Fudzilla: The government of China's efforts to segregate Internet content into two distinct categories, OK for China and Not OK for China, has led it down the dark alley of software theft and misappropriation of American intellectual property. David Stellmack's Cybersitter comes out swinging, claims Software Piracy tells the tale of one company's struggle to get what it's got coming after discovering that its very popular website blocking software had been stolen by none other than the People's Republic of China. He writes:

The complaint alleges copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition and conspiracy. It also claims violation of U.S. criminal laws governing economic espionage by Chinese software manufacturers.  The crux of the complaint alleges that the PRC government copied Cybersitter’s codes and then used the pirated code to block access by Chinese citizens to content that was determined “undesirable” by PRC government standards.  Cybersitter’s complaint against the computer manufacturers is based on the fact that they were aware that the pirated code was on the PCs they were distributing and selling in China.

The name of the software, which is no longer mandatory but is still being sold pre-installed on Chinese computers, is Green Dam Youth Escort. Cybersitter’s attorney, Gregg Fayer, is amazed that the Chinese could even attempt to claim that the product is home-grown. "'I don't think I have ever seen such clear-cut stealing,' said Fayer. 'They did a sloppy job of copying,' he continued, and they even included directions on how to get to the Cybersitter site." I mean, really? Couldn't even be bothered to cut out the code references to the original company whose software you are blatantly stealing?

O'Reilly Radar: Andy Oram has a few thoughts to share with the gentle reader in his recent article, The fate of WIPO, ACTA, and other intellectual property pushes in the international economy, on the topic of the decline of United States' role as leader of the world in intellectual property influence. He writes:

I am totally in favor of rewarding inventors, including large established firms, for the time, effort, and expertise they have put into their inventions. But as always, in IP, rewards for past work must be balanced against the promotion of further development. And right now, the world is moving more and more to crowdsourcing. The best ideas will increasingly come from people around the world pooling their ideas--including people with few resources and no connections to major institutions. Those institutions had better learn this lesson before they succeed in choking off inventions that make a life-or-death difference to people in developing countries.

Oram also references the increasing presence of nations like Brazil, and other BRIC nations, at the IP negotiating table and notes that as they gain more influence, the old school leaders, like the US and various European nations, will slowly fade into the past. To read more on the these, and other issues like ACTA and WIPO policies, be sure to read the rest of Oram's ideas at the above linked piece.

TechDirt.com: Oh, now this really takes the sports team/University logo greed cake. Mike Masnick explains in You Can't Be A Fan Of University Of Cincinnati's Sports Teams Unless You've Paid The Proper License:

At one time, anybody could make up a shirt that said "Dallas Cowboys" or "Boston Red Sox", and then wear it or sell it. The fans wearing those shirts didn't care one whit about whether the Cowboys or Red Sox made the shirt or had taken a cut of the shirt-makers' revenue. But Major League Baseball and the National Football League, armed with surveys created by consumer survey expert Jacob Jacoby, started filing lawsuits claiming that some minority of fans would automatically assume that the Cowboys or Red Sox had endorsed or at least approved of the shirt sellers. By winning a couple of cases, they created a new rule of law -- you can't sell shirts showing support for a team without paying the team off for the privilege of doing so.

Seems the University of Cincinnati is aggressively pursuing legal action against any one wearing clothing that could be deemed as supportive of their sports teams if they haven't paid for the privilege. "The University says it doesn't matter if the University's name or logo isn't on the clothing at all. Even a shirt that says 'Go Cats!' needs a license. Even worse, they're not just looking to stop people from selling such clothing, they're happily putting them in jail for it." File this one in the "Copyright Truth is Stupider than Fiction" file. Vey is mir!

PatentBaristas.com: Stephen Albainy-Jenei presents a torturous legal tale of how IP licensing can be a briar patch of undesired difficulties if not carefully considered. Albainy-Jenei opens the story for the gentle reader:

Eastman’s divestment of its PET business in the EU to Indorama ended up in Delaware federal court as the licensor’s patent infringement action.  Eastman Chemical Company v. AlphaPet Inc. et al. (09-CV-971).  Named as defendants are the Indorama licensees, and affiliates, and a U.S. subsidiary, AlphaPet.

The complaint raises interesting problems about a licensor suing licensees for patent infringement along with a trade secret breach by the licensor’s employees. It underscores the importance of a well thought out forum selection clause that extends to all the licensees and affiliates.

The rest of the piece is chock full of thick legal terms and in-depth commentary. Should that be your particular cup of IP tea, be certain to read the rest of Albainy-Jenei's Licensor, Sue Thy Own, For Thy Secrets.

The TTABlog: Even religious orders can get in good with copyright and trademark protections, as John L. Welch's topical piece points out. From CAFC Hears Oral Argument Regarding Distinctiveness of Religious Habit, Welch unfolds things a bit:

Two feuding religious organizations had faced off before the TTAB in a dispute involving the registrability of the religious habit design shown above for "clothing, namely [a] ceremonial habit worn by distinguished religious representatives in certain ceremonies" and for "promoting public awareness of the need for healthy and religions families in the United States." The Board found the habit design neither inherently distinctive nor possessed of acquired distinctiveness, and so it sustained the opposition. The foundation appealed only from the refusal regarding services and not the goods.

Included in the piece are a link to the audio recording of the courts proceedings and a relevant comment from a reader who was present during the oral arguments. Good stuff and the reference to football team uniforms and their distinctiveness, and the ends to which teams will go to protect them, is quite germane to other of today's featured pieces.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: Place Your Bets! Companies Line Up for Billion-Dollar Patent Showdownby Robert W. Ashbrook and Daniel M. Becker, M.D. at Law.com.