juridiko by Sean Hogle

Apropos of the recent announcement of Tim Kaine as Hillary's VP

"I am correct, am I not, that Syria has not invited us to conduct military operation within the nation of Syria?" Kaine asked Defense Secretary Ash Carter.

"You are correct," Carter responded. "But we do have lawyers."

Drop the mic.


Amazon Web Services terms of use: run far away, run fast

Amazon sells Amazon Web Services (AWS), a collection of cloud-hosting services. Amazon promotes AWS as a way for companies to secure computing capacity quickly and economically, eliminating the need to purchase and maintain physical servers. Thousands of companies, including traditional mainline businesses, internet startups and technology ventures, use AWS to host their software and brands on Amazon servers, including Comcast, Siemens, Reddit and Netflix.

The AWS Customer Agreement (http://aws.amazon.com/agreement/) contains an IP non-assertion clause that is breathtaking in its reach: "During and after the Term, you will not assert, nor will you authorize, assist, or encourage any third party to assert, against us or any of our affiliates, customers, vendors, business partners, or licensors, any patent infringement or other intellectual property infringement claim regarding any Service Offerings you have used." "Service Offerings" are defined as AWS, "(including associated APIs)", the "AWS Content" (which includes software), the "AWS Marks" (which are any marks that Amazon uses now or in the future), and "any other product or service" provided by Amazon under this agreement.

New Federal Trade Secrets Act compels changes to standard confidentiality text in all employee/contractor agreements

This past week, President Obama sign the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016. Most lawyers are unaware that the Act necessitates changes to all employee and contractor confidentiality agreements if the enhanced remedies available under the Act are to be preserved.

We must punish those who willfully infringe patents -- unless the infringer's losing patent invalidity defense is a "close call"

Marvell dodged a bullet in the case of Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. (Fed. Cir. Aug. 4, 2015). The jury and district court had found that Marvell willfully infringed certain Carnegie Mellon (CM) patents, and the judge slapped Marvell with enhanced damages (under 35 U.S.C. § 284) equal to 23 percent of the reasonable royalty award, or $287 million. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the award, finding as a matter of law that Marvell had an "objectively reasonable" invalidity defense to infringement.

The evidence of Marvell's intentional duplication of the methods and systems claimed in the Carnegie Mellon patents was striking. Marvell's engineers used the name of one of the CM inventors as the basis for internal code names for the product development project in which Marvell replicated the patented CM methods. What saved Marvell was its invalidity defense.

The notion that the US patent system fosters public disclosure of inventions is a joke

A "patent", according to Wikipedia, is "a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for detailed public disclosure of an invention." Yet no one engaged in the business of developing technology ever reads patents for R&D purposes. The reason? Knowledge of a patent enables the patent-holder to claim willful infringement, and willful infringement opens the door to enhanced or even treble damages.

I know of many technology companies with rigorously-enforced policies prohibiting engineering staff from reviewing competitor patents. I was involved in an asset purchase transaction recently in which the acquiring company's in-house lawyers refused to allow their staff to review the very patents they were buying, in case the deal failed to close. This fear of enhanced damages, whether justifiable or not, effectively nullifies the patent system's invention disclosure justification.

Intentional breach of contract

Under US law, the courts as a general matter (outside of special contexts like insurance) refuse to penalize intentional breaches of contract. If the damages resulting from the breach are outweighed by the loss caused by compliance with the contract, the courts will usually not punish the breaching party merely because of that party's intention to breach. "The traditional goal of contract remedies is compensation of the promisee for the loss resulting from the breach, not compulsion of the promisor to perform his promises. Therefore, ‘willful’ breaches have not been distinguished from other breaches …." Freeman & Mills, Inc. v. Belcher Oil Co. (Cal. S. Ct. 1995). The concept of "efficient breach" under US law is based on "the understanding that people will sometimes intentionally break their contracts for no other reason than that it benefits them financially." Sierra v. Lockerby (9th Cir. 2008).

I have three questions I'd like to pose with respect to the "efficient breach" concept:

The absolute best anti-reverse engineering clause I've ever seen

Because relevant US and EU software copyright law permits reverse engineering as "fair use", blanket contractual prohibitions on reverse engineering (eg, "Licensee will not reverse engineer, decompile, decode, decrypt, disassemble, or in any way derive source code from, the Licensed Software") might not be enforced. See eg SAS Institute, Inc. v. World Programming Ltd. (ECJ 2012); Vault v. Quaid Software Ltd. (US 5th Cir. 1988). These jurisdictions countenance reverse engineering as fair use if conducted in order to achieve interoperability between the licensed software and independently created software.

Most drafters of technology license agreements representing licensors recognize this, and consequently use the following commonly found formulation: "Licensee will not reverse engineer, decompile, decode, decrypt, disassemble, or in any way derive source code from, the Licensed Software, except to the extent enforcement of the foregoing is prohibited by applicable law."

The problem with this clause, however, is that it operates in a purely binary fashion: if the licensee's activities are within the legal contours of fair use, the anti-reverse engineering clause will not be enforced. If they are not, then the clause will be enforced. This type of clause is not much of an improvement over a simple blanket prohibition. No effort is made to attempt to define in advance what the parties would consider fair use.

Compliance with the EU Cookies Directive by London's legal titans: how the top 20 firms comply

The EU Cookie Directive and national implementing legislation require that website operators that store cookies (small program files that store and send data from a user's computer or device to operators of sites that install such cookies on the user's hard drive) disclose information regarding the use and purpose of such cookies, and secure the user's consent to their use. European data protection authorities in France and elsewhere are conducting "cookie sweeps" this week to enforce the directive, so I thought now would be a good time to investigate how the top 20 (measured by revenue) London-based law firms are complying with this directive as implemented in the UK. The results of this investigation are somewhat surprising.

Design patents: be very afraid

I've long been loath to allow my technology development, user interface, graphic arts, and industrial design clients to agree to be responsible for infringements of patents caused by my clients' deliverables, especially US design patents (or the EU-equivalent, design rights/design registrations). The reason: strict liability and the "ordinary observer" test – frightening concepts for artists or engineers that design or develop per the customer's requirements. There is, however, an even more worrisome aspect of design patents: the monetary remedy of total profits attributable to the infringing product or device, regardless of the extent to which the product's value is attributable to the infringing design.

Patent applications covering fundamental tech have been pending before the US PTO for 43 years

According to the Chicago Tribune, inventor Glibert Hyatt is awaiting approval for a patent filed 43 years ago for "electronic signal control of machinery". It took 20 years for Hyatt to be awarded a patent covering "single chip integrated circuit computer architecture," effectively granting to Hyatt a royalty claim to most microprocessors in use (making Hyatt an already wealthy man).  He's also waiting for the grant of a patent application on liquid crystal displays. That application has been pending for 35 years.

Technology historian Ross Bassett is quoted in the Tribune article above as follows (emphasis added):

I respect Gilbert Hyatt's work — the process of engineering is difficult. But innovations are more than ideas. The broader context matters. If Gilbert Hyatt had never existed, I believe the microprocessor would have developed in the same way that it did.

Of course it would have.

notices    log in

© 2006, 2016 Sean Hogle PC. All rights reserved.