IP Throwdown: Patent Lawyers Sued For... Copyright Infringement
from the fight-fight-fight dept
Last month, we wrote about how the USPTO had stepped in to a brewing fight between copyright lawyers and patent lawyers, saying that it believed that submitting journal articles as part of the patenting process was fair use. Apparently, the copyright lawyers working for the scientific journals disagreed... and the fight is on: the journals have sued a bunch of patent lawyers for making use of articles from the journals in preparing their patent applications. The journals, in their desperate desire to squeeze more cash out of everything, were demanding that patent lawyers get an additional license if they wanted to submit copies of journal articles along with patent applications.While it's rare that you'll find me agreeing with the patent bar on very much, on this one, I'm on their side. The lawsuit, lead by publisher John Wiley, is kind of crazy. We're not talking about people who are getting copies of the journal for free. These are generally people who have a legitimate subscription to the journals, and are submitting copies of the information as part of the patent process -- as they're required to do by law. This is just yet another attempt by the publishers to get paid for every single possible use, even for those who already have legitimate access. And, of course, these journals don't have the best reputation these days, with their attempts to block open access requirements. While there may be some appeal in making it more difficult to get a patent (something where I believe the bar needs to be much, much, much higher), I don't think this is as reasonable way to do so.
In nearly every way, it seems like submitting such a journal article as part of a patent application process should be seen as fair use. It really does fit the kind of key "spirit" of the fair use rule.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, fair use, lawsuit, patent applications, patents
Companies: john wiley
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP Maximalists v. IP Maximalists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IP Maximalists v. IP Maximalists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IP Maximalists v. IP Maximalists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like a good idea to me, as long as we apply the same standard to everyday objects to!
Imagine the money you could make if you invested in say a company manufactures toilets. Under this standard not only could you charge like $300 bucks when people buy the toilet, you could also charge them $5 every time someone other then the buyer uses your toilet! After all, they never paid you for your toilet, and the toilet is your intellectual property, so why should they get to use it for free!
Imagine how much money you could make in a day if you get your toilets installed at a public rest stop!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In the crapper!
Seeing as you're only the manufacturer, you'd only be entitled to a fraction of the IP Maximalist fundage...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In the crapper!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: In the crapper!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: In the crapper!
"Have a nice day!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scientific Journal's purpose?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scientific Journal's purpose?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Scientific Journal's purpose?
So yeah, sciencey stuff for rich researchers to masturbate to while they show it to others to get more funding for other sciencey stuff. Which is actually important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Best. Thing. Ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
my 80+ year old m-in-law is turning pirate in retaliation ! ! !
she's not a gamer, not much into downloading movies, etc, but is a big reader, and this chickenshit DRM crap has just reared it's ugly head in her world, and it is making her angrier than a wet hen !
direct quote: "I PAID FOR these ebooks, *WHY* can't I share MY OWN ebooks?!?!"
IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO ANYONE -except a miniscule percentage of Big Content extortion artists (they only thing they know how to 'create'), that this sad state of affairs is forced upon us...
Thanks MAFIAA, you've turned a mainstream, non-radical octogenarian -TOTALLY wanting CREATORS to get their due- into a raging pirate sympathizer !!!
The MAFIAA: pissing off the whole world, one customer at a time.
stupid shits: THEY and their extortion business DESERVE to fail...
...and they are! ! !
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
art guerrilla at windstream dot net
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: my 80+ year old m-in-law is turning pirate in retaliation ! ! !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Double dipping on Journals is just the tip of the iceberg for them.. The prices they charge for access are outrageous on top of the fact most of those journals going back decades were all publicly funded..
Higher education textbooks (and lower/school textbooks in Australia) are pimped out and made required reading in our seats of learning and yes, they cost a fortune too.. Funny thing, their biggest problem in competition is the second hand market. As they can't get around the first sale doctrine, their best idea is repackaging those same textbooks as ring-binder packs thinking that they won't be resold after that..
And as for the For Dummies books. Well they're just an aggregation of crap scraped from a myriad of sources and republished.. Expensive crap at that..
One of the most litigious publishers out there.. I honestly don't know why people still support them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They are fishing for IP addresses, and then sending demand letters.
Welcome to the result of "IP is our most important asset".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two lawyers enter...
(soundtrack: timpani roll, followed by thunderclap)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some spitballs stick so keep trying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just don't understand you. Why do you only mention the copies that were submitted with the patent applications, when the lawsuit CLEARLY includes other copies that were made as well. It's this sort of cherry-picking of facts on your part, while completely ignoring other relevant facts, that makes you impossible to take seriously.
Look at the complaint: "18. Defendants have infringed certain of the Plaintiffs' Copyrights, including, but not limited to, the registered copyrights in the articles listed on Schedule A by making unauthorized copies of them for internal use, and for distribution outside of Schwegman."
So right there they are talking about copies that are made for internal use and for distribution elsewhere. Even if the copies used in connection with filing a patent application are fair use, the copies they are making for researching and prosecuting the applications are not.
In typical Masnickian style, you leave out the inconvenient facts in some lame attempt to slam copyright law. It just gets old, Mike. WTF?
In fact, if you read the whole complaint, they are actually focusing on the copies other than the ones submitted as part of the patent application. To wit, plaintiffs are complaining of two types of copies that defendants made: "(a) additional copies of the copyrighted works that defendants included or cited in their patent applications to the PTO . . . and (b) copies of plaintiffs' copyrighted works that defendants considered in connection with those applications, but did not ultimately cite or provide to the PTO."
Of course, you completely twist all of this, leaving out the parts that don't jive with your IP bashing, to make some stupid point that is barely even supported by the complaint.
I don't get it, Mike. Why are you so incredibly dishonest when it comes to copyright? Part of me is realizing that you can't even help it, you're so completely blinded by your own bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It clearly includes the copies that were included in the patent applications. Sure, the lawsuit may include other things as well, but so what? This article wants to focus on the more ridiculous parts of the lawsuit. If I sue my landlord because he charged me more money than was called for in my lease, and I include in the lawsuit that he needs to also allow me to paint the entire interior of the building black because my religion forbids colored walls, what part do you think the media would focus on if they decided to cover it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Instead, he focuses solely on the copies submitted with the application. And even there, Mike just makes shit up. For example, he says: "We're not talking about people who are getting copies of the journal for free. These are generally people who have a legitimate subscription to the journals, and are submitting copies of the information as part of the patent process -- as they're required to do by law."
Mike has absolutely no basis for claiming that the defendants had a paid subscription to the journals in question. Mike is just making it up. Who needs facts, right? And his argument that they're "required" to submit the copies is a bit silly. First of all, no one has to file a patent application. Second of all, how does the fact that copies are submitted with applications have anything to do with whether the applicant licenses the copy? The plaintiffs in the complaint claim that all of the works were available to be licensed. The defendants could have licensed the copies even though they were "required" to file them.
Mike goes on: "This is just yet another attempt by the publishers to get paid for every single possible use, even for those who already have legitimate access." Um, no, it's another attempt by Mike to make a copyright plaintiff look dumb, which usually backfires and just makes him look dumb. And, really, they "already have legitimate access"? Is Mike referring to his made up fact that the defendants have a subscription to the journals in question. Amazing bullshit, based on nothing. And even if they did have a subscription, which there's no reason to believe they do, so what? Does that subscription allow them to make all sorts of copies, including ones that they charge their clients for, without paying the plaintiffs? Doubtful.
The ending is equally weak: "In nearly every way, it seems like submitting such a journal article as part of a patent application process should be seen as fair use. It really does fit the kind of key "spirit" of the fair use rule." The court may find that the copies submitted with the application are fair use, but that doesn't mean that the plaintiffs don't have a meritorious claim in arguing that it's not--they do. As far as I know, no court has ever ruled on such use. I do know that the court's analysis won't rely on an appeal to the "spirit of the fair use rule." LOL!
More mindless, dishonest copyright FUD. That's all I see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Things get easier if you open your eyes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You completely ignore the comment you replied to, which contains a good point that renders your first paragraph meaningless.
You say Mike's claim that the defendants had a paid subscription is not based on evidence, yet you could not possibly know that, and you offer no evidence to the contrary. In fact, some pretty strong evidence is the fact that these crazy plaintiffs didn't attempt to sue the defendants for gaining access to the journals illegally. If they didn't have legitimate access, wouldn't that be under examination in this suit as well?
You say people don't have to file for patents, implying that they should just give up rather than risking the potential of pissing off copyright lawyers. You suggest that they license the copies they send in with their patent applications, when the ridiculousness of that idea is the central theme of this article.
Your contempt for the spirit of the law reveals your interest in squeezing the legal system for all it's worth, rather than simply doing what's right or what makes sense.
It also appears you have no idea what FUD means, as the article does not attempt to inspire fear, uncertainty, or doubt. Please bring evidence the next time you make ridiculous claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't think that's an apt analogy. It's more like if you sued your landlord for charging you too much for your lease. Let's say it happened ten times. 9 times are pretty cut and dried--your landlord is totally ripping you off. The 10th time isn't so clear. That month, your landlord did some work at the property that he arguably has a right to be reimbursed for, but no one can say for sure because no court has ever said either way.
Here's how Mike would describe that scenario: "Tenant files CRAZY lawsuit against landlord!" Mike would write all about the one charge the landlord sought that was questionable, but he wouldn't even bother to mention the other 9 charges where the landlord was ripping off the tenant. That's the sort of lopsided nonsense and blinded bias that Mike, unfortunately, brings to most discussions about copyright suits. It's ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Even so, I know very few well versed in copyright law who believe that fair use will not carry the day, at least insofar as the copies that are sent to the USPTO for consideration by the Patent Examiner during prosecution.
Unfortunately, fair use involving questions of fact, dismissal of the suit at this early stage is extremely unlikely to take place. Summary judgement is likely the time.
What intrigues me much more is why an international corporation located in Hoboken would use a very small Manhattan law firm to file a lawsuit in Minneapolis? Most corporations of this type use the terribly overpriced services of major Manhattan firms, and there are literally dozens of firms that practice patent law located in Manhattan. This is rather odd and far, far away from the norm. The only thing that comes to mind is that there are "people issues" here that underlie its filing. Someone is upset with someone else, but there are no facts presented that provide a clue why this is so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
People have lots of legal duties, but that doesn't excuse them from having to not violate other people's rights while performing those duties. Either way, all of the other copies being sued upon (the extent of which we won't fully grasp until there's been discovery) don't have nearly as good of an argument for fair use. Those are the copies that will give defendants the biggest fight, IMO.
The thing about a Manhattan firm filing suit in Minneapolis is interesting. I'm sure you're right that there's more to that story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or does this strike you as silly beyond belief?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prior Art?
They are very clearly showing that somebody else has already done the work. By the time it hits the journals its already (supposedly) peer reviewed so plenty of people know about it. And in a lot of those cases as well wouldn't the researchers already have patents (since they seem forced to get them these days)?
Our patent office is a waste of space and money. Ugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prior Art?
More akin to what you're referring to, someone opposing a patent application (or someone trying to have an issued patent declared invalid) would submit prior art that actually shows the applicant's invention isn't new or nonobvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prior Art?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]