The Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual
Property (The IP Commission) released its report earlier today, May 22,
2013. The IP Commission is an impressive
group of individuals led by Dennis C.
Blair, former Director of National Intelligence and Commander in Chief
of the U.S. Pacific Command, and Jon M.
Huntsman, Jr., former Ambassador to China, Governor of the state of
Utah, and Deputy U.S. Trade Representative.
(I thought Huntsman was a very
credible candidate for President of the United States in the last U.S. presidential election cycle.) The other members include: Craig R. Barrett, former Chairman and
CEO of Intel Corporation; Slade Gorton,
former U.S. Senator from the state of Washington, Washington Attorney General,
and member of the 9-11 Commission; William
J. Lynn III, CEO of DRS Technologies and former Deputy Secretary of
Defense; Deborah Wince-Smith, President and CEO
of the Council on Competitiveness; Michael K. Young, President of the
University of Washington and former Deputy Under Secretary of State. (Notably, President Young was also the Dean of
George Washington University’s law school.)
I have included the recommendations of the IP Commission below. The recommendations that caught my immediate
attention involve the International Trade Commission, the Economic Espionage
Act, increasing the number of green cards available for high-tech workers and
expanding the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s
jurisdiction. I’ve previously blogged on the issue
concerning IP theft and cybersecurity here.
Here is a Washington Post editorial about the report. The full report is here.
Thursday, 23 May 2013
The Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property Report
Tuesday, 21 May 2013
The Top 150 Licensors
On May 1, 2013, the Global License publication released its
annual list of the top 150 (in the past this was a lower number) licensors. According to Global License, the top 150
licensors account for around $230 billion in retail sales of licensed products
and information. The top 10 licensors on
the list include: 1) Disney Consumer Products ($39.3 billion) (brands include
Mickey Mouse and Avengers); 2) Iconix ($13 billion) (brands include Starter,
Zoo York, Umbro and Buffalo); 3) PVH Corp. ($13 billion) (brands include Tommy
Hilfiger, Calvin Klein and Izod); 4) Meredith ($11.2 billion) (brands include
Better Homes and Garden and Parents); 5) Mattel ($7 billion) (brands include
Barbie and Fisher-Price); 6) Sanrio ($7 billion) (brands include Hello Kitty);
7) Warner Bros. Consumer Products ($6 billion) (brands include Superman and
Batman); 8) Nickelodeon Consumer Products ($5.5 billion) (brands include Dora
the Explorer and Diego); 9) Major League Baseball ($5.2 billion) (brands
include the NY Yankees); and 10) Hasbro (brands include Transformers and Nerf). Other notables in the top 25 include Weight
Watchers International, the Collegiate Licensing Company and Ralph Lauren. The entire list along with commentary about
the licensors is here. Enjoy!
Wednesday, 15 May 2013
The Bangladesh Building Collapse: the Challenge to Brands
As described in the article, the choice facing these brand holders is stark: "Stay and work to improve conditions. Or leave and face higher costs, similar or worse worker conditions in other low-wage countries and criticism for abandoning a poor nation where pre-capita gross domestic product is just $1,940 per year." As for the specific site itself, it is not clear how many brands had product being made there. It does not appear that there is a media rush by brand holders to admit publicly any manufacture at the site, given that there is supposed to be an auditing of the conditions to ensure that work and worker conditions are reasonable. There is talk of campus boycotts against certain brands (the Gap brand is mentioned) and angry postings on the Facebook pages of Joe Fresh, Mango and Benetton were reported. To this point, most of the retailers listed above do not appear to plan to leave Bangladesh. On the other hand, Disney announced that is stopping manufacture of its branded goods in Bangladesh. It is not clear whether any other owner of branded goods being manufactured in Bangladesh will follow.Against this backdrop, it is interesting to consider the relationship how brands owners, especially those with an alleged connection with the collapsed site, might be affected by the Bangladesh tragedy. First, to this point there does not appear to be anything that would make any of the brand holders legally liable for the tragedy. Compare that with a situation in which the brand holder/manufacturer is directly connected with a faulty product bearing its mark. The J&J recall of the Tylenol product in 1982 comes to mind here. There, as well, an issue of life and death arose and the company faced a frontal attack on its fundamental goodwill and credibility, was wrapped up in the products bearing the Tylenol mark.
With respect to the Bangladesh tragedy, however, while mind-numbing in its scope, the events do not appear to be directly connected with the action of any of the brand holders. That makes the issue much more nuanced. The challenge to the integrity of the brand lies more in the sphere of morality and trust, more amorphous and less acute than the J&J/Tylenol-like situation. Further, the considerations of the branded retailer may differ from that of a product brand holder. The former may well have a much more complex supply chain in Bangladesh, making it much more difficult to complete an exit, a least in the near term. Moreover, threat of a boycott are difficult, if not possible, to maintain for very long against a retailer. There is also the issue of public memory; none of the brands, at least as of the time of this writing, has prominently been connected with the disaster. Under such circumstances, unless a particular company is subject to a board and management that places a special emphasis on issues of morality and ethics, the most likely scenario is that the matter will ultimately fade away for most companies.
Still, when the brands at issue are products rather than retail services, the risk may potentially be greater, In such a case, it may be easier for a pressure group (or even a single committed activist) to keep that specific product in the public's eye. Some companies, such as apparently Disney, may simply decide that the risk of adverse publicity is not worth it. A view was expressed in the article that, in the long run, other brands active in manufacture in Bangladesh will cut back or fully withdraw their operations over a period of time, despite the rock-bottom low labor costs in the country. It will be good to revisit in a year's time the roll call of brands actively having their products manufactured in Bangladesh to see how many have actually exited the country.
Monday, 13 May 2013
Marathon Patent Group – The Hot Bet?
Apparently since around mid-November of last year, Marathon Patent Group (MPG) evolved from American Strategic Minerals and discarded its mineral
and real estate assets in favor of an IP management and enforcement services
business model. MPG has been very, very
active since then and has received quite a bit of (mostly positive) press (here, here, here and here). MPG detailed some of its activities in an
April 25, 2013 report:
Saturday, 11 May 2013
Chief Judge Rader Upholds $345 million Jury Verdict for Patent Infringement
On May 1, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion in Versata Software Inc. v. SAP America Inc. affirming a jury verdict of infringement and damages by SAP for $345 million. Chief Judge Rader authored the opinion. The award includes $260 million for lost profits and $85 million for reasonable royalties for infringement of Versata Software’s claims covering its “hierarchical pricing engine” software. The opinion is here.

