A company called Psystar has begun shipping a version of its unauthorized, cheaper Mac clones, despite technical difficulties and/or legal intimidation from Apple. The alleged beauty of Psystar is that its prices are cheaper than “authentic” Macs. However, the hardware does not come packaged with any operating system, including OSX.  The operating system costs extra.  Authentic Apple operating system software is wrapped with a user license that forbids its sale or installation on third party hardware. Such license terms are a severe roadblock to anyone looking to own a Mac-esque machine for less money.

In the past, Mac-cloning companies were able to stay afloat via a legitimate licensing agreement with Apple. In the end, though, Steve Jobs killed this licensing deal due to potential cannibalism of Apple’s sales. Presently, only the occasional DIY techie can bypass the OSX-installation ban for use with his or her own “Hackintosh”. Apple made its legal licensing/patenting policy a little murkier and looser when it migrated to an Intel platform and blended its software with that of its rivals. But Psystar might have reawakened the sleeping litigation bug in Apple.

Did the SWORDS unmanned fighter began shooting uncontrollably in Iraq?  This incident, coupled with the latest talks over Israeli drones, poses important questions about the ethics of using machines to fight our wars for us and the legal implications of automated warfare. The Geneva Convention protocols and other other more recent aerial weapons treaties limit the use of weapons that can cause an excess of collateral damage. Existing procedures ask about human agency when a decision is made to employ weapons on a target. The human soldier who fired and his organization are held responsible. Will the same be true with unmanned fighters?

The US military has been using Predator drones to shoot Hellfire missiles for the the past seven years, but SWORDS is one of the first armed ground robots. While it has been primarily used for peace-keeping/guard functions, the question whether to implement it in close-quarter firefights has sparked debate. While these robots can detect targets and assess the battlefield, often the question is asked: who (or what) pulls the trigger?

A new report released this week shows that the word “green” was used twice as much last year in trademark filings then the year before. The word “Green” was used 1,100 times in 2006 and increased to 2,400 times in 2007. The 16th Annual Report on Trends in Trademarks cites the recent increase in the use of “green” to the environmental movement which has been gaining momentum over the past few years.

The report also mentioned an increase in the use of the words “environment,” “clean,” “earth,” “planet” and “globe.” These terms are also more loosely attributed to the environmental cause. New product trademarks trended towards rebranding which emphasized certain buzz terms such as “energy” efficient, “organic” and all “natural.”

Last year was a record-breaking year for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, with over 300,000 applications for trademarks being submitted. High application numbers have been attributed in part to new eco-friendly products and marketing campaigns. Notably, applications seem to indicate increased corporate interest in promotions tied to Earth Day.

Last week Sen. Arlen Specter indicated that pending Patent Reform legislation (S. 1145) may be held up by the Republican caucus due to some political maneuvering to ensure leverage in the confirmation of certain federal judges. There are currently 47 federal judicial vacancies, 37 of which have nominees pending confirmation. As the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Specter has significant sway in being able to convince his party to move forward on passing the reforms. Specter has been working with the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy to find an acceptable middle ground on the legislation. However, the two senators have been unable to produce a bill ready for a floor vote due to differences on certain specific provisions.

One of the major issues being debated is an amendment of 35 U.S.C. §284, which concerns the calculation of damages for patent infringement. Comments made by Specter seem to indicate that his party would be willing to move ahead with the bill so long as the Democrat majority were willing to provide enough votes to approve some pending confirmations of certain nominated judges.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seems to have indicated that a prompt resolution of the matter is unlikely, given the urgent need to address other matters before the end of the current congressional session. To read the Senate Judiciary Committee Report on (S. 1145), visit Senate Judiciary Committee Report On S. 1145, The Patent Reform Act.

A popular BitTorrent tracker, TorrentSpy, has decided to shut down its operations after losing a battle with rights holders. A Los Angeles court ruled in favor of the Motion Picture Associate of America after TorrentSpy destroyed evidence and subsequently was fined $30,000. The site’s founder, Justin Bunnell, stated that the decision to shut down was not because of the court’s decision, but rather because the legal climate in the U.S. is hostile to privacy rights. Mr. Bunnell stated that the best way to ensure the privacy of TorrentSpy’s users was to shut down.

The court’s December decision was the knockout blow by the film industry against TorrentSpy. The site’s operators tried to appease U.S. courts by applying filters and blocking American IP addresses when the filters didn’t work. The restrictions ultimately lead to a decrease in TorrentSpy’s popularity.  TorrentSpy was dethroned as the most popular BitTorrent Tracker by Pirate Bay.

The torrent industry is now facing immense pressure as a result of the decision against TorrentSpy. Illegal filesharers are now faced with actions against them from the record, software, and film industries. BitTorrent trackers are facing pressure from lobbyists and threats under anti-filesharing laws in the U.K. for not sanctioning repeat infringers.

In an attempt to solve the backlog of pending applications, the PTO has solicited students to present proposals on how to alleviate the problem. There are more than 760,000 current patent applications awaiting examination and the estimated wait time is almost three years. Teams will present their proposals on how to rectify the backlog to PTO senior officials and business leaders. Margaret Peterlin, the PTO’s Deputy Director, believes the competition is an opportunity for students to apply their coursework in a real-life situation and for the PTO to get fresh, new perspectives. The judges will determine first, second, and third place winners, and the PTO will have the option to implement the ideas presented by the winning teams.

The competition, however, has drawn criticism from patent lawyer Harold C. Wegner of Foley & Lardner, Washington, D.C. Mr. Wegner contends that the resort to a student competition shows that the Deputy Director is not suited to lead the PTO . This further compounds the criticism Peterlin has received because she lacks a background in patent or trademark law.

The Bush administration this week voiced strong support of new legislation which would require patent applicants to submit mandatory art search reports or risk abandonment status. In a letter written last week to the Senate Judiciary Chair Sen. Patrick Leahy, Bush’s Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez advocated the additional search requirement as a way of improving the quality of applications. The White House contends that such a requirement would help improve overall patent quality and reduce the current backlog in the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). The specific provision is part of a larger effort to enact “comprehensive internal quality improvements,” according to Gutierrez. By creating a more complex application process, the Bush administration says it will reduce the amount of “poor quality and imprecise applications,” which drain the PTO’s limited resources.

The proposed legislation would add new language to Title 35, Chapter 11, Part II, Section 123 under the heading “Applicant Quality Submissions.” It would read as follows:

(a) In General–The Director shall, by regulation, require that an applicant for a patent under this title submit to the Director–(1) a search report and analysis relevant to patentability; and (2) any other information relevant to patentability that the Director, in his discretion, determines necessary.

(b) Failure To Comply–If an applicant fails to submit the search report, analysis, or information required under subsection (a) in the manner and within the time period prescribed by the Director, such application shall be regarded as abandoned.

Many in the patent legal community feel that requiring such additional steps would act as a costly deterrent to many potential applicants. Some of the problems that may result would be an increased overall cost to applicants, increased litigation, and cause no tangible improvements to the actual quality of final patents. The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPOA) has gone as far as asking its members to lobby congress to vote against the proposed new legislation. 

A federal judge struck down a set of controversial U.S. Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) rules implemented last year in order to reduce the amount of claims handled by the overwhelmed agency. The consolidated case, Tafas v. Dudas and Smithkline Beecham Corp., et al., v. Dudas, is a major victory for patent attorneys who have been vocal in criticizing the new rules.

Judge James C. Chacheris of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued the court’s opinion, which found the rules “void ‘as otherwise not in accordance with law’ and ‘in excess of statutory jurisdiction [and] authority.” In granting summary judgment for the plaintiff, the court found that the rules were substantive in nature and the USPTO only has the authority to change procedural rules.

The rules in controversy placed strict limits on how many claims could be filed by applicants and made changing or modifying submitted applications much more cumbersome. Over twenty amicus briefs were filed in the case, which has been closely followed by the intellectual property legal community. The USPTO must now revise its regulations to conform with the ruling, and will surely be under close public scrutiny to ensure any new rules are purely procedural.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has decided to review an appeal that may clarify what is considered patentable subject matter under Section 101 of the Patent Act. The case will be decided en banc and will not be subject to the customary panel review.

At the core of the patent dispute is whether a method or process must be linked to a physical machine. Courts have previously grappled with such issues, in particular how processes must be applied in practice in order to be more than an unpatentable abstract idea. Oral arguments for In re Bilski, Fed. Cir., No. 2007-1130 will be held on May 8, 2008.

Recently, courts have been divided as to exactly how much work product must be demonstrated in order to create a valid patent. This issue has the potential of having a profound impact on certain scientific and economic methods which up to this point have not been patentable. Undoubtedly, a clearer timeline as to when an idea becomes eligible for patent protection will emerge as the docket faces more complex issues involving theoretical processes that are in late stages of development.

Carrying on its tradition of announcing important breakthroughs on April 1, Google announced today its new “custom time” feature for Gmail. You can now back-date an email so that it appears in proper sequence in the recipient’s in-box. Say, for example, you forgot to email grandma on her birthday. No problem; use the “custom time” feature and send an email from the past! Although this might raise some problems with respect to the space-time continuum, Google explains that “Gmail utilizes an e-flux capacitor to resolve issues of causality.”

All I can say is, I hope they dedicate that e-flux technology to the public domain.