When Microsoft Sends Its Legal Dept. To Give Quotes On Product Launches, Something Is Wrong

from the that's-not-development-any-more dept

We've noted the very clear shift in patent strategies at Microsoft over the years -- from a company that hated patents to one that now views them as central to its mission, and often uses them to threaten competitors. However, you want to know when things have really gone too far? It's when the company is sending out the legal department to provide press quotes on a "product launch" that is tied to a technology licensing deal. As Matt Asay points out in the link here, in a story about Novell launching Linux on a Windows virtualization offering, there are two quotes from Microsoft employees -- and both appear to come from the legal department rather than a product role. What used to be an innovative company working on new stuff is apparently turning into a legal firm trying to put tollbooths on innovation. It's sad.

Filed Under: intellectual property, licensing, patents, product launch
Companies: microsoft, novell

EA Has To Back Off Sims Karaoke Due To Licensing Problems

from the yay,-royalties dept

It's been quite a difficult time lately for various online music efforts. Pandora on the verge of shutting down, Muxtape already shut down and now EA is apparently scaling back its online Sims On Stage karaoke offerings over a vague, but unexplained, song licensing issue. How dare people sing along online? You get the feeling that the recording industry would go after people singing in the shower if they could.

Filed Under: karaoke, licensing, music, royalties, sims
Companies: ea

CBC Held To Ransom Over Hockey Theme Song

from the who-made-the-song-valuable? dept

Hockey Night in Canada is an award-winning program that airs on Saturday nights on CBC Television featuring eccentric hosts, Ron MacLean and Don Cherry. The show has been broadcast on television weekly since 1952 (Wikipedia claims it's the "oldest sports-related television program still on the air") and it has become a cultural rallying point in a hockey-crazy country.

The Hockey Night in Canada theme song has been used on the show since 1968 and has become a Canadian "national treasure" (some say a "second national anthem"), but, last week, a licensing dispute brought that to an end. The CBC was already involved in a legal dispute with the rights holder and both sides failed to reach an agreement in negotiations to relicense the song for next season. The Hockey Theme, written by Dolores Claman, was costing the CBC $500 CAD for each game broadcast, by far the highest price for a theme song in Canadian broadcasting. The CBC offered Copyright Music & Visuals -- the agency representing Claman -- nearly $1 million CAD to buy out the rights to the song, but the agency was demanding $2.5 million to $3 million for use in perpetuity. The CBC has since announced plans to launch a new songwriting contest in association with Nettwerk Music Group, offering $100,000 to the winner. In an interesting twist, CTV -- a privately owned competitor of the CBC -- reached a deal to buy out the rights to the song shortly after negotiations with the CBC fell apart.

The most interesting part of the story is the question of who created the value surrounding the song. Would the song be a cultural icon if the CBC hadn't licensed it for the past four decades? Would it be worth $3 million CAD? Scott Moore, executive director of CBC Sports, notes that "the only reason that it had the value that it has and the ability that they had to monetize that by selling it to a third party is because of the long association with CBC's Hockey Night in Canada." (audio stream - 2:05)

The CBC, a broadcaster funded by taxpayers, was being held to ransom for a song that they had made valuable.

This seems to be a perfect example of our current intellectual property systems favoring invention at the expense of innovation, favoring creators at the expense of those who might add value to their creations.

Filed Under: canada, hockey night in canada, licensing

FTC May Get Involved In Patent Dispute Over Digital TV

from the monopoly-corrupts dept

Back in February we wrote about a patent holding firm called Rembrandt (a nod, I'm sure, to the book "Rembrandts in the Attic," which many say kicked off this decade's patent problems) that was suing basically everyone in the TV business, claiming to hold patents on digital television. This was problematic for a few reasons. First, since the FCC is mandating that everyone switch to fully digital TV systems by next year, broadcasters have little choice but to offer digital TV. Second, Rembrandt bought the patent from AT&T who had already promised to license it under RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms which Rembrandt is ignoring. Since the FTC recently smacked down another patent holder for doing the same thing, an advocacy group is now appealing to the FTC to smack down Rembrandt as well, claiming that the company is "violating antitrust and fair competition laws by abusing the monopoly provided by its patent" in order to collect "a massive tax... on the transition to digital TV." Indeed.

Filed Under: digital tv, ftc, licensing, patents, rand
Companies: rembrandt

Prediction: The LTE Patent Bundle Won't Prevent LTE Patent Lawsuits

from the just-wait-and-see dept

I've been seeing a few folks take the news that a bunch of big telco firms looking to get into the LTE (Long Term Evolution) market have agreed to form a patent pool. Some are even suggesting that this is exactly how the patent system should work. That's wishful thinking at best. LTE is the next generation of wireless technology that many telcos around the world are adopting as their choice for "4G" technology -- and it will be important. However, don't think that just because some companies have agreed to pool patents that it's a good thing. There have been plenty of patent pools in the past, and you can bet that one of two things is likely to happen. First, some other company (or a few other companies, and almost definitely some individual patent holders) will spring up at some point with yet another patent, claiming that LTE technology infringes on that patent and all these firms owe a ton of money. And, given how so many patent holders don't believe in apportioning damages, they'll even claim to want more than all the money being spread around in the pool itself.

But, much more to the point, the fact that so many patents need to be "pooled" just to offer this technology should be a pretty clear warning sign that the patent system isn't working as intended. Basically, what you have here is a patent thicket. Many of the patents in question are overlapping patents that never should have been issued. However, given all the uncertainty around patent litigation (and how the courts will be treating patent issues), most of these firms realize it's better to agree to split the pie rather than sue. That's still not a good result, because it only encourages more companies to suddenly push for these sorts of marginal and totally unnecessary patents just to get included in future patent pools -- even if their "invention" really adds nothing to the technology. Furthermore, this patent pool will automatically increase the price of all LTE technology, making sure that adoption is slowed down. So, yes, it's better to see a patent pool created than to see everyone just jump to lawsuits, but the history of patent pools is littered with additional lawsuits and companies having to pay for patents that they shouldn't be paying for. This is hardly a "good" solution -- it just encourages the bad system to get worse.

Filed Under: licensing, lte, patent pools, patents, royalties

One-Sided Surveys Concerning Software Licensing

from the something-appears-to-be-missing-here... dept

Someone who prefers to remain anonymous, submitted to us an unintentionally amusing editorial concerning the issue of unlicensed software. The editorial is written by someone at a consulting firm, trying to drive more business in helping software companies force their customers into complying with license terms -- so it's in the writer's best interest to make it sound like going after unauthorized users is good business. You'll notice as you read through the report that all of the data seems to only come from one side: the software companies themselves. It should come as no surprise that those software companies complain about significant "losses" due to unauthorized use -- as it's rare for most software firms to admit that they often benefit from the network effects of unauthorized use. It's even rarer for most software firms to admit that some unauthorized use comes from those who would never pay for the software in the first place.

From there, the report gets even worse, claiming that software license compliance efforts (basically, showing up at your customers and making sure they're not using more than they paid for) "cause few, if any, negative ramifications" and generally say the "impact of software license compliance activity was neutral, positive, or very positive." Once again, this is incredibly one-sided. It only talks to the software firms themselves -- who are either unlikely to admit or simply unaware of how their customers feel about such compliance efforts. If the consulting firm were really interested in understanding the impact of these compliance efforts (rather than just selling more compliance services), it would have also investigated how those on the receiving end felt about such efforts -- and the longer term impacts of treating your customers as if they were thieves. But, that might not tell such a rosy story, and might not be good for business.

Filed Under: compliance, licensing, software

So You Want To License Some Music For That YouTube Video...

from the you-want-to-do-what-now-with-the-whotube? dept

Ray Beckermann points us to an opinion piece by Shelly Palmer, who is President of the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences. Palmer's article is officially about why it's dumb for music publishers to join in the mad rush to sue Google/YouTube over not getting royalties for songs used in YouTube videos. However, he actually makes a point that goes well beyond the futility of suing, by showing how ridiculous the licensing process is today. Basically, there are numerous different rights that you need to secure, and each may require a different negotiation with a different party -- and almost no one makes it easy to figure out who you need to talk to about what. In other words, even if people did want to properly license the music playing in their background while making a home video of their toddler dancing, it's probably not even possible.

Filed Under: copyright, licensing
Companies: youtube