Microsoft, Lexmark in cross-licensing deal [International]

Microsoft Corp. and Lexmark International Inc., which makes printers and imagining equipment, have struck a cross-licensing deal, the companies said on March 17 [2009]. The agreement covers a range of Lexmark printers and Microsoft software, but the companies did not disclose specific products or financial details.

"Because both Microsoft and Lexmark have access to an extensive range of technologies, this agreement will allow each company to shorten its development cycle and increase its focus on customer-related innovation," said David Kaefer, Microsoft's general manager of intellectual property licensing, in a statement.

Microsoft shares rose 45 cents, or 3 percent, to $16.73 in afternoon trading, while Lexmark, based in Lexington, Ky., saw its stock jump 55 cents, or 3.4 percent, to $16.90.

37 patents filed for Nano by Tata Motors [India]

In its bid to protect from imitations world-over, Tata Motors has apparently applied for 37 patents for its Nano, as per a report carried in The Economic Times. Furthermore, it is in the process of filing Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) claims for Nano in overseas markets, as quoted by a company official, adding that most of the patent applications filed before 2007 have already been granted.

It may be recalled that Nano has been developed to cater to the demands from developing as well as developed markets equivocally and there have been numerous innovations and inventions incorporated in the car that make the car unique.According to The Economic Times, the company has used a number of new concepts and ideas to develop this vehicle and patents will help in protecting some of its innovative ideas, as claimed by well-informed sources.. The move is also expected to help Tata Motors to sell the car in markets such as Africa, Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America.

Design Day 2009 to Be Held at the USPTO Conference [United States/International]

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced in a press release that it will host its third annual Design Day at the agency’s headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia next month.

The event will be co-sponsored by the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the Intellectual Property Owners Association and the American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property Law.

The Design Day is being organized by Technology Center 2900 and is open to design patent practitioners and USPTO examiners.

This program will provide an opportunity for design managers, examiners, independent inventors and the design patent bar to exchange ideas and to educate each other on important topics affecting design patent practice.
Program topics will include:
- Adequately Disclosing Multiple Embodiments - Application Processing: Allowance to Issue- A presentation and discussion of the recent CAFC en banc decision in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa Inc.- A keynote address by Randall Rader, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the future of design patent law.

Trademark fee cut in the United Kingdom: Could price wars loom? [United Kingdom]

A price war looked set to break out on Monday over trademark fees, as the UK’s Intellectual Property Office proposes its first cuts in charges for more than a decade. The move comes just days after European Union countries agreed to let the European trademark office – formally known as the Office of Harmonisation for the Internal Market – cut its fees by 40 per cent.

The cuts by the IPO are expected in particular to benefit small and medium-sized companies that often find the costs of protecting their intellectual property onerous. The IPO will unveil on Monday proposals to reduce its fees for trademark applications made electronically by 15 per cent, and offer additional price reductions for companies that want to oppose applications.

It will also give companies more ability to pay only part of the application fee up-front, meaning that less money should lost when applications are abandoned. The proposed reductions will be subject to consultation before coming into force in October.

The Alicante-based OHIM issues the “community trademark”, an intellectual property right that applies across the 27-country EU bloc, while the IPO – like other national offices in Europe – administers lower-cost trademarks that give domestic protection only. Some EU countries were concerned that the OHIM’s move, which was prompted by unexpected popularity of the community trademark and subsequent financial surpluses at the office, might undercut business at their national offices. The UK move comes after a decline in domestic applications for patent and trademark applications, which fell 12 per cent last year.

From Assets to Profits: New Book on Intellectual Property

If intellectual property never comes of age as a mainstream topic for investors and corporate strategists, it won't be Bruce Berman's fault.

As CEO of Brody Berman Associates in New York, a communications and management consulting firm that focuses on innovative businesses and intellectual assets, Berman has been a tireless proponent of the importance of IP and attendant issues. Not coincidentally, he's also quite a networker in the community of IP thinkers and practitioners.

Those two characteristics have enabled Berman to assemble some of the better books on the subject of IP -- including his new offering, From Assets to Profits, which follows Making Innovation Pay (2005) and From Ideas to Assets (2002), all from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Contributors to the current volume (along with Berman himself) include the heads of IP business at Hewlett-Packard Co. and Goldman Sachs; the former head of IP business at Lucent and IBM Research; and IBM Corp.'s former VP of IP strategy, among others. Each in turn examines a facet of IP. A few highlights:

Berman kicks things off with a chapter on IP investing and the spectrum of people--some controversial, some less so--who do it. "Has today's more contentious, bottom-line approach for managing IP rights improved innovation, patent quality, or increased shareholder value?" he asks. "Probably. But you won't hear most strategic IP owners admitting that."
John A. Squires chief IP counsel for Goldman Sachs & Co., contributes a chapter on IP in financial services. In finance, Squires says, "patents are generally designed for, and deployed primarily by, the founders of the venture as a functional edge for the operational risk that the venture may incur in the future." Squires goes on to show how patent issues figured in the formation and launch of Regulatory DataCorp LLC (RDC), a for-profit database and interdiction software venture now owned by twenty of the world ' s leading financial institutions.

Another interesting chapter is "The Evolving Role of IP in M&A: From deal-breaker to deal-maker." This one was written by Ron Laurie, the veteran silicon valley IP lawyer who wrote the first internet business-method patent, for Priceline's reverse auction. "IP," he writes, "was traditionally viewed in M&A transactions as a possible deal-breaker, effectively an afterthought that IP lawyers attended to. When it came to consummating a transaction, these professionals were much more likely to regard all news as bad news."

Today, Laurie says, IP in M&A is starting to be seen as an important deal facilitator that bankers, private equity capital providers, and others need to understand from the start.

You can find out more about the book (and about Berman) on the Brody Berman website.

Evalueserve Study: India to Emerge as Global Innovation Hub

India will emerge as the next global hub for innovation, according to a study on "R&D Ecosystem in India" conducted by Evalueserve and released by the British High Commission and the Canadian High Commission in India.

India targets to increase its R&D spend from less than 1 percent of GDP to 2 percent by 2012 under the 11th Five-Year Plan. The move will catapult India to the league of developed nations that spend 2.5 percent of their GDP on R&D on an average.

The Indian R&D ecosystem comprises various supporting infrastructure, government departments, research organisations, funding institutions and industry associations. The government is focusing on public-private partnerships, such as knowledge parks and incubator programmes, to promote commercialisation, transfer and diffusion of technology.

Angel investors and venture capitalists also have an important role in the commercialisation process, given the limited availability of funding for early stage companies and innovators. Further, venture capitalists are also providing a lot of late-stage funding. The number of private equity/venture capitalist deals in late-stage funding rose from 33 in 2005 to 104 in 2006, while the number of early stage funding deals rose from 19 in 2005 to 59 in 2006.

That India is becoming increasingly conducive to innovation is evident from the fact that the total number of patents filed in the country has increased significantly. The number of patent applications filed grew at a CAGR of 23.3 percent, from 10,592 in 2001-02 to 24,505 in 2005-06. The growth accelerated after India became Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) compliant in 2005.

Some IPR issues currently faced by India include low awareness on IP protection and longer patenting process. The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) drafted the Public Funded Research and Development (Protection, Utilisation and Regulation of Intellectual Property) Bill, 2007, an indigenous version of the Bayh-dole Act, to address these issues. The new legislation will emphasise education opportunities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and help R&D institutions and scientists to own the intellectual property they create.

Access the complete report at http://www.evalueserve.com/Media-And-Reports/WhitePapers.aspx.

Evalueserve provides custom research and analytics services to a client base of Global 5000 companies, in the following areas - Financial and Investment Research, Business Research, Market Research, Intellectual Property, Expert Network, Data Analytics and Modelling and Knowledge Technology Services. We currently have 2,475+ professionals in our research centres in India, China, Chile & Romania.

Patent officers should coordinate to bring uniformity in standards [India]

Many of India’s pharma companies, including even the big and transnational ones who themselves have some stake in innovation and R&D, are alleging that patent authorities in India have become very liberal when it comes to grant of patents. Many frivolous patents have been granted and even bogus applications are being entertained, they say. The Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance, a group of big India-born drug companies, is mulling a thorough study of the patents granted since 2005 to find out how many of these are in fact ‘bad patents.’ At the other end of the scale, the foreign pharma companies not only brush aside the allegation of granting patents for ‘trivial inventions’ but also aver that “a lot of important applications” have in fact been turned down by India’s patent authorities. The question that underlies this row is what’s a ‘patentable invention’. At a very general and non-codified level, the newness or rather the surprise element of an invention should be the deciding factor.

The World Trade Organisation’s Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement defines the term ‘patentable subject matter’ with due considerations to present-day commercial realities—it says an invention should be “new, involve an inventive step and capable of industrial application” to be deserving of a patent. National governments have drawn a lot of freedom from the TRIPS agreement itself and even autonomously to elaborate on the TRIPS definition. However, national laws of many countries, including the US, are framed in such a way that even “incremental, adaptive or cumulative” inventions could qualify for patents if such invention has a definitive industrial use and thereby considerable commercial value. Indian government has been chary about unfair patenting—thanks to lobbying by domestic industry and the unrelenting stand of leftist outfits. It introduced an additional provision—Section 3(d)—in Patents Act to make patenting criteria more stringent in the pharmaceutical space. This provision was introduced through the third amendment to the Act, which also introduced product patenting for pharma and agrochem inventions.

While the Big Pharma—the large pharmaceutical companies based in the US and EU who hold most of the patents—have been a strident critic of Section 3(d), international organisations like the World Intellectual Property Organisation endorsed it and termed it TRIPS-compliant. According to this provision, incremental inventions (like salts, isomers etc of known molecules) can be patented only if they have contributed to improve the efficacy of the (known) substance. And the patent authorities—read the examiners—would decide if efficacy has really been improved. The current strife over the allegation of the patent authorities practically becoming very liberal in grant of patents would need to be viewed in this context. The fact is India’s Patent Act, even with the fairly elaborate rules notified under it including those to support the Section 3(d), bestows substantial discretionary authority with the patent authorities. Patent examiners in India are still grappling with the complexity of the world of pharmaceutical inventions—the area is abstruse and dynamic enough to baffle even the seasoned examiners. Leaving a lot of things to the discretion of a group of patent examiners is therefore bound to generate conflicts. Here, what the government can do is to create many layers of examiners so that the probability of genuine error can be minimised. But the patent examination, search and grant system in India is currently highly unorganised. The four patent offices—Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai—are yet to achieve a fair degree of cohesiveness among them. These offices, manned by patent controllers and scores of patent examiners who assist them, are allegedly employing separate yardsticks and this is what caused the current allegations and counter-allegations. Clearly, there is a case for a very high degree of coordination between the four patent offices. Patents are anyway prone to contestation. Some disputes would inevitably reach the courts. Such disputes can however be minimised by bringing as much uniformity as possible in standards of patent grant. The Patent Act already provides for pre and post grant opposition and making a review plea before the controller who granted/denied the patent. And there’s the intellectual property appellate board, which is the body for the aggrieved to appeal to. What is lacking is proper coordination among the patent controllers and examiners. The government would do well to address the issue immediately.

Congress Gets Tough On Intellectual Property [United States]

Lawmakers have approved sweeping legislation that is designed to bolster the federal government's ability to protect patents, trademarks, and other intellectual property (IP). The bipartisan legislation, the Prioritizing Resources & Organization for Intellectual Property Act (S. 3325), passed the Senate by unanimous consent on Sept. 26 and cleared the House by a vote of 381-41 two days later.

The bill significantly toughens civil and criminal laws against counterfeiting and piracy, provides law enforcement agencies with increased funding for investigations and prosecutions, and creates a new White House office of IP enforcement coordinator.

"IP makes up some of the most valuable and most vulnerable property we have," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said in a statement. "We need to do more to protect it from theft and abuse if we hope to continue being a world leader in innovation."

The bill is strongly supported by pharmaceutical companies, manufacturers, and others in the business community. "This is a win for both parties and, more important, for America's innovators, workers whose jobs rely on IP, and consumers who depend on safe and effective products," U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and Chief Executive Officer Thomas J. Donohue says.

It's unclear whether President George W. Bush will sign the legislation into law because the Administration opposes the provision that creates a new Cabinet-level post for IP coordination. According to the bill, the IP coordinator will be chair of an interagency committee tasked with devising a worldwide strategic plan to combat piracy and counterfeiting. However, in a joint letter sent to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 23, the Justice and Commerce Departments says the establishment of an IP coordinator within the Executive Office of the President (EOP) is "objectionable" on constitutional grounds as a violation of separation of powers.

"While the Administration has been a longtime supporter of strong inter-agency coordination...the statutory creation of an EOP coordinator with the duties described in the bill constitutes a legislative intrusion into the internal structure and composition of the President's Administration," the letter states.

First Arab Satellite Channel On IP Rights Launched In Egypt

In a bid to promote awareness of intellectual property rights issues and provide information about IP in the Arab world, the first dedicated IP Arab satellite channel has been launched.
Based in Smart Village in Cairo with offices in most major cities of the world, the first independent IPR satellite channel will have exclusive programmes that tackle IPR issues regionally and globally.

The new channel, launched on 7 July and reporting in both Arabic and English, will broadcast on NileSat.

‘The idea behind establishing a satellite channel dedicated to IP rights is to strengthen awareness in IP issues and give a clearer image of the IP situation in the Arab world. The new satellite channel is intended to a credible source of information that satisfies the growing interest in issues relating to IP. It will also contribute to the promotion of IP awareness in the region and around the world,” said Talal Abu-Ghazaleh, chairman of the Talal Abu-Ghazaleh organisation, an Arab organisation for global professional services including intellectual property rights. Abu-Ghazaleh is owner of the new channel.

In 2004, Abu-Ghazaleh launched a one-of-a-kind project, the ag-IP-news agency, a specialised global intellectual property news agency.

Nobel laureate criticises intellectual property rights system [International]

US economist Joseph Stiglitz has warned that intellectual property rights are stifling innovation. According to the Intellectual Property Watch news service, the professor, who was awarded a 2001 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on the relationship of information and markets, said at the opening of Manchester University's Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation on Saturday that the intellectual property rights regime "closes down access to knowledge". It was clear, he said, that specific restrictions applied particularly in the patent system.

Stiglitz criticised the current approach of treating copyright and patent rights as "intellectual property". Intellectual property, he insisted, is public property and not something to be "owned". It is difficult to prevent others from enjoying its benefits, he said, because it is fundamentally different to, and should not be compared to, the ownership of physical property. This approach creates monopoly power over knowledge that is often abused. Stiglitz gave as an example the current "patent thicket" in software, which results in anyone who writes a successful software program being sued for alleged patent infringements.

Another problem Stiglitz highlighted was that "the social returns from innovation do not accord with the private returns associated with the patent system. The marginal benefit from innovation is that an idea may become available sooner than it might have. But the person who secures the patent on it wins a long-term monopoly, creating a gap between private and social returns". The system is widening the gap between developed countries and developing countries, claimed Stiglitz, who is also known as a critic of globalisation. Medical care in threshold countries is suffering because patent rights are preventing the production of cheaper generic medicines.

The Nobel Prize winner does not believe that the patent system should be abandoned altogether, but sees a possible solution in restricting property rights to defined, tangible areas as well as to specific countries. Tools such as prizes or government funding could be used to promote access to knowledge and spur innovation in areas where there are well-defined objectives - such as a cure for malaria. John Sulston, a Nobel Laureate in medicine, shares Stiglitz's concerns. He expressed his apprehension about the continued trend towards the private ownership of science and innovation, which was funnelling research into areas that were particularly profitable whilst areas less likely to make money were being ignored. IP is an ideological issue in quarters such as the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization), Sulston said. Drug companies see any improvements to the patent system as weakening it, but they forget that the system should be a “good servant” - and not elevated to a “theistic level".

In its latest annual report (PDF file), the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has now called for the business community to clarify the mechanisms of intellectual property rights for the benefit of the general public. The growing "politicisation" of the patent system and enforcement of copyright is bound to cause concern on the part of those who do not understand the system. The report says that business must focus greater attention on putting forward the very arguments that Stiglitz rejects, namely that commercial copyright not only encourages research and development but it also promotes transparency and the dissemination of knowledge.

WTO Ministerial Meeting: IP Compromise Remains Elusive

Compromise on intellectual property issues remained elusive at last week’s World Trade Organization ministerial meeting. An initial statement by the European Union initially identified GIs as a "poltical must have," along with agriculture, non-agricultural market access, and services. However, the US later announced that it does not intend to engage in negotiations on GI extension. "These TRIPS issues are important to many members, but we think it's vital to keep the focus of this meeting on agriculture, (manufactured goods), services. This meeting is not the time to create new mandates on the TRIPS issues," a spokesperson for US Trade Representative Susan Schwab reportedly said at a press briefing on 22 July.

Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Støre is continuing informal consultations on three intellectual property issues: 1) the multilateral register for wines’ and spirits’ geographical indications (GIs), 2) extending geographical indications protection beyond wines and spirits (“GI extension”), and 3) proposals to require patent applicants to disclose the origin of genetic material and traditional knowledge. Støre told Intellectual Property Watch late Thursday that movement on these issues would depend on progress on agriculture and non-agricultural market access.

The WTO's goal for this so-called "July 2008 package" was to agree on “modalities” in agriculture and non-agricultural market access (NAMA) — ie, the formulas and other methods to be used to cut tariffs and agricultural subsidies, and a range of related provisions — and to look at the next steps in concluding the Doha round of negotiations.

Free Japanese Patent Machine Translation Service

You can obtain English machine-translations for Japanese patent and utility model documents from 1993 onwards on the Japan Patent Office's free-of-charge "IPDL" (Industrial Property Digital Library) internet service at http://www.ipdl.inpit.go.jp/homepg_e.ipdl.

From the IPDL homepage, choose the "Patent & Utility Model Gazette DB" link. A simple number search will - as a first search result – return the PAJ English abstract, where available. Clicking the "Detail" button on the top of the result screen will start the machine-translation of the original Japanese unexamined application. Alternatively, clicking the "Japanese" button will display the original Japanese document. In cases where no PAJ English abstracts exist you will immediately get the machine-translation from the Japanese.

See the screenshots at http://www.jpo.go.jp/torikumi_e/hiroba_e/paj_15.htm

You can also try Yahoo! Babel Fish - Text Translation and Web Page Translation

LexisNexis offers a fee-based English machine translation service of Japanese patent documents "in minutes" at $39 per translated document (regardless of length).

Free Chinese Patent Machine Translation (CPMT) Service

The CPMT service is integrated with an English search interface and can be used for obtaining the English full text (including claims and specification) from a searched result (by previous human translation).

See the screenshots at http://www.cnpat.com.cn/430homepage/guidehome.html and then start by choosing “Patent Search and Machine Translation” from the homepage of China Patent Information Center (CPIC) at http://www.cnpat.com.cn/.

WIPO for private-public role to fight software piracy in India

The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), a specialised agency of UN, has said that the best solution to stop the software piracy in India, which has reportedly led to a loss of about two billion dollars in revenue last year, is public-private coordination.

Software piracy is a huge problem in India. As a result of which many global computer giants are facing the heat worldwide. The best possible way to put an end to software piracy in India is a close coordinated scheme between private and public sectors in the country, Director of Copyright Law at WIPO Jorgen Blomgvist told PTI.

A study by the Business Software Alliance (BSA), an international association representing the global software industry, in May showed that computer software piracy rates in India registered huge monetary losses in 2007.

Talks But No Breakthroughs Yet On IP Issues For Ministers At WTO [International]

Intellectual property issues have been a topic of debate at the World Trade Organization ministerial negotiations since Friday and while there have been no changes in positions there has been some talk of looking for compromises, according to sources attending the event. Ministers from some IP-proponent countries raised the issues as critical to the heads of delegation meeting on Monday, the first day of the mini-ministerial in Geneva, while opponents held a meeting of like-minded countries reinforcing their position against the inclusion of IP issues in the talks, sources said.

WTO Director General Pascal Lamy began on Friday to talk with officials about IP issues in an attempt to find a way to navigate the standstill on them, sources said. Lamy held meetings on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, they said. However, on Monday evening, the issue was not a primary topic of the Green Room meeting, the smaller, closed gathering held in Lamy’s office. The ministerial is scheduled to run from 21-27 July.

The focus in the next few days is expected to be squarely on the issues of agriculture and non-agricultural market access (NAMA) before IP issues become critical, if at all, according to several sources. But the outcome of the mini-ministerial (about 40 of the WTO’s 153 members) will be tied to addressing demands from the European Union, Switzerland, India, Brazil and others on issues related to intellectual property and trade.

The IP issues are: the creation of a mandated register on geographical indications - product names associated with a place and characteristics - for wines and spirits; extension to other products of the higher-level GI protections currently enjoyed by wines and spirits; and an amendment to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) to require the disclosure of origin of traditional knowledge and genetic material in patent applications, intended to bring TRIPS in line with the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

A draft modalities text has been prepared by proponents, claiming support from a majority - over 100 - of WTO members (IPW, WTO/TRIPS, 18 July 2008). The text, TN/C/W/52, is now posted as a document to the WTO website. The opponents’ longstanding position favouring a voluntary register and database for consultation, referred to as the joint proposal, has been submitted again and posted as document TN/IP/W/10/rev.1.

A possible split in the IP issues may have been suggested by Lamy, according to sources. It generally has been the view that the GI register and the CBD amendment might have more middle ground for negotiating, while the GI extension might be more two-dimensional, sources said.

But such a split would not be acceptable to IP proponents, an official from a proponent country said. And the opponents’ meeting on Monday, which included countries such as Australia, Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, New Zealand and the United States, reconfirmed the view that none of these issues should be discussed this week, according to a participant.

Cybersquatting: Don’t let your IP slip through the net

Cybersquatting is the practice of registering domain names incorporating trade marks of third party companies and then trying to sell the domain name back (for a handsome profit) to the trade mark proprietor. It's not going away - it's growing and it's a huge problem for trade mark proprietors.

The number of domain name disputes lodged in terms of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure (UDRP) that applies to .com, .net and .org domain names increased by 18% in 2007 compared to the number filed in 2006 and by 48% versus the number lodged in 2005.

The increase can be attributed to:
The rise of "pay-per-click" advertising, whereby cybersquatters associate the domain name they have registered with a website containing adverts promoting a variety of competing brands. Every time Internet users access this website and click on one of the adverts, the cybersquatter receives money.
Domain tasting, whereby cybersquatters register a number of domain names and then wait several days before paying for the domain names. They then count the domain names that attract the most Internet users and then pay for only for those. The remaining domain names are then deleted. Problem is, in the period between the cybersquatter registering and paying (or does not pay) for the domain name, it is reflected as being registered.
The use of privacy services by cybersquatters, who are thereby able to register domain names without revealing their identity to the general public. Cybersquatters can thus remain anonymous while trade mark proprietors must go to great lengths to establish the cybersquatter's identity.

There are a number of steps that companies can take to combat cybersquatting, the most important of which is to develop a domain name registration and conflict policy.

Such a policy would clearly identify relevant criteria to determine which domain names should be registered, whose responsibility it is to administer them and in which countries they should be registered.

As a general rule, companies should ensure that companies register their trade marks and trading names in the countries in which they trade, thereby preventing third parties from launching a website to sell competing goods and services under a domain name identical to a company's trade marks and trading names.

Not only should a company continually ensure that its most important trade marks and trading names are registered as domain names, but it should continually monitor what domain names have been registered that incorporate its trade marks and trading names.

In short, companies must monitor the domain name space to check what domain names have been registered that might incorporate their trade marks and domain names.

Internet domains to open up, prepare for .whatever [International]

"Dot-com," the ubiquitous term that has come to serve as a description for all things Internet-related, could be in the sunset of its heyday following a key decision on domain names.
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or Icann -- the body that regulates the Internet, voted unanimously on Thursday to ease up restrictions on domain names such as .com or .net.

The decision, made on the final day of week-long meetings in Paris, could trigger a frenzy of bidding as companies rush to claim domains like .investment or .travel. In fact almost anything could become a web address under the new rules -- from personal names to trademarked brands for major corporations. Be prepared for .news, .startrekfans and .somethinginappropriate.

Bidding wars for domain names are expected to reach well in the six-figures. "You can pretty much guarantee, unfortunately, (that) the most sought after one will probably be .sex," Bryan Glick of Computing Magazine said. Although, that could mean pornographic sites would move to their own neighbourhood on the web, making it more difficult to unintentionally stumble onto naughty sites. Individuals could get domains named after themselves so long as they could prove they have a business plan and "technical capacity" according to the plans for the system.
However, companies with intellectual property linked to a specific name will have first dibs on their own domain, like .ctv, for example. The new rules would mark a historic change from the current system where only .com, .net, .edu or .org are permitted, in addition to country domains like .ca or .au.
The new system could be in place as early as next year, but many details have to be worked out first.

Tech Giants Band Together to Buy and Sell Patents [International]

About eight years ago, Nathan Myhrvold, a former Microsoft exec started Intellectual Ventures, a company that amasses patents that it can then license. Several tech giants, including Nokia, Intel, Apple and Sony, invest money in the holding company’s war chest.

Now, several big tech companies are banding together in a slightly different patent-related venture. Verizon, Google and Cisco are among a group of companies joining up to defend themselves against patent-infringement suits by buying up patents before the so-called patent trolls get their hands on them.

Here’s how it works: The venture, called Allied Security Trust, buys patents that others might use to bring infringement claims against its members. Member companies will pay roughly $250,000 to join the group and will each put about $5 million into escrow with the organization, to go toward future patent purchases. Allied Security Trust will sell the patents they acquire after they’ve granted themselves a nonexclusive license to the underlying technology.

India, China attract clinical outsourcing'

Cost pressures, the need to tap global talent, and growth opportunities in emerging markets has led Western pharmaceutical companies to shift substantial manufacturing and clinical-trial works to India and China, according to a new study. Big pharmaceutical companies like Merck, Eli Lilly and Johnson and Johnson are now counting these two countries for advanced research and development, the study sponsored by the Ewing Marion Foundation said. Indian and Chinese scientists are rapidly innovating and creating their own intellectual property as a result of Research and Development activities, the report entitled 'The globalization of innovation: Pharmaceuticals. Can India and China Cure the Global Pharmaceutical Market".

In 2006, 5.5% of all global pharmaceutical patent applications (WIPO PCT applications) named one inventor or more were located in India, and 8.4% in China. This had increased fourfold from that in 1995. Through detailed interviews with executives of 16 pharmaceutical firms in China and India on their business models, value-chain activities, partnerships and technology capabilities, the researchers concluded that Indian and Chinese companies are making strides in most of the lucrative segments of global value chains. In less lucrative segments such as preclinical testing, animal experimentation and manufacturing, Chinese firms appear to be more prevalent while India is a more mature venue for chemistry and drug-discovery activities. Domestic Indian and Chinese firms rarely have the capital and the regulatory expertise to develop a drug beyond phase II clinical trials. Their commercial development of new intellectual property therefore necessitates relationships with major multinational corporations.

The study found that India is playing a more strategic role in early discovery and its drug companies have the most experience in selling generic drugs that meet FDA standards. Companies such as Ranbaxy, Aurigene, Advinus, Nicholas Piramal and Jubilant have negotiated long-term deals with Western pharmaceutical companies to discover and develop new chemical entities. In a growing number of cases, the Indian companies share the financial risk in discovery as well as the potential financial rewards. One Chinese company, Hutchison MediPharma, has formed a similar partnership with Eli Lilly. Others are likely to follow suit as Chinese contract research organizations gain experience and Western companies trust in China's ability to protect intellectual property, said the researchers.

India, Singapore IPR cooperation likely to be signed soon

Union Minister of Commerce and Industry Kamal Nath on Monday stated that a bilateral agreement on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) cooperation between the intellectual property offices of India and Singapore will be signed shortly. During his bilateral meeting with Lim Hng Kiang, Minister for Trade and Industry of Singapore, Nath informed that as regards the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)-India FTA, considerable progress was made during the last meeting in Bali and added: "I am now hopeful that we would be able to achieve our target of announcing the conclusion of negotiations at the AEM-India consultations in August". During the interaction, Kamal Nath said that Singapore was India's fifth largest merchandise trading partner and fourth largest merchandise export market and added that India's exports to Singapore grew by 16 per cent in the year 2007-08 compared to a growth of 42 per cent in the imports from Singapore.

He further stated that Singapore ranks fourth in terms of foreign direct investment in India during the period 1991-2008 with investments of 4.7 billion dollars. The total bilateral trade during 2006-07 was 11.49 billion dollars and has increased by 25.88 per cent to 13.42 billion dollars in the year 2007-08 (upto February 2008) over the same period in 2006-07. Major items of Indian exports to Singapore were: petroleum (crude and products); other commodities; transport equipments; electronic goods and non-ferrous metals. Major items of Indian imports from Singapore were: electronic goods; petroleum (crude and products); organic chemicals; machinery (except electrical and electronic) and project goods.

The top five sectors attracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) inflows from Singapore are: petroleum and natural gas, mining, services sector, construction activities and power, whereas the top five sectors attracting technology transfer are: electrical equipments (including computer software and electronics), hotel and tourism, food processing industry, chemicals (other than fertilizer) and miscellaneous mechanical and engineering industries.