Brewery Looks To Reform Trademark Practices After Its Lawyers Bully A Pub Over Its Name

from the the-blame-game dept

As is commonly said, mistakes happen and it's what we do about those mistakes that is important. Too often when the mistakes are concerning trademark bullying, there is nothing done to acknowledge or address that bullying. The bully will simply state the oft-repeated excuse that they must bully according to trademark law, which isn't remotely the case. And, because there is no acknowledgement that anything was done wrong, the bullying then continues.

Well, after a recent dust-up over trademarks between BrewDog, a self-styled "punk brewery," and a family-owned pub, it seems that the brewery is actually going all in on reforming how it approaches trademark issues, and even intellectual property more generally.

The brother-and-sister team behind the Wolf pub in Birmingham were forced to drop their original plan to name the establishment the Lone Wolf, after receiving a legal warning from BrewDog, which has launched a spirit bearing the same name. But BrewDog founder James Watt announced a change of heart on Monday after the Guardian’s report sparked a backlash that saw the firm, a vocal critic of large, faceless brewing firms, accused of acting like “just another multinational corporate machine”.

Watt had initially tweeted that the brewery's lawyers got "trigger happy" and that the bar could keep using the name. That was on March 27th, although that tweet appears, as best as I can tell, to have been deleted since. In its place were assurances to Watt's followers that all had ended well.

Along with that came a blog post from BrewDog explaining that it had to enforce its trademarks, but both promising to do so more leniently and stating that the company doesn't actually take intellectual property all that seriously.

In terms of the Lone Wolf Bar in Birmingham, we paid for and trademarked Lone Wolf in 2015. The Lone Wolf Bar in Birmingham opened in January of 2017. Our wider team and legal partners, acting entirely in our best interests informed them that we owned the name and they would have to stop using it. Just as we'd do if someone opened a bar called BrewDog.

However, hands up, we made a mistake here in how we acted. Almost all companies always look to enforce trademarks, whereas at BrewDog we should take the view to only enforce if something really detrimental to our business is happening. And here, I do not think that was the case. As soon as I found out, I reversed the decision and offered to cover all of the costs of the bar. I also invited them up to Ellon to make their own gin with us. This is a mistake that hurt a lot; but like all mistakes, it made us better. This will not happen again.

Going even further than that, the brewery has taken the somewhat extraordinary step to publicly release its brew recipes on its own website. Were a company to want to demonstrate more perfectly its commitment to not being an overbearing bully on matters of intellectual property, I'm not sure how they could do a better job of it than this. Working with the former target of the company's lawyers, publicly explaining what happened to its customers and everyone else, and releasing the recipes for its brews publicly for anyone to download: this is a commitment to being open and cool to customers and businesses.

Keep in mind that BrewDog could have simply shouted the mantra of having to protect its trademarks at everyone. We here wouldn't have bought that, because we know better, but that tactic must surely work to some degree given how often it is deployed. That BrewDog went another route is a good thing that should be celebrated.

Filed Under: james watt, trademark, trademark bullying
Companies: brewdog, wolf pub

New UK Banknote Celebrates James Watt, Patent Bully and Monopolist

from the litigation-is-easier-than-innovation dept

As do many nations, England likes to put images of its great and good on banknotes. In a somewhat quixotic attempt to stem the decline of what little manufacturing remains in the country, the governor of the Bank of England has come up with the following idea:

Sir Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, has often voiced his yearning for a "rebalancing" of the economy towards neglected manufacturing, and he will put the nation's money where his mouth is next month when the Bank produces a new £50 note celebrating two pioneers of the industrial revolution.

The Bank will evoke the memory of the inventor James Watt and his Birmingham business partner, Matthew Boulton on the new note.

Here's the orthodoxy regarding Watt and Boulton's contribution to innovation and the industrial revolution, as retold by the Guardian piece about the new banknotes:

[Boulton] later went into partnership with James Watt, who took the Newcomen steam engine, then the latest design, and made a series of crucial improvements, improving its efficiency and making it more commercial.

By 1800, Watt's version [of the Newcomen steam engine] was outselling its predecessor, and they were shipping it across the world. Boulton and Watt worked together to pioneer the use of the steam engine in the cotton spinning industry; and Boulton also used Watt's engine to power minting machines, pressing coins at his Soho Mint in Birmingham, to boost the supply provided by the Royal Mint.

What's missing from this rosy picture of jolly engineers and entrepreneurs working together to apply technology for the benefit of humanity is that Watt was one of the first to exploit the monopoly power of patents to stymie innovation by others:

Once Watt's patents were secured and production started, a substantial portion of his energy was devoted to fending off rival inventors. In 1782, Watt secured an additional patent, made "necessary in consequence of ... having been so unfairly anticipated, by [Matthew] Wasborough in the crank motion". More dramatically, in the 1790s, when the superior Hornblower engine was put into production, Boulton and Watt went after him with the full force of the legal system.

During the period of Watt's patents the United Kingdom added about 750 horsepower of steam engines per year. In the thirty years following Watt's patents, additional horsepower was added at a rate of more than 4,000 per year. Moreover, the fuel efficiency of steam engines changed little during the period of Watt's patent; while between 1810 and 1835 it is estimated to have increased by a factor of five.

After the expiration of Watt's patents, not only was there an explosion in the production and efficiency of engines, but steam power came into its own as the driving force of the Industrial Revolution. Over a thirty year period steam engines were modified and improved as crucial innovations such as the steam train, the steamboat and the steam jenny came into wide usage. The key innovation was the high-pressure steam engine — development of which had been blocked by Watt's strategic use of his patent. Many new improvements to the steam engine, such as those of William Bull, Richard Trevithick, and Arthur Woolf, became available by 1804: although developed earlier these innovations were kept idle until the Boulton and Watt patent expired.

So rather than representing all that is best about invention and industrial innovation, the story of Watt and Boulton turns out to be one of how the nascent patent system was abused to prevent progress in this field. Indeed, it offers one of the best demonstrations that patents often harm everyone – even patent-holders:

Ironically, not only did Watt use the patent system as a legal cudgel with which to smash competition, but his own efforts at developing a superior steam engine were hindered by the very same patent system he used to keep competitors at bay. An important limitation of the original Newcomen engine was its inability to deliver a steady rotary motion. The most convenient solution, involving the combined use of the crank and a flywheel, relied on a method patented by James Pickard, which prevented Watt from using it. Watt also made various attempts at efficiently transforming reciprocating into rotary motion, reaching, apparently, the same solution as Pickard. But the existence of a patent forced him to contrive an alternative less-efficient mechanical device, the "sun and planet" gear. It was only in 1794, after the expiration of Pickard's patent that Boulton and Watt adopted the economically and technically superior crank.

As such, Watt and Boulton's appearance on the new £50 banknote is not so much a celebration of engineering excellence, as a timely reminder of the harm that patents and their thickets continue to wreak on true innovators today.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: currency, history, james watt, patents, steam engine, uk