Romney, Santorum & Gingrich Sued For Patent Infringement Over Facebook Usage... Along With Millions Of FB Users

from the wow dept

I'm kind of wondering if Hollywood-based patent attorney and patent holder Frank Weyer is trying to turn the Republican presidential field anti-patent. Weyer, via his company EVERYMD, holds US Patent 7,644,122 concerning internet groups, which the USPTO granted in January of 2010 (but which goes back to a patent application filed in 1999, and then a continuation patent built off of that). To suggest the patent is broad is to state the extremely obvious. But, more or less, EVERYMD appears to be claiming that Facebook business accounts that offer home pages for members of a group (that also allow the ability to send messages/comments) infringes on the patent.

To make things even more insane, EVERYMD is suing Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich as the three named defendants, and then every other Facebook business account holder as a (as yet unnamed) Doe account. Suing the three Republican Presidential candidates is clearly a publicity gambit here -- most likely an attempt to get Facebook itself to pay up. As the lawsuit makes clear, EVERYMD first went after Facebook, offering to sell it the patent. Facebook apparently wasn't interested -- and, instead, went to the USPTO requesting that it re-examine the patent. That re-exam process is not going well for EVERYMD. The USPTO issued a final rejection on all of the claims -- but EVERYMD is appealing.

It seems kind of silly to then go after Facebook's users -- and specifically three presidential candidates -- except as an attempt to try to embarrass Facebook into buying or licensing the patent before the USPTO kills it entirely. Or as an attempt to show these presidential candidates just how screwed up the patent system is today, though that seems unlikely. As Patently-O notes, Weyer has some history in using patents to go after companies for what seem like basic and obvious features.

To make this even more ridiculous, EVERYMD also claims that, back in January 2011, it opened up a "licensing program" through which anyone could buy a license to the patent at the "reduced price" of $500 per account, but no one took them up on this offer, which is no longer available. What a shock. Some company that no one has heard of suddenly puts up a page asking for $500 so you can keep running your Facebook page? Who would actually fork over money in such a situation? Even if this is not Weyer's intention, maybe this will actually wake up at least some of these Presidential candidates to how the patent system has strayed far from its intended purpose.

Filed Under: facebook pages, frank weyer, mitt romney, newt gingrich, patents, rick santorum
Companies: everymd, facebook

Romney Campaign's Finance Co-Chair Accused Of Being SLAPP-Happy

from the time-for-a-federal-anti-slapp-law dept

We've covered, repeatedly, the problems of people using SLAPP -- Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation -- lawsuits against people trying to speak their opinion. While some states have anti-SLAPP laws (with the quality of those laws being quite mixed), we still believe that we really need a strong federal anti-SLAPP law. If you're not familiar with SLAPP lawsuits, they are lawsuits with little basis that are filed with the sole purpose of silencing someone who is speaking out in some manner.

Last week, Glenn Greenwald, over at Salon, went into tremendous detail in accusing Mitt Romney's billionaire national finance co-chair, Frank VanderSloot (oddly, links to this page don't seem to work, but if you go to Greenwald's blog you can still get to it -- at the same URL), of regularly using SLAPP-like suits or threats of SLAPP-like suits to silence critics. He lays out a number of examples, involving publications both big (Mother Jones, Forbes) and small (various small time bloggers). Unfortunately, it appears that many of those publications simply backed down, often removing the material entirely. You would think that publications like Forbes and Mother Jones would stand up to such actions, but they both took down the articles critical of VanderSloot, though Mother Jones eventually (a week or so later) posted a new version that was apparently edited to address the complaints.

VanderSloot is CEO of Melaleuca, which has been described as a multilevel marketing company. In that Forbes article, Melaleuca is described as a "a pyramid selling organization." Elsewhere, in complaints to the government, it has been described as a "pyramid scheme." VanderSloot and Melaleuca have argued, however, that it is not a "pyramid scheme." He's also been very politically active, not just in the Romney campaign, but various other political campaigns -- including paying for billboards to speak out against the local PBS station showing a particular documentary about gay issues. Forbes recently used this story to suggest that VanderSloot was "a large contributor to a number of anti-homosexual causes." That article has since been removed but copies can be found online. Greenwald also details a blog post by James Tidmarsh on the site IdahoAgenda, which claimed that VanderSloot "has a pretty solid anti-gay history in Idaho." VanderSloot and his lawyers appear to take exception to such claims, and the Tidmarsh blog post has since been removed after he apparently received multiple communications pressuring him to take the post down or face consequences.

As we've seen in SLAPP cases we've looked at in the past, at times he uses copyright to try to threaten legal action -- including in one case where his lawyers registered the copyright on a takedown letter they sent a blog, which they then used to claim infringement against the person who posted the letter on the site (to explain why the original blog post was removed). In that case, since it involved anonymous bloggers, VanderSloot's company, Melaleuca also tried to issue subpoenas to identify the bloggers. Similarly, they apparently claimed copyright infringement in a letter to a blogger who made use of a VanderSloot corporate headshot -- a common practice, and one for which there is at least some legal precedence for fair use (and that threatening over such uses can be seen as a SLAPP attempt).

We've seen many similar cases, but Greenwald lays out so many similar stories involving VanderSloot and Melaleuca (many with detailed citations), that I'm kind of surprised that we hadn't come across these before. Either way, you can tell that Greenwald (who is a lawyer) was quite careful in drafting his writeup, most likely expecting at least some pushback. He also highlights the cause of one blogger, Jody May-Chang, who does not seem to want to back down against VanderSloot, after having received a letter (pdf) recently about an old blog post (for which it's likely any defamation claim is long past the statute of limitations).

Once again, stories like these really highlight the need for a strong and clear federal anti-SLAPP law. It would certainly be interesting for someone in the political press to ask Mitt Romney for his position on a federal anti-SLAPP law, given his relationship with VanderSloot. Either way, I feel it's a shame that we don't have such a strong federal anti-SLAPP law in place already. Such a law would go a long way towards protecting basic First Amendment principles. I'm always most amazed at the rich and powerful using these types of tactics (see: Snyder, Dan) not just because such people are public figures (where the bar for any defamation claim is significantly higher), but because you would think that, having gotten to such a level, they'd be secure enough in their arguments that having random publications snipe at them should be of little concern.

Filed Under: anti-slapp laws, frank vandersloot, glenn greenwald, mitt romney, slapp

NBC News Doesn't Understand Fair Use; Demands Mitt Romney Remove Ads That Use TV News Clips

from the oh-please dept

Here we go again. Four years ago, during the presidential campaign, we had CBS News threaten the McCain campaign for using some news footage clips in a campaign ad. And here we are, four years later, with NBC Universal demanding that the Romney campaign remove an ad it's using against Newt Gingrich, making use of old TV news footage. This strikes us as bizarre (and ridiculous) as it did four years ago. In many cases, these ads are likely to be considered fair use. But, secondly, is it really any harm to NBC News if Romney uses classic footage? I mean, the news reports are what NBC News had reported in the past. Essentially acting like it hadn't -- by trying to block the use of the footage -- just seems silly.

NBC, of course, wants to claim that this is about not having its newscasters be seen as "endorsing" a candidate. Again, however, that's ridiculous. No one is going to see these reports and think that the Tom Brokaw from the 90s was magically endorsing a candidate running for President today. I just can't see how or why NBC Universal would make this move. Not only does it make the company look petty, it also calls that much more attention to the ad that they thought they were going to kill.

Filed Under: copyright, fair use, mitt romney, newt gingrich
Companies: nbc universal

Crowd Cheers Loudly As All Four GOP Candidates Say No To SOPA/PIPA

from the national-issue dept

It really was just a few weeks ago that a Hollywood lobbyist laughed at me (literally) when I suggested that SOPA/PIPA might become a national issue during the Presidential campaign. As he noted, copyright issues just aren't interesting outside of a small group of people. My, how things have changed. After this week's protests made front pages and top stories everywhere, it's not all that surprising that the candidates at the latest GOP debate were asked their opinion of the bills... and all four came out against them. Of course, this seems to fit with the new GOP positioning that they're the anti-SOPA/PIPA party (so sorry Lamar Smith...). Mediaite has the video: And here's a transcript of what each candidate said:

Gingrich: "You are asking a conservative about the economic interests of Hollywood? I am weighing it and thinking fondly of the many left wing people that I am so eager to protect. On the other hand, you have so many people that are technologically advanced such as Google and You Tube and Facebook that say this is totally going to mess up the Internet. The bill in its current form is written really badly and leads to a range of censorship that is totally unacceptable. I believe in freedom and think that we have a patent office, copyright law and if a company believes it has generally been infringed upon it has the right to sue. But the idea that we have the government start preemptively start censoring the Internet and corporations' economic interest is exactly the wrong thing to do."

Romney: "The law as written is far too expansive, far too intrusive and far too threatening of freedom of speech and information carried across the Internet. It would have a depressing impact on one of the fastest growing industries in America. I care deeply about intellectual content going across the Internet and if we can find a way to very narrowly go after those people who are pirating especially those offshore. But a very broad law that gives the government the power to start saying who can pass what to whom, I say no and I am standing for freedom."

Paul: "I am one of the first Republicans to oppose this law and so glad that sentiment has mellowed up here as Republicans have been on the wrong side of this issue and this is a good example on why its good to have someone who can look at civil liberties ... freedom and the constitution bring people together."

Santorum: "I do not support this law and believe it goes too far. But I will not agree with everyone that there isn't something that should be done to protect the intellectual content of people. The internet is not a free zone where anyone can do anything they want to do and trample the rights of other people. Particularly when we are talking about entities off shore. The idea that the government has no role to protect the intellectual property of this company, that's not right. The idea that anything goes on the Internet? Who has that idea. Property rights should be respected."

Santorum's answer is the weakest, obviously -- and isn't too surprising. Just recently he made a statement that was about how online activity should be regulated.

But, really the most interesting part of what happened was not the candidates answering the question, but the audience's response. When John King asked the question and gave a brief explanation of SOPA/PIPA... he also mentioned that CNN's parent company, Time Warner, supported the bill... and the crowd booed loudly. When the candidates -- particularly Gingrich and Paul -- made their claims, the crowd cheered loudly.

The people who are still brushing off the whole protest as "an internet thing" or (even more ridiculous) "a Google thing," still don't seem to realize. Pretty much the entire public has turned against these kinds of bills.

Filed Under: copyright, debate, gop, internet, mitt romney, newt gingrich, pipa, protect ip, republicans, rick santorum, ron paul, sopa

Did Mitt Romney Just Come Out Against SOPA/PIPA?

from the maybe? dept

At a recent campaign stop, a small business owner asked Mitt Romney for his opinion on SOPA, noting that it would likely kill her business. Romney responded without discussing the bills specifically, but said that he's totally against bills like this that just focus on "stopping bad acts," and that he wants politicians to focus on encouraging businesses to do good things. I don't know if that's an unqualified rejection of SOPA/PIPA, but it sure comes close. He's talking about out-of-touch regulators who've spent their lives in DC, rather than in business, and "all they think about is how to stop business and stop the bad guys," (which does, in fact, describe SOPA/PIPA) but, Romney says, this is just a sign that "they don't like business very much." Indeed. SOPA/PIPA are very much bills that focus solely on trying to "stop bad guys," without taking into account the massive amount of harm that will be done to the good guys -- the companies who are innovating and are creating jobs. Given that he doesn't really discuss specifics, and just talks in generalities about bad regulations and harming business, it's possible that he has no idea what SOPA/PIPA are about, and gave a Generic Politicians'(tm) answer to a question. But hopefully more people will hold him to this, and get him to confirm that he's against these bills.

Either way, with more people asking about SOPA/PIPA, it's definitely starting to become a campaign issue...

Filed Under: business, mitt romney, pipa, politics, protect ip, regulations, sopa

Mitt Romney To Fox News: Here's A Lesson In Fair Use

from the fair-use-on-the-campaign-trail dept

Who thought that the presidential campaigns would have anything to do with copyright issues? If you said yes, you'd be in a small group. However, as we pointed out last week, Fox News has been sending cease-and-desist letters to Republican candidates for using snippets of the Republican presidential candidate debates in their ads and on their websites. Other networks have agreed to allow the content to be used freely, but not News Corp.-owned Fox. We figured that most candidates would back down rather than getting tangled in a legal battle, but that might not be the case. Against Monopoly points out that Mitt Romney's campaign sent Fox News a letter describing the campaign's use of the material as clearly falling under "fair use". Fox News has shot back that it does not, but so far that seems to be as far as things have gone. Where it will get interesting is whether either side is willing to file an actual lawsuit (News Corp. being much more likely to actually file, but the Romney campaign could always try to get a declaratory judgment). Considering how little attention gets paid to copyright issues during presidential election cycles, this may be about as close as it gets.

Filed Under: copyright, fair use, john mccain, mitt romney, presidential candidates
Companies: fox

Fox Goes After Republican Presidential Candidates For Online Copyright Violations Over Debate Footage

from the fair-use-be-damned! dept

Earlier this month, we wondered if Fox was going to sue some Republican Congressional Representatives, after they used Simpsons characters in an awful parody press release. A Fox spokesperson claimed it was a violation of copyright, but it seemed unlikely that Fox would actually do anything about it. However, in a somewhat similar issue, it looks like Fox is actually going after Republican candidates for using Fox debate footage on their websites. Apparently, Fox first targeted just John McCain for using debate footage, but after being called out on not treating to the other candidates fairly, sent cease-and-desist letters to all candidates using Fox footage. What would be interesting is if any of the candidates decides to challenge Fox on this one. The specific letter that was sent to McCain apparently demanded that he not use any Fox material on his website -- and that raises questions about whether or not McCain actually needs Fox's permission, as what he's doing could be considered fair use. It could make for an interesting legal challenge -- but somehow it seems unlikely that any of the presidential candidates wants to get wrapped up in a legal battle over fair use right now.

Filed Under: copyright, fair use, john mccain, mitt romney, presidential candidates, rudy giuliani
Companies: fox

Romney Learns About The Pitfalls Of User-Generated Content

from the setting-america-straight dept

In late August, the Romney presidential campaign unveiled a create-your-own-ad contest that gave Mitt Romney supporters the opportunity to create a television ad that the campaign would air in New Hampshire. Well, the winner was announced last week. Unfortunately for the Romney campaign, Bruce Reed, a Democratic strategist turned blogger, submitted his own entry, a hilarious video making fun of Romney. At one point Reed's video had more page views than all the official finalists put together. As a result, the contest wound up mostly giving Romney's critics an opportunity to make fun of him.

It's a problem that often crops up when people try to mix the top-down structure of a campaign or a company with the bottom-up ethos of user-generated content. Often, the users don't generate the kind of content you were expecting. Romney's experience demonstrates a couple of important points about the challenges of harnessing user-generated content that we can glean from the open source world. One lesson is that it's a bad idea to pin all your hopes on one big product release. Open source projects have found that it makes more sense to release stuff as it's ready, rather than trying to commit to finishing particular features by a particular date. By the same token, instead of promising to spend tens of thousands of dollars airing a single winning ad, Romney could have made it a weekly contest, with a small cash prize to each week's winner. That probably would have generated just as many entries, created more enthusiasm, and made it a less juicy target for the pranksters of the world. If someone made a really good ad, they could still run it on TV if they wanted to, but they wouldn't be forced spend a lot of money airing an ad that wasn't very good. It would also allow them to have a sense of humor about critical ads instead of trying to block them all from the site.

A more fundamental point, which also comes from the open source world, is that good user generated content is almost always the product of an enthusiastic and cohesive online community. Every significant open source project has a tight-knit community of developers, and Wikipedia is run by several hundred volunteer editors. User-generated commercials are no different. The more people there are creating videos, commenting and voting on other peoples' videos, and policing potential vandalism, the more likely the contest will turn out to be a success. Of course, a community of enthusiastic supporters has uses far beyond producing free TV ads. That's why it's silly to do user-generating content as a one-time, high-profile event. Not only is such an effort less likely to succeed on its own terms, but it also misses the opportunity to harness the interest the contest generates into building longer-term relationships. If people participate in a contest and then never come back to the site, that's a huge missed opportunity. Of course, none of this is unique to candidates; the same principles apply to companies: user generated commercials can work brilliantly for companies, but they're best seen as an integral part of a continuing relationship with your most enthusiastic online customers, not as a one-off publicity stunt.

Filed Under: mitt romney, user generated content