Another Talking Head on how the Copyright Royalty Board threatens to destroy the promise of Internet-based radio.

[Hat-tip: Andrew Sullivan]

I missed this when it first came out. The US Patent and Trademark Office reports it has issued its first patent under an accelerated procedure link here. The Office writes that the first patent under its accelerated examination program that began in August 2006, for a printer ink gauge, was filed with the USPTO on September 29, 2006, and was awarded to Brother International, Ltd. on March 13, 2007. Average review time for applications in the ink cartridge technology area is 25.4 months. This patent issued in 6 months, a time savings of 18 months for the patent holder.

To be eligible for accelerated examination, applicants are required to provide specific information, known as an examiner support document, so the USPTO can issue a final decision by the examiner within 12 months on whether their application for a patent will be granted.

Inventions that are new, useful, non-obvious, and accompanied by a written description disclosing how to make and use it, are presumed to be patentable. To reject an application, the USPTO must show that the invention is obvious or not new ("prior art").

Normally, applicants have to disclose to the USPTO relevant prior art of which they are aware but are not required to search for it. For accelerated examination, they must search for prior art, submit all prior art that is closest to their invention, and explain what the prior art teaches and how their invention is different.

They must state how their invention is useful and show how the written description supports the claimed invention. Only a limited number of claims is allowed in each application and the time for responding to most USPTO communications is shortened.

This and the peer review process (recently described here) presumably will improve the quality of patents issued. However, there is a good bit of skepticism among those of us at Against Monopoly who see the USPTO as overwhelmed and under the strong influence of existing patent holders and big business.

Keep an eye peeled.

Mike at Techdirt tells us that the Patent Peer Review System (about which we reported earlier) is up and taking applications for patent reviews and for those who wish to qualify as public or outside reviewers, all in the interest of tapping public knowledge about the appropriateness of granting a particular patent in view of prior art or obviousness link here. The Peer Review site is at link here and has a lot of additional information.

The Associated Press reports that there is concern over infringement fears from participating in the reviews link here, but Beth Noveck, the program's director, insists deliberate infringement laws apply to patents, not applications. She is a professor and director of New York Law School's Institute for Information Law & Policy, which is running the project. An initial test starts tomorrow and it is hoped to have the system fully up by June 1. For some early comment, see link here

There has been much media coverage over this independent political ad created by Philip de Vellis.

Question: While the media has brought up the implications of the ad as a loophole to campaign financing restrictions, why is there no media analysis of the copyright implications?

The ad was a re-working of a commercial for Apple Computers. I happen to think that reworking the original commercial for political speech ought to be fair use. But the current state of stifling IP laws clearly seem to hold otherwise. If more in the media were to point that out, it might spur a discussion towards changing one of the many unfortunate aspects of our copyright laws.

News outlets refer to the Hillary Clinton/Apple ad as a “spoof”. But is it a “parody” spoof? Or a “satire” spoof? It seems insane to have to answer this question, but the insane state of our laws compel us to.

The courts have held that “parody” of a work falls under fair use, but “satire” does not. I have long held that you cannot legitimately distinguish between the two. Making such distinctions requires a purely subjective artistic analysis – something that should have no place in the determination of substantive law.

For instance, some argue that a recent Yiddish reworking of “Dick and Jane” should be considered unlawful “satire” since it doesn't directly "comment" on the original work as a “parody” does. I hold that it is clearly attempting to parody the WASP norms put forth by the Dick and Jane characters. Just as I hold that the “Cat NOT In The Hat!” work directly commented on Dr. Seuss's original work by making fun of Seuss's own norms in children's literature by tailoring the story to a famous murder trial. So who is right? Who knows?? It depends on your artistic viewpoint. But it is insane to have the law make distinctions in this realm.

In one instance, it is a case of free speech protected by the Constitution. In the other case, it is an unlawful act that can subject you to a six-figure fine among other penalties. It all depends on how broad a judge's personal sense of humor and/or art is. But some attorneys insist that the legal community is uniquely qualified to draw such lines.

Does the fact that Apple has refrained from claiming copyright infringement mean that it tacitly endorses the anti-Hillary ad? (and, by implication, endorses the Barack Obama campaign?) Or does it merely imply that it feels that the ad is protected speech? It would be disturbing to think that such an ad could exist for several months and generate political discussion, only to have Apple file a complaint later down the road and try to suppress the work.

This is merely the analysis in relation to a potential copyright claim by Apple. There is also the analysis for copyright infringement by the George Orwell estate. After all, the Hillary Clinton/Apple ad is also still a derivative work of 1984, right? Shouldn't Orwell's estate have a say if this ad should be able to exist or not? I don't think it should. But copyright maximalists no doubt feel otherwise.

Joe Nocera discusses the suit by Viacom against YouTube and its owner, Google, for copyright infringement link here. It is a pretty good run down, but main-stream-media's requirement for balance forces it to avoid a clear conclusion that YouTube has complied with the take-down requests from Viacom as provided in the DMCA-–and instead seems to leave the case up to the discretion of the judge. That allows Nocera to conclude that there will be a compromise. But it seems to me that the only way that Viacom can win is to get the DCMA changed and that may be their real objective.

Viacom is caught committing an act of Copyfraud by demanding that YouTube.com take down videos that they (Viacom) have no rights over.

The Newshour with Jim Lehrer had an interesting interview about Viacom's suit against YouTube. The interview with Cardoso Law School Professor Susan Crawford pretty much shredded Viacom's case, pointing out that the safe harbor or take-down provision of the DMCA thoroughly protected YouTube and its owner, Google. Conjectures to explain why Viacom sued seem unconvincing at this point. Anyway, give it a listen link here. She is one articulate lawyer-professor.

One of the unforeseen problems of having a single textbook on a subject, provided by the government, surfaces in this story from Korea link here. When the education ministry tried to publish a new economics text for middle and high school, financed jointly with the Federation of Korean Industries, a big business association, the unions protested and the ministry removed its support. The draft clearly was critical of unions. Business, on the other hand, complained "that the current textbook is hostile to businesses, and emphasizes enterprises' social responsibility too much."

Monopoly isn't good for textbooks since trying to find a solution acceptable to all parties is unlikely to succeed or to be dull or both. Trying to write texts by the Wiki formula may fail for the same reason.

You all had to see this one coming.

Big Media took its first big swing at YouTube Tuesday as Viacom Inc., the owner of MTV, VH1, Comedy Central and other cable networks filed a $1 billion copyright lawsuit against the video-sharing site and corporate owner Google Inc.

The lawsuit marks a sharp escalation of long-simmering tensions between Viacom and YouTube and represents the biggest confrontation to date between a major media company and the hugely popular site, which Google bought in November for $1.76 billion.

The question remains if the Internet will remain a truly revolutionary invention that forces us to re-think the traditional parameters of IP, or if it will simply devolve into another Pay-Per-View medium for media conglomerates to control. Actually, it isn't even just the conglomerates.

[Update]: Lessig has some good analysis about this - along with a link to the actual complaint.

Korea's eduction ministry announced plans to greatly expand its use of digital textbooks in public schools, going from the current 14, all in math for grades 5 and 6, to 100 by 2011 in all subjects link here. "Digital textbooks have many advantages, like multi-media functions such as videos instead of printed illustrations," a ministry official said. Studies there show that students pay more attention to lessons when they use digital textbooks, he added.