EFF, Jailbreak, Copyrights And What It Means For Privacy

The press has been all over the story about the ruling that allows jailbreaking an iPhone, however another ruling occurred that I think has MUCH bigger consequences.

What do copyrighted material and your privacy have in common?

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) won a new legal protection for video artists and cellphone jailbreakers with this release.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) won three critical exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) anticircumvention provisions today, carving out new legal protections for consumers who modify their cell phones and artists who remix videos — people who, until now, could have been sued for their non-infringing or fair use activities.

This is the statement that I think has huge implications.

EFF also won a groundbreaking new protection for video remix artists currently thriving on Internet sites like YouTube.

The new rule holds that amateur creators do not violate the DMCA when they use short excerpts from DVDs in order to create new, noncommercial works for purposes of criticism or comment if they believe that circumvention is necessary to fulfill that purpose.

Hollywood has historically taken the view that "ripping" DVDs is always a violation of the DMCA, no matter the purpose.

In other words, this allows original "artwork" to be edited without the owner's permission.

Now they say it can be done for "noncommercial works" but when ads are placed next to the YouTube video, doesn't this violate that?

The big picture:

I see your privacy, and your private information as your own "artwork" and with these new rulings, the floodgates are open. Privacy is like insurance, you only need it (and appreciate it) after the fact.

Does anyone else see this slippery slope?

The fastest growing site you've never heard of Little Clicks Add Up

Have a great idea? We Invest In Great Ideas

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Refiles Patent Exam Request Of NeoMedia's "Bogus Patent"

The ongoing saga with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and NeoMedia continues.

Back in April the EFF asked the US Patent office to review NeoMedia's mobile barcode patent.

The EFF took aim at a bogus patent threatening innovative technologies that enhance consumer awareness, requesting a reexamination by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).

Apparently the EFF incorrectly filed the review and the Patent Office rejected the request for review in late July. This is completely different from the Patent Office approving the patents, as some have suggested.

Just a few days later, the EFF refiled a request to review NeoMedia's patents.

It was also confirmed on page 43 of NeoMedia's latest 10Q filing

"Also on the patent front, during July 2007 the US Patent and Trademark Office rejected an application by the Electronic Frontier Foundation to invalidate the Company’s patents and intellectual property on how camera phones read, translate, and process images and codes. The Electronic Frontier Foundation refiled their application in August 2007"

I couldn't find a separate press release from NeoMedia announcing this.

ScanBuy and NeoMedia have an ongoing lawsuit regarding this intellectual property and a Markman hearing is scheduled for November.

Here's what I ponder.

Would, or should, a judge render a decision in a case on a patent that is currently being reviewed by the US Patent Office?

If the Patent Office does decide to review the patents, who has the most to lose, NeoMedia or Cornell Capital?

Patent System Undergoes Reform

An article in the Wall Street Journal will have interesting ramifications for intellectual property holders and innovation. What impact will this have on the New American Business Model?

Just last week the Electronic Frontier Foundation requested a reexamination of a "bogus patent" by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO)


By JESS BRAVIN
May 1, 2007; Page A3

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court made it harder to get new patents and to defend existing ones, giving new force to the law that denies patents to inventions deemed "obvious."

In a unanimous decision, the justices yesterday sided with critics who argue that lower-court rulings have given patent holders more power than Congress intended, potentially stifling innovation.

The ruling, the latest to roll back patent holders' clout, comes amid a sharp debate over how to maintain the nation's competitive edge while protecting those who labor to design cutting-edge inventions. Many of the developments that drive the economy are governed by patent law, an arcane field that has become a battleground in the larger debate about U.S. industrial strength.

The opinion could have especially big implications for technology companies, whose software programs typically are built through small improvements in prior designs. Also affected will be the growing and much-disputed field of "business method" patents, which are granted for abstract processes rather than specific devices.

Investors that buy up patents with the aim of obtaining royalties from alleged infringers -- known as patent trolls -- are sure to find slimmer pickings.

"What they're starting to put together here is a model for a 21st-century patent system," said David Kappos, who oversees intellectual-property law at International Business Machines Corp., Armonk, N.Y. "Closed proprietary innovation remains important," he said, but the court seems to be saying that patent law "can also accommodate 21st-century models that are more open, more collaborative."

I wonder how this affects Nathan Myhrvold (Intellectual Ventures), Ross Perot, Bill Gates , OceanTomo

Neomedia's Mobile Barcode Patent Challenged

Until patents have been proven in court, shouldn't they be used as a defense of a business or application?

When companies wave their patents around, until they have been proven in court, doesn't this stifle innovation?

Last Fall the EFF asked for help in debunking a barcode patent.

Today they announced they would be officially challenging it.

EFF Challenges Bogus Patent Threatening Consumer Awareness Products

llegitimate Patent Inhibits Innovation in Market for Mobile Information Access

San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) took aim today at a bogus patent threatening innovative technologies that enhance consumer awareness, requesting a reexamination by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).

NeoMedia Technologies, Inc., claims to own rights to all systems that provide information over computer networks using database-like lookup procedures that rely on scanned inputs, such as a barcode. NeoMedia has used these claims not only to threaten and sue innovators in the mobile information space, but also to intimidate projects focused on increasing awareness among consumers about the social and environmental impact of the products they buy. (red print emphasis is mine).

Numerous Physical World Connection (PWC) companies have expressed concern that this company, and their supporters, are doing just that. (my comment separate from the EFF story)

For example, the Consumer Information Lab at the College of Natural Resources at the University of California at Berkeley uses such technology to examine how health, environmental, and social information affects consumers' shopping behavior and decision-making. Were NeoMedia to control the patent rights to this technology, such projects could be severely limited and potentially shut down.

NeoMedia should not be allowed to use this bogus patent to inhibit consumer awareness, education, or research into the impact of information on consumer choice," said EFF Staff Attorney Jason Schultz. "This is the opposite of 'progress,' something the patent laws are supposed to promote."

EFF's reexamination request shows that the functionality covered by NeoMedia's bad patent was repeatedly included as part of prior patent applications from other companies -- demonstrating that the idea of forming a network connection from scanned items was well-known before NeoMedia made its claim. EFF, in conjunction with Paul Grewal and James Czaja of Day Casebeer Madrid & Batchelder, ask the PTO to revoke the patent based on this and other evidence.

For the full NeoMedia patent reexamination request:
http://www.eff.org/patent/wanted/patent.php?p=neomedia

Companies interested in this EFF story might also find this of interest.

Who really "owns" the intellectual property in question?

According to NeoMedia's latest financial filing,

On Page 18 ">All Of The Company’s Assets Are Pledged To Secure Certain Debt Obligations, Which The Company Could Fail To Repay

Pursuant to secured convertible debentures, dated as of March 27, 2007, August 24, 2006 and December 29, 2006, in the principal amount of $7,459,000, $5,000,000 and $2,500,000, respectively, issued to Cornell Capital Partners, LP, the Company was required to secure such secured convertible debentures’ repayment with substantially all of its assets. In the event the Company is unable to repay the secured convertible debentures, it could lose all of its assets and be forced to cease its operations. If the Company is found to be in default under the debentures, the full principal amount of the debentures, together with interest and other amounts owing, may become immediately due and payable. As of December 31, 2006, the Company was in default of a covenant contained in the financing agreements due to the Company’s pending registration statement to register the underlying shares of the convertible instruments not becoming effective by the specified date. (bold print emphasis is mine)

On Page 21
At December 31, 2006 and 2005, approximately 57% and 39%, respectively, of NeoMedia’s total assets used in continuing operations were intangible assets and goodwill, consisting primarily of rights related to NeoMedia’s patents, other intellectual property.

This should develop into an interesting story.

Comments are welcome, but before I get bombarded, note I am not a patent attorney.

In this case, judication appears to rest with the courts.