Wired.com - Threat Level: The oft-lambasted Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA, has attracted the attention of US Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), who, after learning of leaks detailing the provisions of the proposed international agreement, is demanding to be privy to more of the secret pact's contents. David Kravets reports:

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) is demanding that U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk confirm leaks surrounding the unfinished Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, being negotiated largely between the European Union and United States. Among other things, Wyden wants to know if the deal creates international guidelines that mean consumers lose internet access if they are believed to be digital copyright scofflaws.

He also wants to know whether internet service providers could lose “safe harbor” protection for failing to police their customers’ digital content for copyright infringement violations. Such a move would heap copyright liability onto the ISP, and fundamentally alter U.S. copyright law.

A representative for UST Rep. Kirk, Nefeterius Akeli McPherson (great name, BTW), responded to Wyden's huffy demand. She said "the office is "looking forward to responding" but for now, 'Mum's the word.' Other parties who *are* privy to the contents of the agreement, like Google and the Business Software Alliance, have signed confidentiality agreements with the USTR and are abiding by the terms of their contracts. Be sure to read the rest of Kravets' Senator Demands IP Treaty Details for more of this developing story.

JS Online: The Kimberly-Clark Corporation is famous for its line of household products including the likes of Huggie-brand diapers and Scott-brand paper towels. What most people don't know is that the Wisconsin-based company leads the state in overall innovation with patents awarded being the measurement of success, despite competing for the 'IP King title' with the likes of S.C. Johnson, Masterlock, and Johnson Controls. John Schmid's recent article, Lagging research puts city behind, provides the gentle reader with more on Kimberly-Clark's intellectual property prowess. He writes:

The company, which moved its headquarters to Dallas in the 1980s but kept its main research campus in Neenah, is by far Wisconsin's leading recipient of patents - considered one of the best measures of innovation.

Last year, Kimberly-Clark received 155 patents, outstripping the University of Wisconsin-Madison (117 patents) and GE Healthcare Ltd., which has many operations in Waukesha (89 patents), according to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office data. Kimberly-Clark has been the state's leader in patents every year since at least 2004.

Yet troublingly, much of the rest of the state - and Milwaukee in particular - isn't following Kimberly-Clark's lead. All of the companies, universities and garage inventors in the city of Milwaukee, for instance, combined to win 148 patents in 2009, an analysis of Patent Office data shows. And with a total of 1,291 patents, Wisconsin lags other Midwestern states, including Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and Ohio.

One of Kimberly-Clark's secrets of success is right out of a Madison Avenue marketing handbook. "'A large part of KC's rise to greatness was indeed by creating demand for products that did not previously exist,' said Jeff Lindsay, an intellectual property consultant in Neenah and former R&D executive at Kimberly-Clark. Linsday also suggested that IP is integral to the long-term success of virtually any business: "Patents are essential to maintain high margins." To find out what lessons other Milwaukee-based companies can learn from Kimberly-Clark's success, be sure to read Kravet's entire piece at the link above.

Biotech Career: Got a little spare time on your hands? Stuck in an airport somewhere with nothing to occupy your time? Feel like challenging your gray matter with a little IP/ethics information? Look no further! A timely paper "concerned with the impacts of strict patents in the pharmaceutical industry, focusing on the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Agreement" will satiate your inner-intellectual property appetite, or possibly, gently lull you to sleep after a few minutes of "Hungry Chicken" in your chair. Here's the abstract to get you started:

‘As the ancient scourge of polio was rolled back by his vaccine 50 years ago, Jonas Salk, the inventor of the polio vaccine was asked why he never took a patent out on the medicine, a patent that would have made him wildly rich. “There is no patent,” he replied … “Could you patent the sun?”’ (Salon.com magazine 2001).

This paper explores the impacts of pharmaceutical patents on drug availability in the third world, focusing on the impacts of the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Agreement. It highlights the value of essential drugs and generic production in developing countries, using India as a case study. It also explores alternatives to TRIPs and the role of the scientific community.

The author hopes to point out that there are certain instances where discoveries of enormous importance to the human race need not be patented and monetized to the great benefit of the inventor.. Over the course of many pages, he tweezes out this final point: "The paper also highlights the importance of better understanding the impacts of TRIPs in developed countries, so that governments are pressed to change policies at the national and international level. The role of the scientific community is critical, in terms of having more say and control over drug policy, and helping to increase public awareness about drug policy. Ultimately, a concerted effort between the scientific community, public and NGOs can resist ‘unfair’ drug policy and some of the exploitative practices of pharmaceutical companies." Any one care to share their thoughts on the basic premise of this argument? Bueller? Bueller...? At least take a few moments to read more of Patents and Ethics in the Pharmaceutical Industry and increase your understanding of a complex and current affair.

The Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal: New York's Metro Transit Authority (MTA) is up to its old IP antics again, this time with a dogged pursuit of anyone foolish enough to incorporate its symbols into an unlicensed product. Adam Neal explains: "Is the MTA ever really going to try and sell subway map bookmarks and T-shirts, like the ones in the shops littering Times Square? Can a 1 on a side of a train in a photograph be called a photographer’s copyright infringement? Are New York themed restaurants, posters and paintings not allowed to include subway signs or images? Do smartphone apps showing MTA published timetables violate the MTA’s economic rights? If the MTA can make money from these accusations instead of raising my MetroCard fare, I say go for it. Otherwise, many of the MTA’s symbols have simply become images of New York City as a whole and should be considered as in the public domain." Well, seems like they are trying to sue their way to financial solvency, what with a 400 million dollar funding shortfall, but is the money spent chasing after infringers the best use of limited resources, or mightn't an effort to attract increased ridership be a better use of these few remaining dollars? Read Neal's complete thoughts in his related article, MTA symbols: Intellectual Property or New York City’s Public Domain?, then decide for yourself.

PatentBaristas.com: Ever hear of the practice of "false marking" and the potentially huge penalties that accompany it? Stephen Albainy-Jenei's Guest Barista Robert A. Matthews, Jr. has and he hopes his recent blog entry will help your understanding of a complex and interesting legal issue. Matthews opens with this explanation of false marking and the increase in the popularity of claims of the offense:

Section 292 of the Patent Act provides that a person who falsely marks an unpatented article as being patented, where the false patent marking was done with an intent to deceive the public, [s]hall be fined not more than $500 for every such offense. See 35 U.S.C. § 292(a).  The statute permits a qui tam action whereby any private citizen can sue to recover the penalty and retain for itself half of the penalty. Over the last few years, the false marking statute has gained a modicum of popularity as plaintiffs, including in some cases private patent lawyers, have brought false marking claims against defendant patentees who have marked products with expired patent numbers. Indeed, some commentators have described these plaintiffs as a new breed of troll, the marking troll. For a time the incentive to bring false marking claims was held in check by a limiting judicial construction of what constituted an offense for which the penalty could be quantitatively assessed.

A new kind of troll, you say? Those trolls must be getting busy under the bridges if they've already spawned a new and insidious variety of IP lawsuit, nu? To learn more about what "every such offense" means (surely you understand that legally, the phrase doesn't necessarily mean what the layperson thinks it does), I highly recommend Matthews' scholarly False Patent Marking Roulette Wheel.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: When To Take On Facebook, American Idol Or Virgin Mobile In An IP Fight by Vivek Wadhwa at TechCrunch.com.