalog makers. Mr. Perez says more than 100 companies have requested the Prosper Press but so far Kodak's only shipped four of them because of manufacturing complexities. The commercial printers cost $1.4 million to $4 million each.
He says Kodak so far is incapable of making more than "a few dozen" this year. "We're desperately trying to get the technology under control so we can expand," he says.
While he has worked to build these new businesses, patent payments have provided a cash cushion for the company. In 2008, he set a goal to generate between $250 million and $350 million on average each year in intellectual property licensing—mainly its digital imaging patents—through 2011. He later extended the target for that goal to 2012 but had disclosed little on his plans afterward.
In the past year, Kodak's patent attorneys settled lawsuits with Samsung Electronics Co. and LG Electronics Inc. receiving lump sums of $550 million and $400 million respectively. In January, it filed lawsuits against Apple Inc. and Research in Motion Ltd. alleging their smart phones infringe Kodak's digital-imaging patents. Analysts say it may be difficult for Kodak to match its earlier success in the latest patent fights.
But Mr. Perez says he'll wean Kodak off the patent lawsuits once the commercial and consumer printer businesses are profitable. "We'll find more value getting into business relationships that generate revenue working with some other partner rather than asking for cash," he says.
He says he didn't want to litigate so much, but felt he had to during the downturn when he says companies using Kodak technology ignored his requests to strike licensing deals. "Going to court is expensive, it creates a lot of publicity, nobody benefits from it except law firms," he says.
Mr. Perez expects intellectual property income to continue generating revenue for Kodak even as the number of new patent-suit filings slow. "It will be very valuable," he says.
Since becoming CEO in 2005, Mr. Perez, a former Hewlett-Packard Co. printer executive, has successfully turned Kodak's patents into a lucrative sideline and key source of funding to finance its push into digital printing.
But those printing efforts haven't yet paid off and the slow pace of the company's turnaround has frustrated analysts. Meanwhile, Kodak's once-lucrative film business continues to shrink and its need to invest in printers continues.
"We need [cash flow from patents] right now because we're investing too much for the size of the company in these new businesses," he said in an interview at the company's Rochester, N.Y., headquarters.
"Film will never come back," Mr. Perez said. "Those very, very, very high gross margins that film had will never come back. I don't know of any digital businesses that will even have half of the margin that film had."
Kodak has reported only one full-year profit—in 2007—since 2004. Last year, its loss narrowed to $210 million from a loss of $442 million the prior year. But sales have continued to tumble, falling 19% last year to $7.61 billion from $9.42 billion in 2008.
Mr. Perez says his efforts to transform the 130-year-old company are making a noticeable difference. "When I came into the company [it] had a revenue profile that was 85% based on film and a profit profile that was 130% based on film," he says. Today, the company gets 70% of its sales from digital products.
In March, Kodak's movie-film business, which had remained relatively steady even as camera film sales plunged, suffered a new blow when three big movie theater chains secured financing to convert 14,000 movie screens to digital projection by 2013. The funding is expected to accelerate the digital distribution of movies, giving Kodak less time to adapt to the long-anticipated decline in its film cash cow.
Earlier in his tenure, Mr. Perez pushed aggressively to get Kodak into digital cameras, and now he is making a big bet on consumer and commercial inkjet printers. But he doesn't expect the printer businesses to be profitable until 2012.
Kodak's consumer printer business has gained some traction, with the number of households with Kodak printers doubling last year to about two million. Its printers are priced higher than rivals such as Hewlett-Packard and Seiko Epson Corp., but its ink cartridges, at $10 to $15, cost about half as much. Mr. Perez believes Kodak will finish the year with more than 5% of the consumer printer market in the U.S.
Chris Whitmore, an analyst with Deutsche Bank, says it will be difficult for Kodak to gain significant market share in consumer printers because the market is so competitive and profits come from ink, which requires lots of printer sales.
"We are somewhat skeptical they can actually get to that level [of market share] in that timeframe," Mr. Whitmore says.
In commercial printing, Mr. Perez has high hopes for a fast digital printer introduced in the first quarter called Prosper Press, aimed at publishers and catalog makers. Mr. Perez says more than 100 companies have requested the Prosper Press but so far Kodak's only shipped four of them because of manufacturing complexities. The commercial printers cost $1.4 million to $4 million each.
He says Kodak so far is incapable of making more than "a few dozen" this year. "We're desperately trying to get the technology under control so we can expand," he says.
While he has worked to build these new businesses, patent payments have provided a cash cushion for the company. In 2008, he set a goal to generate between $250 million and $350 million on average each year in intellectual property licensing—mainly its digital imaging patents—through 2011. He later extended the target for that goal to 2012 but had disclosed little on his plans afterward.
In the past year, Kodak's patent attorneys settled lawsuits with Samsung Electronics Co. and LG Electronics Inc. receiving lump sums of $550 million and $400 million respectively. In January, it filed lawsuits against Apple Inc. and Research in Motion Ltd. alleging their smart phones infringe Kodak's digital-imaging patents. Analysts say it may be difficult for Kodak to match its earlier success in the latest patent fights.
But Mr. Perez says he'll wean Kodak off the patent lawsuits once the commercial and consumer printer businesses are profitable. "We'll find more value getting into business relationships that generate revenue working with some other partner rather than asking for cash," he says.
He says he didn't want to litigate so much, but felt he had to during the downturn when he says companies using Kodak technology ignored his requests to strike licensing deals. "Going to court is expensive, it creates a lot of publicity, nobody benefits from it except law firms," he says.
Mr. Perez expects intellectual property income to continue generating revenue for Kodak even as the number of new patent-suit filings slow. "It will be very valuable," he says.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
