Google says it is about to test "video fingerprinting" to identify and block copyrighted material put up by YouTube users link here. In the testing phase, the system will run with "partners" (presumeably companies that have licensing deals with Google) like Disney and Time Warner, as well as some which are not, to determine if the technology works properly. Once it proves accurate and quick, it will be expanded to all content owners who wish to use it.

It will interesting to see how companies calculate the gain from the free advertising that YouTube provides against the "cost" of no longer controlling the use to which its "old" material is put.

Matt Yglesias pokes into another small absurdity in IP, reporting that defense contractors hold copyrights on weapons designs used by toy replica makers and collects fees for their use link here. Now Congress is going to get involved as one Congressman proposes that design copyrights be owned by the government which paid for the weapon designs and receive the toy makers' fees. For me, there is a bit of confusion here in whether it is a copyright, a trademark, or a design patent that is owned. But there seems to be no doubt that a license is available for a fee and it ought to be the taxpayer who benefits.

Korea is breaking new ground as it tries to interpret the application of copyright to user created content (UCC) link here . Issues cited include pornography (taken down), the fair use of plot, characters, and costumes from a computer game (enjoined as unfair), and broadcasting a TV network video of a lawmaker cursing in protest (invasion of privacy).

"New ministry guidelines say copyright [material] is protected by law, but subject matter or broad ideas are not and can be used without permission." The guidelines continue but seem to me to be incomplete and subject to further revision.

The International Trade Commission ruled yesterday, four to two, that next generation Qualcomm mobile phones slated for the big wireless networks contained semiconductors that violated competing chip maker Broadcom's patent link here. Qualcomm has appealed the decision to a federal court and is calling for a quick reversal on the grounds that the mobile operators and consumers will be "irreparably harmed" and are also appealing to the president through USTR. Charges are flying back and forth, but informed industry sources seem to think something will be worked out, no doubt to the cost of the consumer.

A week earlier, Broadcom won a federal district court jury trial that Qualcomm violated three other of its patents. No word on an appeal, but the stakes make it seem certain.

Bloomberg News reports that Ford won an International Trade Commission ruling barring the import of grilles, headlights, bumpers, side-view mirrors and taillights for the F-150 truck from Taiwan on grounds they infringed seven design patents link here. The design patents are reported to run for 14 years. The finding is subject to presidential review. Ford characterized the parts as "counterfeits" which harm not just Ford, but the entire industry.

Most consumers think the price of replacement parts is outrageous and ask how a grill that fits the vehicle constitutes a new, significant, addition to knowledge or that revealing it somehow conveys an important benefit on the public warranting the granting of a monopoly for 14 years.

The Consumerist blog link here has had it in for the RIAA for several years. This spring, it ran a competition on which is the worst company in America link here. Against 19 other companies, it won the laurels, in a one-on-one elimination match in which readers voted (small turnout, but not trivial-I have no idea whether it was a set-up). The blog site continues to run critical posts, in the latest of which it lists the members of Congress who have received substantial contributions and suggests that if any one of them is your representative, you write and complain. Have a look at the list link here. It has also been joined by another blog, Gizmodo, which is promoting a boycott of RIAA members products link here.

The Free Trade Agreement the US negotiated with Korea is generating more argument among bloggers who follow Korea. The strongest statement attacking the agreement (link here) reads in part: "In one glaring example, the governments agree to shut down internet sites that permit unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or transmission of copyrighted works-- without reference to exceptions for art, education and critique. If the agreement is ratified, both US and Korean governments will begin shutting down an undisclosed number of peer-to-peer (P2P) and online storage (‘webhard') services. Korea will also be required to crack down on book copying on university campuses...."

"The Korea-US FTA could set a dangerous precedent. If ratified, the US is expected to push other countries to accept the similar conditions in their respective FTAs. Much of the ‘piracy' that the US wants to see cracked down on is of materials copyrighted by large US-based corporations, not individual creators. Since distribution of movies, news, internet software and images is a core area of the US economy, the US government has long been aggressively pushing for stricter copyright and patent regimes in international arenas, including through GATT and WIPO. The Korea-US FTA, represents a new step in this process."

A contrary view is at The Marmots Hole link here

Hal Varian takes up the problem of orphan copyrighted material and pushes the idea of registration link here. He criticizes the Copyright Office proposal to require diligent search as costly, while acknowledging it would be an improvement over what exists. He would supplement it with registration, supporting the proposal of Larry Lessig to make registration compulsory within fourteen years or lose the law's protection. Varian discusses relative costs and some other fine points, but ends with the sour note that even the Copyright Office proposal is languishing in Congress. Perhaps his highlighting the problem will move consideration along.

We have posted a lot about Helprin's Perpetual Copyright article in the last week, but I can't resist referencing two other provocative posts. One is a twenty-five year old short story on copyright and intellectual property link here. The other is entitled In Search of Lost Copyright: Disney & Proust link here. Hat-tips are due to Matt Yglesias link here and Ross Douthat link here.

Stimulating stuff. Thanks to Helprin for provoking further thought--he ran it up the flagpole, but I don't see many saluting.

The Wall Street Journal reports today that the Scott Miracle-Gro Co. is suing its start up rival TerraCycle Inc. for infringing its trade dress, and for false advertizing. Scott claims TerraCycle's packaging and signage is violating its intellectual property. It also disputes its younger rival's claim to have superior products. Not surprisingly, Scott wants the profits from the products at issue deposited to its bank account.

TerraCycle is fighting back here.

Tom Szaky, the co-founder and CEO of TerraCycle, says that the suit could put his company out of business.

But that's the point isn't it? If you can't beat 'em fair and square, use the state to beat 'em up! Lee A. Iacocca, in his May 28 Business Week Guest Commentary, "Chrysler's New Driver," [I can't find a link] says that "Leadership in the car industry means knowing where corporate policy ends and public policy begins. You see, companies are not separate entities from government." Mussolini couldn't have said it better. You see, it's okay for a big corporation like Scott to use the power of the State to cut off the air supply of a smaller competitor, especially a pesky one like TerraCycle, that is gaining market share and space at Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Target, and other retailers.

In the meantime, those of us who advocate liberty and free markets and oppose intellectual monopoly can take a page from Captain Boycott's book and boycott the Scott Miracle-Gro Co. and its products. We can also buy TerraCycle's innovative goods and support it morally, and by getting the word out that competition is good and monopoly is bad, especially the monopoly of so-called "intellectal property."