You’ve seen it all over the place… Privacy Concerns, Security Issues, Identity Stolen, Dangers of Social Networking, Social Media Threats, Personal Information Sold. All too often Facebook is the culprit; notorious for breaching the confidences of the hundreds of millions of users who have profiles on the ever-popular Social Networking site. The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that their own investigations into Facebook uncovered that many of the more popular third party applications being used on Facebook have been providing access of personal information to dozens of advertising companies.

One of the biggest myths surrounding Expertise is that in order to be considered an expert, you need to know more than everyone else about the topic at hand. In reality, you just need to know more than or at least be able to educate those within your target audience to be considered an “Expert” on the subject. The question becomes, with the vast number of businesses and attorneys turning to Social Media today, how does one stand out in the crowd? Perhaps the single most prominent way to stand out and Demonstrate Expertise and Build Credibility using Social Media, is through regular visibility while sharing your knowledge with others.

Upon the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, among increases in the tax rate for all tax brackets, the dividends tax rate will increase. So even if Congress and the White House extend the Bush tax cuts for all but the top earning Americans, virtually all small business owners, regardless of their tax bracket, will see an increase in their effective tax rate as a result in the increased tax rate for dividends. Policies that make job creation more difficult and investment in innovation more unlikely are reckless, particularly at a time when our economy is so hurting. That is why the Bush tax cuts should be extended across the board at least temporarily.

On Friday, October 15, 2010 and again on Saturday, October 16, 2010, the United States Trademark and Patent Office (USTPO) played host to the National Trademark Expo. That is no typo or clerical error. Director Kappos, who was introduced by Lynne Beresford, the Commissioner for Trademarks, started the day with an address and began by welcoming everyone to the United…

Keeping an invention notebook or other invention record is an extremely wise thing to do, and in fact should be done by every inventor. As with so many things in life, however, there are a number of ways to do it correctly, and any number of ways to do it wrong. Compounding this is the urban myth, propagated by some scam companies over the years, which suggests that sending a description of your invention to yourself through the mail is beneficial to protect your invention. Unfortunately, protecting an invention is not so easy.

Hopefully the seemingly modest successes of team Kappos in fiscal 2010 will be viewed for what they are, which is rather extraordinary, by our leaders in Washington, DC. With all the odds against them, having to fight daily for adequate funding, fewer patent examiners and a Congress that STILL siphons money paid by innovators away from the Patent Office, team Kappos was still able to increase allowances by 5.3% and dent the backlog. Can you imagine what they could do with adequate funding?

Just this week I had the opportunity to consult with a client that is in the process of creating unique software that is, at least in my opinion, patentable over the prior art. We were chatting over the telephone when he explained that the developer he hired was using certain open source code to supplement the original code being written. Not wanting to scare my client needlessly, but suspecting the worst, I asked him to send me information on what was being taken, in particular the license agreements that govern the allegedly free open source software. In life there are few certainties. Death and taxes are among them; as is the fact that if you are taking open source software for your proprietary project you are likely about to do a deal with the devil that might be extremely difficult, or even impossible, to undo.

In this edition of News, Notes & Announcements, happy birthday wishes to IPWatchdog.com for celebrating our 11th year online and a heartfelt thank you to all our readers. Additionally, the TiVo patent used to sue Echostar, the litigation at question in the en banc review at the Federal Circuit, survives reexamination at the USPTO. Professor Thomas Field (UNH) publishes the 21st edition of his IP casebook, which is now online in royalty free version; the USPTO is hosting the National Trademark Expo this Friday and Saturday on campus in Alexandria; the USPTO is hosting the 15th Annual Independent Inventors Conference on November 4-5, 2010, and I will be there teaching two sessions of patent claim drafting; US Commerce Secretary Gary Locke visits the USPTO and the AIPLA will host is Annual Meeting next week.

But looking back, what strikes me is the surprisingly-variable role that patents played in the growth and success of the half-dozen trailblazing startup companies that I helped lead. For these startups, which collectively created more than 2,500 jobs, I raised approximately $1 billion from strategic and venture investors (who ended up with $3 billion in returns). And in the majority of cases, owning patents proved to be crucial to the funding and commercial success of my startup. But this wasn’t always the case. In several startups, patents were almost completely irrelevant to either the financing or the ultimate fate of the company. Understanding why this was so may offer some insights into both the value and the limitations of patenting.

After pulling a campaign commercial earlier this week after the National Football League accused him of copyright infringement by using NFL footage, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) made another ad fumble – infringing on a trademark owned by Americans for Prosperity (AFP). In his campaign commercial, “Hands Off,” Senator Feingold infringes on “Hands Off My Health Care,” an AFP trademark used during the debate over the federal health care legislation.

On Wednesday, October 6, 2010, Motorola, Inc. announced that its subsidiary, Motorola Mobility, Inc., filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging that Apple’s iPhone, iPad, iTouch and certain Mac computers infringe Motorola patents. Motorola Mobility also filed concurrent patent infringement complaints against Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) in the Northern District of Illinois (see complaint 1:10-cv-06381 and complaint 1:10-cv-06385) and the Southern District of Florida (see complaint 1:10-cv-23580-UU). The complaints filed in the two federal district courts do little other than identify the patents owned by Motorola that are believed to be infringed by Apple, specifically identifying the following Apple products that might be infringed: Apple iPhone, the Apple iPhone 3G, the Apple iPhone 3GS, the Apple iPhone 4, the Apple iPad, the Apple iPad with 3G, each generation of the Apple iPod Touch, the Apple MacBook, the Apple MacBook Pro, the Apple MacBook Air, the Apple iMac, the Apple Mac mini and the Apple Mac Pro. This type of naked patent infringement complaint has become the standard and seems to directly contradict the requirements set forth by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, which required the recitation of specific facts and prohibited mere speculation.

The new procedures measure seven diverse aspects of the examination process to form a more comprehensive composite quality metric. The composite quality metric is designed to reveal the presence of quality issues arising during examination, and to aid in identification of their sources so that problems may be remediated by training, and so that the presence of outstanding quality procedures may be identified and encouraged. The procedures will be implemented for fiscal year 2011.

Did you know that the Tarzan yell is a registered trademark? So is the Looney Tunes theme song. And Homer Simpson’s “D’oh!” Trademarking a sound or series of sounds is really not that hard to do. The Trademark Manual of Exanimation Procedure (“TMEP”) §1202.15 tells us “A sound mark identifies and distinguishes a product or service through audio rather than visual means.” OK. That’s fairly straightforward. We all know that in order to be eligible for trademark protection, a mark has to be unique, arbitrary, or distinctive and it has to function as a source identifier. This means the consuming public will see that mark and automatically know that it is the brand for a particular product.

Last week I attended the Association of Patent Law Firm’s (APLF) Annual Meeting at the Hyatt Regency hotel in Chicago, IL. The APLF is currently in it’s 13th year of existence and was formed as a result of IP litigation increasingly going to big firms rather than smaller boutique firms. The organization decided to add discussions on Social Media to this year’s annual meeting agenda. Those that follow me on IPWatchdog know that I write on business related topics including Brand Building, How to Build Credibility and Share Your Expertise, Increasing Website Traffic and the Importance of Social Networking for Small Business. Because of my expertise on Social Media, I was invited to speak on the topic as it pertains to the IP Attorney. I opted to speak on using social media to demonstrate expertise and build credibility. Because so many interesting topics were covered, following is a recap of day one of the event. Subsequently, the second half of the event, including my presentation will constitute part 2 of this series.

Claim #1, the broadest claim in this patent, says that this “animal toy” has a solid main section, at least one protrusion and is adapted for floating in the water. While not every stick would infringe claim 1 of this patent, I would venture that there are many which would. No need to worry, however. This patent fell into the public domain on March 26, 2010, for failure to make the first maintenance fee payment. The lesson here, however, is not that the Patent Office occasionally makes a mistake (true though that may be). The fact that a patent can be obtained or has been obtained does not mean that a valuable asset has been obtained, and this “invention” is a wonderfully vibrant example of that.