General Franco Is Still Dead And Michelle Lee Is Still Director Of The US Patent Office

from the moving-on dept

Last month, we wrote about the truly bizarre situation in which no one in the federal government seemed willing to say who was in charge of the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). You see, there had been widespread reports right before the inauguration that the current director, Michelle Lee (who's been really, really good at the job) was being kept on in that role. But, for some reason, the Commerce Department's website listed the role as vacant. And there were a series of other confusing and conflicting signs. But the most bizarre part was that the USPTO and the Commerce Department simply refused to say who was in charge. Which is... weird.

Late on Friday, it appears that the Commerce Department responded to two separate FOIA requests simultaneously, from the two sites that had been covering the issue most closely, Patently-O and IP Watchdog, confirming that Lee remains the Director:

Dennis Crouch, who runs Patently-O, notes that, while it's bizarre that no one would respond (especially since Lee was retaining the role, not moving into it...), it's time to move on. IP Watchdog, who has long hated Lee for daring to recognize that over patenting and bad patents can be serious problems, is still agitating to get Lee removed. Thankfully, that looks like a long shot. And that's doubly good, since one of the other people gunning for the slot was former chief judge at CAFC (the appeals court that handles patent cases) Randall Rader. Rader, who resigned over an ethics scandal, was a key component in making the patent system worse during his time on the court. So, for now, at least, a bullet has been dodged.

Still, it's quite bizarre that this whole thing happened in the first place. What was so hard about having the USPTO or Commerce Department just admit that Michelle Lee was still the director?

Filed Under: commerce department, michelle lee, patents, uspto

Who The Hell Is Actually In Charge Of The US Patent And Trademark Office?

from the perhaps-no-one dept

I recognize that many (especially regular Techdirt readers) will assume from the title above that the question is a rhetorical one in response to the latest craziness around a stupid trademark or awful patent. But, no, we mean that literally. You see, right before the Trump inauguration, it was widely reported that Michelle Lee would stay on as the Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office. That was undeniably good news. For all the complaints we have about the USPTO, Lee has done a fairly amazing job running that office, and seems to be one of the first Patent Office directors who actually understands how patents can do serious harm to innovation. Keeping her on would be a really good sign. After seeing the stories claiming that she was staying, we'd mostly moved on. However, Politico reporter Nancy Scola sent me down something of a rabbit hole after tweeting that it's basically impossible to know who's in charge of the Patent Office right now.

The USPTO's site still says it's Lee:

That seems like that should be that. However, there are conspiracy theories afoot -- mainly being discussed by Gene Quinn over at IP Watchdog. Gene and I disagree about basically everything as it relates to patents, and he's got a history of insulting me, so I have every reason to basically ignore him. But, on this, he may have a point. And the questions about whether or not Lee is actually in charge are also being asked by a much more respectable patent website, Patently-O.

The issue started when Quinn noticed that, despite the claims that Lee was staying on, the Commerce Department (which the USPTO is a part of) leadership page says the role is "vacant." Here's the latest screenshot I took:

As for the PTO's own website, Quinn rightly points out that its leadership page still lists out a number of other individuals who have announced resignations and are no longer there, but whose profiles are still on the website. The Commerce Department seems to be refusing to comment to anyone who asks (I've sent in my own question) and it's quite unclear if Michelle Lee really is the director.

If you look through the fairly long list of articles by Quinn on the subject, it's quite clear that he (as someone who is not a fan of Lee) is hoping that she's been pushed out, and is trying to drum up controversy over the possibility that she might remain. But the lack of any clarity from anyone... is bizarre. Quinn's most recent post on the subject notes that while no one seems willing to say who's running things, Lee "continues to be seen" in the building. That would certainly support the theory that she's staying. But... she's also cancelled a bunch of speaking engagements, and no one at the USPTO or Commerce Dept. seems willing to say anything. Also, in an earlier report, Quinn noted that he'd been told, unofficially, that Drew Hirshfeld is "Acting Director," implying Lee had left. But the whole thing seems to be... unclear:

Who is running the United States Patent and Trademark Office? That straightforward question shouldn’t be imponderable, but it seems that the Trump Administration has chosen to sequester the Director as if he or she has gone into the witness protection program. Indeed, we seem no closer to an answer to who is running the USPTO today than we were 18 days ago. Although sources tell me that Michelle Lee continues to be seen on the 10th floor of the Madison Building, which is where the Director’s Office is located.

As we begin the third week of the Trump Administration I cannot tell you with any definitive certainty who is Director, or if there is an Acting Director, or if the Commissioner for Patents is merely carrying out the responsibilities of Director without being named Acting Director, which has been the case at least once in the past.

Yes, the Trump transition has been a bit of a mess, but this seems particularly bizarre. There's a decent chance that the problem is just that something is afoot and it just hasn't been discussed publicly yet, so the Commerce Dept. and PTO are staying silent. But, as Quinn notes, there are actual, real implications of not having anyone as PTO director:

Indeed, there are many things that the law leaves to the discretion of the Director of the USPTO. While some of those decisions have been delegated out to subordinate officials within the Office, some do still remain only with the Director. For example, if you are a patent owner who believes you are being harassed by repeated post grant challenges the Director alone has the authority to provide a protective remedy. Without knowing who is Director how can patent owners appropriately seek to obtain the assistance of the Director?

Another thing that will soon become problematic is with respect to lawsuits involving the USPTO. Who should be the named party? Generally, the Director or Acting Director of the agency is named as the party on behalf of the agency. While it seems a small point, properly identifying the party is no minor matter in federal court. Are patent applicants supposed to style their appeals to the Federal Circuit as Applicant v. John or Jane Doe, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office?

In his most recent post, Quinn further wonders if those of us who tend to think certain patents shouldn't have been issued could even use this as a way to claim patents issued recently are invalid:

Sources tell me that the USPTO was prepared last week to issue patents with the signature of Drew Hirshfeld, who is the Commissioner of Patents and seems to be currently in the position of Acting Director. At the last minute, however, a decision was made to reverted back to Michelle Lee’s signature. This creates several significant problems.

First, if Lee is not currently the Director patents that are being issued with her signature are being issued in violation of §153. If we know anything about patent litigators it is that they raise every challenge possible, and it is only a matter of time before the provenance of patents issued during these first weeks and months of the Trump Administration are challenged as being invalid.

These are not unsolvable issues, once things are clarified, but it still... very, very strange. I doubt that challenging the validity of the patents would have much of a chance, but it is interesting. And while I desperately hope that Lee remains, and Quinn desperately hopes that she is forced out, I think (for once!) Quinn and I agree: whatever is happening, and whoever is in charge, should be disclosed publicly.

Filed Under: commerce department, gene quinn, michelle lee, patents, trump administration, uspto

Trump Muzzles Federal Employees; Reporters Start Asking For Leaks

from the we'll-see-how-this-goes... dept

Reports started coming out this morning that the new Trump Administration had told the EPA that it needed to stop doing anything publicly without first getting approval from the White House (in addition to freezing grants and contracts). According to a memo that was sent around to EPA staff:

If you can't read that, the key parts say:

• No press releases will be going out to external audiences.
• No social media will be going out. A Digital Strategist will be coming on board to oversee social media. Existing, individually controlled, social media accounts may become more centrally controlled.
• No blog messages.
• The Beach Team will review the list of upcoming webinars and decide which ones will go forward.
• Please send me a list of any external speaking engagements that are currently scheduled among any of your staff from today through February.
• Incoming media requests will be carefully screened.
• No new content can be place on any website. Only do clean up where essential.
• List servers will be reviewed. Only send out critical messages, as messages can be shared broadly and end up in the press.

Why yes, such messages may end up in the press.

Of course, it quickly became clear that this was not just for the EPA. The USDA received similar marching orders. Same with the Department of Health & Human Services and possibly others as well, including the Department of Commerce, being told it can't even publish the basic research it releases for US companies.

It's possible to say that this is just the Trump administration hitting the pause button to figure out what's going on before moving forward again, but many in these agencies are quite worried that they're going to be muzzled for political reasons. Most of the people working in these agencies are civil servants, not political appointees, and their work is not at all political. The press releases and blog posts are generally to release new findings, research and data from taxpayer funded studies. This shouldn't be controversial or reviewed for political motives.

Of course, this kind of thing is hardly unprecedented. For many years, we wrote about the ridiculousness of then Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper gagging Canadian scientists from talking about factual research that was politically inconvenient (including a study on fish stock). This kind of gagging on "politically sensitive" but factual science was only lifted last year once Justin Trudeau came into office. Of course, just a few months before that, the UK similarly started muzzling scientists to stop them saying anything the politicians didn't like.

One hopes the Trump administration will not be putting in place similar policies.

Of course, if that is the plan, it should be a huge boon for investigative journalists. And they're already hunting for sources. As the reports on the gag order came out this morning, lots of reporters stepped up on Twitter with notes on how to contact publications with information:

So, perhaps this kind of gag order will lead to a golden age of whistleblowing. Unfortunately, it may also lead to further crackdowns on whistleblowers. Once again, as we've explained over and over again the past few years, the Obama administration was the most aggressive and proactive in cracking down on whistleblowers and the press, and they've now handed off that power and precedent to the Trump administration, which will have a pretty big opportunity to use it.

Filed Under: commerce department, donald trump, epa, gag order, hhs, leaks, reporters, usda

Yes, Getting The US Government Out Of 'Managing' Internet Domain Governance Is A Good Thing

from the moving-on dept

A little over two years ago, when the Commerce Department officially announced plans to "relinquish control" over ICANN's IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) we tried to explain why people should stop freaking out. There were a bunch of people up in arms, claiming that the US government was "giving away the internet." That was, and still is, complete hogwash. There are two important things to understand in this. First, the Commerce Department's "oversight" over ICANN and IANA is already basically non-existent. It was always more on paper than in reality, as the Commerce Department, rightly, took a totally hands off approach. Second, there has been a big effort by foreign governments, mainly Russia and China, to take control over the internet, and strip it from ICANN, and putting it in the ITU, a confusing mess of an organization that's a part of the UN, but heavily controlled by governments without input from actual technologists or public interest groups.

A key part of the Commerce Department's "transition" plan was that it would basically erase the almost entirely imaginary link between IANA and the Commerce Department, but only if a plan was created that kept IANA independent and not as a part of the UN or any organization that would lead to mostly government control, as opposed to what everyone (unfortunately) likes to call a "multistakeholder process" (which just means not just government in the room). And with that plan in place, the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA) has now come out in support of this plan.

The U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced today that the proposal developed by the global Internet multistakeholder community meets the criteria NTIA outlined in March 2014 when it stated its intent to transition the U.S. Government’s stewardship role for the Internet domain name system (DNS) technical functions, known as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions.

The announcement marks an important milestone in the U.S. Government’s effort to complete the transition of the Internet’s domain name system and ensure that the Internet remains a platform for innovation, economic growth, and free speech.

For the last 18 years, the United States has worked with businesses, technical experts, governments, and civil society groups to establish a multistakeholder, private-sector led system for the global coordination of the DNS. To accomplish this goal, in 1998, NTIA partnered with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a California-based nonprofit, to transition technical DNS coordination and management functions to the private sector. In 2014, NTIA initiated the final step in the privatization process by asking ICANN to convene global stakeholders to develop a plan to complete the transition away from NTIA’s remaining legacy role.

Now, you would think that "small government" types would be happy about the US government completing its "privatization" of internet governance. But, that's because many "small government" types are only small government types when it suits them. Senate Ted Cruz and Rep. Sean Duffy have rushed out a bill, called the "Protecting Internet Freedom Act" that would block the Commerce Department from completing the privatization of the internet. This is both silly and counterproductive.

The Commerce Department's flimsy and never really used "control" over NTIA is basically meaningless yet it's frequently used by foreign governments and the ITU/UN as a reason for taking complete control over the IANA process. And that's only ramped up in recent years due to concerns about the NSA and surveillance. In other words, the US having any official control over internet governance is actually helping authoritarian governments by making the argument that US "control" over the internet is only helping the NSA. By separating IANA from the US government, but keeping the overall process as one that is not controlled by any government, you actually have a better chance of keeping the internet functioning in an open manner. Leaving it under the US government control, no matter how flimsy that link really is, only gives foreign governments useful fodder for a more complete move to take over control themselves.

Eli Dourado, who has spent a ton of time digging into and being involved in internet governance issues, has a great and detailed post about why this transition is a good thing and should be supported. It has all of the relevant history here (including my favorite point about how prior to ICANN, the IANA functions were controlled one dude, Jon Postel, who more or less declared himself the czar over how the domain name system was managed). But he also gets directly to the point: Congress forcing the US government to keep this "control" over IANA would do much more harm than good:

In truth, authoritarian regimes would love nothing more than to see the IANA transition fail. It would give them another shot at taking the issue to the ITU, this time with the added ammunition of pointing out that the United States does not keep its word regarding Internet governance. Oddly, this places Cruz and Duffy on the same side as Russia and China, against the world’s democracies, the Obama administration, sober Republicans, virtually every US tech company, the Internet Society, and virtually every freedom-loving intellectual or activist I have met who has participated on a US delegation to the ITU.

Separately, he also points out that for all the hype over this, the IANA function is actually not nearly as important as some make it out to be. The US government losing whatever sense of "control" it had over it is unlikely to have a huge impact on the internet itself. So the "costs" to this transition are basically nil. The cost to keeping the paper control in place, however, may be very large, in that it provides tremendous ammunition to foreign authoritarian regimes to push for much more extreme changes to internet governance that would be much, much worse.

Filed Under: commerce department, iana, icann, internet governance, itu, ntia, privatization, sean duffy, ted cruz, transition, un, wcit
Companies: icann

Commerce Department Wants To Fix Some Of The Worst Problems Of Copyright Law: Reform Crazy Damages

from the wonderful dept

A couple of years ago, the Commerce Department put out a somewhat problematic "Green Paper" on copyright, that at times seemed to have been pretty heavily influenced by the maximalist view of the world, without recognition of how widely copyright is abused. Lots of people responded to it with their concerns -- including an excellent response from (believe it or not) Hollywood screenwriters who actually pointed out the problems of copyright maximalism, statutory damages, abusive takedowns and attacks on fair use. I don't know if it was that letter that really influenced things, but the Commerce Department has now come out with its follow up "White Paper" and it's really quite good. It basically says that copyright's statutory damages are a huge mess and need to be fixed.

We've argued in the past how statutory damages are a big part of the reason why copyright law is so messed up. If you don't know, copyright law allows rightsholders to ignore actual damages (especially if they don't exist) and elect to go for "statutory damages" in which they can seek $750 to $150,000 per work infringed. And, of course, they always claim to go for the $150,000. And when you're talking about someone non-commercially sharing, say, 20 songs, and the fact that they could suddenly be on the hook for $3 million, it begins to be clear how copyright law seems totally divorced from reality. Those crazy statutory damages have a number of super damaging effects:

1. Massive chilling effects. Any hint of a lawsuit gets people to back down as the damages can be debilitating, even if there was no actual damage.
2. Copyright creep. People use copyright threats for reasons having nothing to do with actual copyright, such as to censor content they don't like, because they know that threat of statutory damages is so powerful.
3. Parasitic and abusive businesses, such as copyright trolling, which heavily relies on the threat of $150,000 in statutory damages per work to extort money from individuals.

Thankfully, there's been at least some recognition in Congress that maybe it's time to revisit statutory damages, and this new white paper from the Commerce Department should be quite helpful on that front. What's slightly amazing, honestly, is that some of the folks involved in the writing of the paper actually include some fairly well-known copyright maximalists, who have historically always pushed for expanding copyright law and been against fixing statutory damages.

In this paper, they don't ask for a total overhaul of statutory damages, like many of us feel would be appropriate, but still do push for reforms that recognize the widespread abuse and chilling effects of statutory damages (the paper even namechecks Righthaven and Prenda Law as examples of abusing statutory damages for copyright trolling). Key reforms the paper supports include expanding eligibility for "innocent infringement," which greatly lowers the statutory damages. Historically, courts almost never allow innocent infringement defenses. Expanding that would help out many cases of blatant trolling. But the big change is giving the courts much more discretion in determining the proper amounts for statutory damages, including a specific list of factors that judges and juries should be tasked to consider before determining an award -- and that includes both actual losses to the copyright holder and the "benefits" to the infringer.

The Task Force recommends that Congress enact a new paragraph in Section 504 of the Copyright Act specifying factors that must be considered when determining statutory damage award amounts. The aim is to ensure a greater degree of predictability in copyright infringement cases across the country and address some other concerns raised in this proceeding. In considering what factors should be included, we have drawn upon existing model jury instructions as well as federal case law. The Task Force considered proposing federal model jury instructions, but concluded that a statutory set of factors would be preferable since they will be binding on all courts. We believe that litigants and courts would be well-served by requiring consideration of a uniform set of factors designed to result in an appropriate award based upon the facts of each case.

The nine factors listed below are those that will most often be applicable in a statutory damages determination. We believe that they should be non-exclusive, so that courts are not foreclosed from considering other factors that may be relevant in a particular case.

The Task Force proposes a new clause in subsection Section 504(c)526 as follows: FACTORS TO CONSIDER -- In making any award under this subsection, a court shall consider the following nonexclusive factors in determining the appropriate amount of the award:

1. The plaintiff’s revenues lost and the difficulty of proving damages.
2. The defendant’s expenses saved, profits reaped, and other benefits from the infringement.
3. The need to deter future infringements.
4. The defendant’s financial situation.
5. The value or nature of the work infringed.
6. The circumstances, duration, and scope of the infringement, including whether it was commercial in nature.
7. In cases involving infringement of multiple works, whether the total sum of damages, taking into account the number of works infringed and number of awards made, is commensurate with the overall harm caused by the infringement.
8. The defendant’s state of mind, including whether the defendant was a willful or innocent infringer.
9. In the case of willful infringement, whether it is appropriate to punish the defendant and if so, the amount of damages that would result in an appropriate punishment.

When calculating the total award, all of these factors should be weighed holistically, in the context of the entire case, to ensure that the overall award is appropriate.

Frankly, that's a pretty good list overall. The fact that it includes whether the infringement was "commercial in nature" also seems like it could be super helpful in getting rid of many of the worst abuses. There are, of course, other potential improvements that can and should be made to statutory damages, but this is a good start, and it's great to see it come from the Commerce Department, that in the past seemed a little too smitten with Hollywood's love of statutory damages.

Separately, the paper also embraces the value of remixes in culture, and why fair use is so important for that to thrive. It doesn't recommend any changes to the law over that (which is too bad), but at least it's not the typical maximalist view of "remixes have no value, or should first be licensed entirely." It does suggest, however, that there be clearer "guidelines" to provide clarity over when fair use should be applied to remixes to at least take away some of the chilling effects of copyright threats.

Remixes make valuable contributions to society in providing expressive, political, and entertainment content. It is important that the copyright framework continues to allow the broad range of remixes to thrive, ensuring that a vibrant fair use space coexists with effective licensing structures. The Task Force concludes that the record has not established a need to amend existing law to create a specific exception or a compulsory license for remix uses. We have several recommendations that would make it easier for remixers to understand when a use is fair and to obtain licenses when they wish to do so. Specifically, the Task Force recommends pursuing three goals:

• The development of negotiated guidelines providing greater clarity as to the application of fair use to remixes;
• Expanding the availability of a wider variety of voluntary licensing options; and
• Increasing educational efforts aimed at broadening an understanding of fair use.

Those are decent recommendations to start with, and again, it's nice to see a real recognition of the importance and cultural value of remixes.

And, finally, the paper looks at the question of digital first sale rights, and whether or not there's a way to "preserve the benefits" of first sale rights (which allow you to, say, resell a book you bought without having to first get approval of the copyright holder). The paper basically says that it's too early to try to change the law on this issue. This may be the only somewhat disappointing aspect of the paper, as it seems to argue the typical maximalist response of "well, new licensing solutions should take care of that." But first sale rights are not just about licensing. And just because there may be easier licensing solutions, you're still creating a permission framework where previously the exchanges were permissionless. And that creates a market friction. However, the paper does recognize that there are some concerns here -- especially from libraries, and recognizes the issue may need to be revisited in the future.

Overall, it's a surprisingly good paper that (not surprisingly) doesn't go as far as I might have liked, but goes much further than I would have expected from the government these days.

Filed Under: commerce department, copyright rolling, first sale, ntia, reform, remixes, statutory damages

In A First, Commerce Department Fines Intel Subsidiary For Exporting Encryption

from the the-war-on-encryption dept

For those who lived through the late 90's cryptowars, it's beginning to feel like history is repeating itself. We've seen the series of recent stories about the US government's misguided, FUD-based freakout over some recent moves to enhance privacy through more widely usable encryption, but now we're reaching the stage of the game where the government also starts attacking the "export" of cryptography. If you don't remember, a key part of the original cryptowars was over whether or not strong cryptography could be classified as a weapon, and subject to significant export controls. Thankfully, that idea was mostly scrapped, and encryption flourished, helping to make the internet and other technologies much safer.

However, it appears the government is back to going after the export of encryption, as the Department of Commerce recently fined Intel subsidiary Wind River Systems $750,000 for exporting products that included encryption to China, Hong Kong, Russia, Israel, South Africa, and South Korea. While most had recognized that sending encryption (or, well, just about anything) to places like Iran, Cuba and North Korea might be problematic, most people had assumed that other countries, like those on the list above were no big deal.

As the linked article (from law firm Goodwin Procter) points out:

We believe this to be the first penalty BIS has ever issued for the unlicensed export of encryption software that did not also involve comprehensively sanctioned countries (e.g., Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan or Syria). This suggests a fundamental change in BIS’s treatment of violations of the encryption regulations.

Historically, BIS has resolved voluntarily disclosed violations of the encryption regulations with a warning letter but no material consequence, and has shown itself unlikely to pursue such violations that were not disclosed. This fine dramatically increases the compliance stakes for software companies — a message that BIS seemed intent upon making in its announcement.

Furthermore, the report understates the simple fact that "encryption is ubiquitous in software products" these days. And that's something that's only growing (a trend that should continue as encryption is increasingly important). But if the Commerce Department has suddenly decided to pick a fight over this issue, it could create a real competitive disadvantage for American tech companies trying to offer products around the globe. So, not only has the US government undermined the US tech industry through surveillance and backdoors, now it's looking to make it more difficult to build in encryption that better protects against such intrusions. It's almost as if the government wants to cede technology leadership to other countries.

Filed Under: commerce department, cryptowars, encryption, fines
Companies: intel, wind river systems

Congressman Mistakes Two Senior US Gov't Officials For Foreign Indian Gov't Officials

from the ouch dept

This is one of the most painful Congressional videos you'll ever see. A freshman Congressman, Curt Clawson, was in a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Thursday, where two senior US government officials -- one from the State Department and another from the Commerce Department -- were testifying. Nisha Biswal and Arun Kumar are both Americans. But apparently Clawson had absolutely no clue -- even though he was in the hearing and both of the panelists were introduced as US officials. Spotted by Foreign Policy, Clawson was apparently so confused by the color of their skin and their names, that he just assumed they represented the Indian government. The video is... just painful. Clawson starts out by talking about how much he loves "your country." He also, apparently, talked about his favorite Bollywood movies. But when he wanted Biswal and Kumar to "commit" to better relationships concerning investment from the US into India, a very, very awkward pause followed. Finally, Biswal says:

"I... I... I think your question is to the Indian government. We certainly share your sentiment, and we certainly will advocate that on behalf of the U.S."

In response, Clawson, with a very awkward smile says "Of course! Ok. Let's see some progress!"

We've seen some awkward Congressional testimony situations before, like when a Senator walked into the wrong hearing and asked an unrelated question for a witness who wasn't there. But that was just reasonably laughed off. Just this morning, we wrote about Rep. John Conyers mid-question epiphany that his stance on copyright conflicted with his stance on preventing overcriminalization. But Clawson's confusion is really at quite another level of ridiculousness. People make mistakes, of course, but if you're in a Congressional hearing, you should at least know who is testifying and if you don't know, you probably shouldn't assume their nationality based on the color of their skin and their names.

Filed Under: arun kumar, assumptions, commerce department, congress, curt clawson, house foreign affairs committee, inda, nisha biswal, state department, testifying

Girl Scouts Get A Badge In Intellectual Property Maximalism

from the not-this-again dept

Way back in 2006, we wrote about how the Los Angeles wing of the Boy Scouts of America had started offering an MPAA-supported patch in "respecting copyright," in which "respecting copyright" was actually respecting the MPAA's misleading maximalist view of copyright. It took some time, but it appears that the Girl Scouts are finally catching up. The Intellectual Property Owners Education Foundation has helped create a special new "IP patch" for the Girl Scouts.

Through earning the patch girls learn about the importance of the intellectual property system to their lives and to local and national economies. “As STEM fields become increasingly popular, it is important that we teach young people about the incentives and protections available to them through the patent system. IPO Education Foundation is excited about the opportunity to work with the GSCNC and the USPTO to bring the patent system to girls through the IP patch," said IPOEF Executive Director Herb Wamsley.

Yes, so you have this biased, one-sided organization, whose entire mission statement is to push bogus propaganda, exaggerating the importance of "intellectual property" and intellectual property maximalism, and the Girl Scouts just say "no problem" without thinking that the organization run by corporate lobbyists might be just a little bit misleading? Even worse, is the idea that IP is somehow tied to "STEM" fields. Considering that many in all of those fields believe that intellectual property laws have been stifling efforts towards innovation and education, to pretend that the two are aligned is ridiculous.

Even more ridiculous? The US government is now endorsing this sham propaganda campaign.

This morning a group of Girl Scouts in Washington, DC will be the first to receive the IP patch. The patch curriculum was developed jointly by IPO Education Foundation (IPOEF), U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and Girl Scout Counsel of the Nation’s Capital (GSCNC). Patches will be presented by U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker and USPTO Deputy Director Michelle Lee at a ceremony at the Langdon Education Campus

In trying to think of an equivalent, I wondered if the Girl Scouts would offer an "energy conservation" badge designed by an oil company... and then discovered that, well, yes, they do. Apparently, if you have a powerful enough industry, you can push propaganda on kids in the form of "merit badges." Incredible.

Filed Under: commerce department, girl scouts, ip badge, ip patch, uspto
Companies: girl scouts, intellectual property owners, ipoef

US Relinquishing What Tiny Control It Had Of The Internet... If UN Isn't Allowed To Take Over

from the not-that-big-a-deal dept

This was rumored for a while, but the Commerce Department has now said that it will be "relinquishing" its "control" over ICANN's IANA, which administers the basic structure of the internet domain system. You can read the details here. Of course, the US government's "control" over ICANN/IANA has always been a lot more on paper than in reality. From the beginning, while the Commerce Department technically had oversight concerning ICANN, it had always been careful to live up to its promise that ICANN was to be independent of the US government. So, while some are making a big deal over this, it's unclear if it will really matter that much.

The big fear over the past few years was that certain foreign interests -- lead by authoritarian regimes in China and Russia (with long track records of censoring the internet and stifling dissent) -- would take control of the internet away from ICANN via the ITU, an organization that's a part of the UN. That was extremely problematic on a number of levels, given in part that the ITU process is entirely controlled by country governments without input from other stakeholders, such as technologists. ICANN is far from perfect (very, very, very, very, very far from perfect), but the ITU would be significantly worse.

However, from what's being said, it appears that the Commerce Department's plan is conditional on the UN/ITU not getting control, and for internet governance to remain a multi-stakeholder process, rather than one solely controlled by governments.

U.S. officials set strict conditions and an indeterminate timeline for the transition from federal government authority, saying that a new oversight body must be created and win the trust of crucial stakeholders around the world, said Lawrence Strickling, a top Commerce Department official. The announcement essentially ruled out the possibility that the United Nations would take over the U.S. role, something many nations have advocated and U.S. officials have long opposed.

That's a good thing. From what's being said, it sounds like the Commerce Department would like ICANN to continue more or less the way it has been running, just without the official claim to being overseen by the Commerce Department. Could that lead to troubles down the road? Sure. But, frankly, the US more or less forced itself into this position with its idiotic decision to let the NSA spy on everything. Before that, plenty of other countries were happy with de facto US "control" over the internet. But once it became clear just how deep the NSA's claws were within the internet, even former allies began to demand changes.

While the ICANN model can be improved upon (greatly), it can also be much, much worse. So where this goes will need to be watched closely. But, on a first pass, simply taking the Commerce Department's name off of things should have little direct impact for the time being. And, of course, it's worth remembering, that before ICANN, the internet was more or less governed (benevolently) by this guy.

Filed Under: commerce department, iana, internet governance, itu
Companies: icann