Tag Archives: trademarks

February 5, 2021 · 05:10

A Swift rescue

I was half asleep one moment and the next I wake up to ‘Theme park sues singer over Evermore album name’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-55932164). So, in this setting, what are the rules? Well, one of them is “Common words and phrases can be trademarked if the person or company seeking the trademark can demonstrate that the phrase has acquired a distinctive secondary meaning apart from its original meaning. That secondary meaning must be one that identifies the phrase with a particular good or service”, the word has existed in an ecclesiastical sense for centuries. So the original word meant “always”, it is one of the words also at times we see it as ‘aways and forever’. So, the trade-marker must now show that it “identifies the phrase with a particular good or service”, and there we have the issue, Taylor Swift has a real identifiable service, the service of an entertainer/performer, as Evermore has “opened its doors officially to the public on September 29, 2018. In contrast to most theme parks, Evermore Park does not feature any major rides; instead, trained actors who portray fantasy characters are the main attraction”, and if I were a betting man, I would bet against the theme park. It’s creative director Josh Shipley, has called Evermore a “living theatrical park”, a park, not a CD, not a place where at all times a collection of songs can be listened to, a park. This was their way to get extra visibility. A bad choice as I see it. I reckon that if all the fans of Taylor Swift made a proper and polite complaint against this (at +1 801-796-2372) their phones will be blocked for weeks. In the second, did they sue the Australian band Evermore as well? Then there is Neil Diamond, who also had a song with that title. Now, that song was out for a while, so there can be no claim, the Australian band Evermore existed for some time as well, the list goes on. 

So for a theme park no one had heard of to use Taylor Swift to get visibility is one thing, would it not have been better to contact Taylor Swift to request the launch of her album at the park? No, the American will sue to get the upper hand for marketing. That is how I see it. And back to the law, the park was opened in 2018, so the stage of “one that identifies the phrase with a particular good or service”, that is not possible, because the theme park is not open forever and always, as their website states: ‘Evermore Park Is Currently Closed’, so they are not forever or always open, they are closed. As such the stage of “the trademark can demonstrate that the phrase has acquired a distinctive secondary meaning”, which will fail very distinctively and directly, but when they open and if you are a fan of Taylor Swift, please complain politely (at +1 801-796-2372). Oh and lastly, the CD has the ‘e’ in lowercase, the park has it as ‘E’ (uppercase), so the name is not enough, the word is not more alike than not, another setting to let the claim fail.

Well, that is my part done for the day and I am still feeling frisky for some humour, so let take a look at what types of mischief the Kremlin is up to, I cannot make fun of Josh Shipley and not make fun of President Putin, or can I? Ah, 05:00 the new day is starting, lets see what else I can do this morning.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

Tagged as , , ,

March 21, 2019 · 11:59

The winnings of players

I had hoped that to a larger extent common sense would prevail, yet that is at present not to be expected. It is not really news, we have seen the impact on a few levels, yet to see it in the news on how far the impact reaches is still an interesting situation. It proves that a bullshit artist with a nice looking presentation gets the advantage over a scientist, or an engineer showing its failing. That is what the world is pushing for and it is disturbing in one way and entertaining in another.

It started some time ago, yet Monday’s article ‘Saudi crown prince allegedly stripped of some authority‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/18/saudi-crown-prince-allegedly-stripped-of-some-authority) give a much larger indication that the BS artists did optionally score a massive victory.

So how did this go about?

Parts are seen with: “The New York Times also reported this week that Saudi Arabia’s government investment fund has gone through a “messy break-up” with a Hollywood investor after the investor decided to stop doing business with the fund and return a $400m Saudi investment in the wake of Khashoggi’s murder. Saudi Arabia has adamantly denied that Prince Mohammed played a role in the killing, but the CIA is widely reported to have concluded with a medium to high degree of confidence that the crown prince ordered the murder of Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.”

In light of the US being an alleged ally to Saudi Arabia, I would think that more would be required towards: “to have concluded with a medium to high degree of confidence that the crown prince ordered the murder of Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul“. I am not stating that he is guilty or innocent. I found that much of the media spread information came from a very unreliable source and whilst insinuation and accusations were given by Turkey, they never handed out any clear evidence and handed it out for scrutiny. Turkey, who has been connected to Iran with too deep ties, in an age where Iran is in a proxy war with Saudi Arabia, the scrutiny of anything that Turkey presents should be scrutinised to the max.

In addition, the forward thrust by Saudi Arabia regarding 5G gives it a larger advantage, now a strong advantage over the US, which is a universal first. As the Arab News gave us one hour ago: “5G will be used in 30% of big cities in Saudi Arabia by 2020“, is not merely a boast. Huawei is pushing ahead (at the behest of the KSA) and as such America is falling behind more and more. These pushes were all instigated by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. And in a year it will start to pay off, with optional growth options of 500%, something the US has not ever achieved in the Middle East.

Forbes adds to this (at https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/03/20/did-the-u-s-just-lose-its-war-with-huawei/#395342a19e75) 12 hours ago with: “Every Huawei interview and press briefing for month after month was a defense of their security record, an insistence that they don’t spy for Beijing. But then Huawei pulled off a well-orchestrated PR masterstroke at MWC. And everything changed. Huawei’s rotating chairman, Guo Ping, used a keynote speech at the event and media follow-ups to turn defense into attack. “The Snowden leaks,” he said, “shone a light on how the NSA’s leaders were seeking to ‘collect it all’ – every electronic communication sent, or phone call made, by everyone in the world, every day. The more Huawei gear is installed in the world’s networks, the harder it becomes for NSA to ‘collect it all’. Huawei hampers U.S. efforts to spy on whomever it wants.”” So even as America is losing footing at the same time in several areas, we see that the commitment that Saudi Arabia had with Huawei is now starting to pay off and all the delays that the US instigated in that respect is making their allies look bad, especially as the US has never been able to submit any evidence for a period of well over 6 years.

It is true, we see that the advantages that Saudi Arabia had is experiencing setbacks (like Neom City), yet in a year we will see the fruits that the Crown Prince started and as it pays off and the US falls further behind, European partners will all switch to Huawei faster, the US industry had been too lacking for half a decade and now the invoice is due. Huawei in the KSA will show by the end of 2020 just how far the US has fallen, and when we get all the data and evidence regarding Khashoggi pushed to the open media we will get to scrutinise the intelligence and evidence and as such it will show the games some played.

It is not whether Khashoggi is dead, we all accept that, we also accept that for the most it was done through Saudi hands, yet the one piece of evidence on whether the royal family was involved, we see that there will be nothing concrete, nothing proven and more likely than not, no reliable evidence of any kind at all that the Saudi Royal family had a hand in this.

So what changed?

Well, the direct answer is, is that stupid people do stupid things and that is now seen (less than 8 hours ago) with ‘New Zealand minister to confront Erdoğan over Christchurch video‘, media bully Recep Tayyip Erdoğan decided to use the world news to push forward his agenda and with “Erdoğan’s repeated use of the footage, largely in a bid to portray his chief election opponents as soft on terrorism“, as well as “his decision to use footage of the Christchurch terrorist attack at his election rallies, alongside threats that Turkey will make those responsible “pay for it”“. Turkey takes any advantage it can find, yet they never presented any actual and factual evidence to the media did they? I believe they never had anything at all; a nation where 25 journalists have been put to death between 1992 and 2019, whilst 68 journalists are currently in jail. And that is the reliable source in the entire Khashoggi matter? Turkey, the leader of the top three that accounts for well over 50% of all the journalists in the world that are in jail, and no one is asking critical questions. I find that slightly disturbing.

Yet, there are indications that when certain accusations are voiced often enough, those mentioned will be impacted and that is how (to some extent) I see the stripping of authority.

I will also acknowledge the guardian quote: “there are some signs that the king is seeking to rein in his controversial son at a time when Saudi Arabia is under the spotlight“. There is certain an indication that all the larger changes in Saudi Arabia might be seen as too progressive. Yet, as I see it, when these changes bring non-oil based wealth to the kingdom, there will be an optional larger shift in that very same kingdom.

The Hill gave us (at https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/434774-losing-5g-fight-with-china-would-be-a-disaster-for-us) only hours ago: ‘Losing 5G fight with China would be a disaster for US‘. In the article three issues are raised all with consideration as to the why.

  1. Pride.
  2. Money.
  3. Security.

There is a fourth, which they did not give, but I expect that to happen, and I will mention it momentarily. Even as we see pride, it is number two that takes the cake, the icing and the future. It is money. 5G will allow for larger change towards the internet as the Internet of Things (IoT), yet that is nothing towards the benefit of facilitation, anyone who is not there in time will lose business and they will lose it fast. Long term losses of 5% for every month that delays are given and an optional additional 1% loss for every innovation the non 5G people are missing out of. At present the US is lagging by 12-32 months, so I reckon that the math is pretty simple at that point and in a Global stage those quicker players (several in the Middle East) will now gain an advantage on the global stage. More important, I had set some of my own IP in information systems and the benefit of hardware that is up for patenting will change the base of the 5G foundation long term. As I mentioned, I foresee an impacting delay and none have set the actual cost due to that stage, the solution once working will also enable small businesses to have 24:7 exposure to themselves in ways that was not possible before, giving them back the power they never had in the first place, and over time the old phrase ‘location, location, location’ will gain a much needed additional value, so it is a larger base of changes that will come with 5G.

Number 4

So as I mentioned the 4th element: Trade Marks. With 5G any trademark gets a new dimension, with 5G as speed and access increases we will see a jolt of trademarks in play and even a new dimension in trademarks, the holograms. We never had any stage for it because they were too large and it was not fundamentally convenient, with 5G that setback is removed and when visibility and awareness change, they will all want all their trademarks upgraded and added to. So consider the need for a new kind of Trade Mark, as well as a few more classes, the registration of an additional 250,000,000 trade marks (globally) requiring not merely registration, but also testing and administration. How much money do you think will pushed to the forward ground on that side alone? I saw that need arrive in 2016 and 2017 and now my Master of Intellectual Property degree will actually be worth something (on the employment market that is).

In that respect the trademark laws will also require an overhaul, when we see hologram and 3d logo’s the entire concept of more alike than not will also take a dive into the jurisprudential unknown making the need for commissions looking into that matter rather essential soon enough.

All this before we considered the stage of what 5G would facilitate for in addition, information and the way we bring it, marketing and how small business can provide for it without the use of facilitators or more expensive server and Google Ad providers, in addition directly facilitate for those nearby, all markets not ascending to what 5G actually opens up, they are all waiting for the US to wake up and the US is massively behind at present, their lag merely increasing by the day and not in the least by the new marketing war that AT&T with their Fake 5G (5G Evolution) find itself in. More BS and the need to sweep early statements under the rug, all activities that cost resources, time and credibility. It is that foundation why we will see the US fall behind. that part is seen one week ago today when some might remember Reuters (at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-wireless-spectrum-congress/u-s-house-technology-panel-heads-seeks-delay-in-5g-spectrum-auction-idUSKCN1QU2GQ) giving us: “Johnson and Lucas urged the regulatory agency to delay the spectrum auction until it properly addresses the concerns of relevant agencies and departments: the Pentagon, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). “Our concern is not with 5G technology. … However, advancements in telecommunications should not come at the expense of the safety and security of the American people,” the two wrote in a letter to the members of the FCC“, the delaying impact will be worse than you think. You see, the ‘wisdom’ seen here also links back to the other elements. From this we can see that the US in many places was not ready for 5G, they are close to two years 5G late and now we see it reflect in other ways. Consider the facilitation that the internet gave the extremists who acted in New Zealand. 800 versions of a shooting, forwarded millions of time, the report that 1,500,000 uploads were prevented/removed and not a list of those who made the light for too long and now consider that in 5G that entire matter would have been worse by close to 2,000%, the mere increase in speed and reachability is that much larger. At what point will you consider that the entire US-Huawei war will cost you more than you ever bargained for? And as to Saudi Arabia, as they grow their 5G status as they already are, how long until other people see the advantage that 5G brings, especially when the first 100 buildings of Neom City are ready to populate? A city that is planned to be sized to well over 20 times the size of New York and all of it 5G from the ground up, if speed is the determining factor of success and wealth, how big an advantage is Saudi Arabia about to get?

So as we see the elements in play, we see that some of these players have made headway towards profit, yet for how long? More important, when the opposite is proven and the US has no 5G to deliver, when we finally see that Turkey never had any credible intelligence to offer regarding Jamal Khashoggi and when we see that 5G is changing the scene and Huawei has delivered, how will we judge the others? Or will we and will politicians merely hide behind ‘there was some miscommunication on what the standard was‘, or ‘we did not agree on a number of issues’. How will you set the price of change that is required for you to have (and agree to), guided by an acceptable standard at an affordable price? Most people seem to forget about that part of the equation, do they not? The delay as we see it happen now will mean that you get 25% of what is possible at the same dime and as such lose market options, lose corporate value and even worse, delays the option of creating awareness for whatever IP you represent, the last one is not merely draining your revenue, you will directly hand over your market share to those who did get to 5G, the value of that damage cannot even be predicted at this present but it will be large impact that will not respect borders or established brands at present and the brands that stayed behind will lose a lot more value that they could ever perceive; that too is the impact of 5G and we all forgot the impact 4G had from 2010 onward, now the impact will be a lot harsher, optionally 40%-95% harsher.

Once those numbers are out and you realise that security and cyber parts are also hitting those surfaces, how far do you think you have fallen behind? Loss was close to unavoidable when we started to facilitate for the players and it will take a while longer for people to catch up to how much it will cost them in the end, because that part, the invoice of choice is always left to the end, after the players filled their pockets with the goal they required and when they have moved away and there is nothing left to do, that is when their additional invoice hits us all.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 30, 2018 · 13:48

Trademarking idiocy

Is it not great that we have trademarks? You see, a trademark can be used to set a level of protection to names that are unique. Trademarks are granted to protect established brand names from inferior competition. It is in that we could trademark ‘MattHancock’, we need to protect this as such levels of what I regard to be almost Olympian levels of idiocy. When this trademark is widely known we could set the stage that people can be silly, stupid or even idiots, yet you can never get beyond a certain level of idiocy as it is limited to Matt Hancock.

Why is this?

Well, to see that we need to look at actually two elements. The first is the Independent that gives us: ‘Government orders chief medical officer to draw up guidelines on social media time limits‘ (at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/social-media-time-limit-facebook-instagram-twitter-snapchat-matt-hancock-a8561511.html). When has this ever worked? When we are seeing the blame game with: ““The terms of reference of Facebook and Instagram say you shouldn’t be on it if you are under the age of 13,” he said. “But they do nothing to police that. The guidelines for WhatsApp say you shouldn’t be on it unless you’re 16. But again, they don’t lift a finger.”” We get it; people need to be on a certain age. Yet, how to check it? Well, did Matt Hancock think of the most usual path? Perhaps leave it to parenting, more important, if someone is caught with these apps whilst not being of the right age, how about holding the PARENTS accountable? This is not something for the law, to prosecute, and when you get there, we get a trial that is a joke because the person was underage. How about making the parents prosecutable in all this? This is all about kicking certain players again and again, whilst they are in a corner. This is too much about getting waves and political election cloud, whilst we all know that the setting is a joke from the very beginning. To see that, we merely need to look at the BBC article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45693143) give us: “A Guardian columnist highlighted the security breach on Twitter and the BBC was also able to access private details of people attending the event. The Conservative Party apologised for “any concern caused” and said “the technical issue has been resolved”. The Information Commissioner’s Office said it would be making inquiries. BBC political correspondent Chris Mason said the technical glitch was “deeply, deeply embarrassing” for the party“, so the one party that cannot get a decent grasp on common cyber sense is going to police time limits on social media? How laughingly stupid can a person get?

So when we are treated to: “One of Labour’s shadow cabinet, Jon Trickett, criticised the Conservatives for the breach and said: “How can we trust this Tory government with our country’s security when they can’t even build a conference app that keeps the data of their members, MPs and others attending safe?”“, can we also take that leap of faith that the overall comprehension of certain parts in all this is beyond the ability of politicians on both sides of the isle?

I can agree that when we see: “Meanwhile, public campaigns such as Scroll Free September have been launched to encourage the public to use social media less. The initiative, from the Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH), asked people to stop using platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Snapchat during September, or to cut down the amount of time they spend on them“, we need to consider that this is not the worst idea. Just like ditching the car for a day. It is not within the option for many people, but some might be able to see if they can do without social media for a day. The problem is that everyone is focussed on Facebook and Instagram, yet the setting is a lot larger than that and setting this stage to these two is one of discrimination which is a hot potato on several sides. In addition, must tertiary educations rely on social media like Facebook to get their message across not merely on events, but also on causes and interest groups that use Facebook to get their message across, what happens when you are out of time? It is an overall usage where critical analyses of how it is used is close to impossible, because that requires access to data to set the stage, and that caused most of the problems in the first place.

Yet, we also need to see and admit that Matt Hancock does have his heart in the right place. We see this with: ““I am, as a father, very worried about the growing evidence of the impact of social media on children’s mental health,” he told The Observer ahead of the start of the Conservative party conference in Birmingham. “Unrestricted use (of social media) by younger children risks being very damaging to their mental health” and it is in equal part also part of the problem. This is seen when we see ‘Unrestricted use (of social media) by younger children risks being very damaging to their mental health‘, so where is that evidence? I am not stating that it is not true; we merely want to see presented the actual evidence, is that too much to ask for? We get it, there will be risks, there will always be risks and they optionally endanger children and that is one part. Yet, since when are parents no longer accountable for the actions of their children? An entire set of messes, an entire batch of resource wasting and cost sin all this, whilst the stage is simple. The parents can be held accountable for the actions of their children, as well as the impact of these issues on their children.

An entire mess solved by setting the stage of responsibility with the parents and carers.

This gets us to the setting that matters. You see, even as I called him an idiot, he has a good degree and was educated in Oxford and Cambridge, and these two places do not seem to educate fools, so is this merely a setting of wasting our times, or is this about something else? Is this the beginning to set social media censorship on a new dock and in a new ship (the good ship lollipop) and set it afloat like a fireship? Thee tactic makes sense, yet the entire setting is too shallow as I see it. I cannot be the only person to hold the parents accountable in all this (when the social media child is under 13)? So when I see “Mr Hancock hit out at both platforms, which share an owner, over a lack of policing of their rules on age limits“. This seems less about mental health and more about collecting true identity settings in all this. It seems to me that the people behind all this require more data and they are in a nightmare scenario that they themselves created. Now that the setting is overboard the government has no path to solve it all and now they are blaming social media to a much larger extent to police using privacy based data. How can you check the age of an underage person? You cannot! That is the simple truth and holding the parents accountable in all this would have been the first and sensible part in all this, yet that was not done, was it?

So even as the conservative cannot get their own app under control, they are not demanding additional policing that is not policed (and should not) under normal conditions and is set on the same shallow state as the demand of one hour to remove certain data, and the mess is about to get worse with

You see it gets worse with: “Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton introduced the new laws to the Parliament, saying they are needed to help police and spies catch criminals who are hiding behind encryption technology“, in this Australia is setting a more dangerous stage. When we consider the setting that we see everywhere with: “Keeping your password safe. To protect the information in your computer account from unauthorised access: Do not share your username and password with anyone. Except in the case of a shared departmental account, you should never disclose the passwords for your computer accounts to anyone“. So it might be a golden day for whistle-blowers as they claim to be working for the police getting others to give out their passwords. The mere ignorance on common cyber sense will increase the damage well over tenfold and whilst criminals move towards burner phones and more important burnable memory cores we see that the police will have truckloads of data of all people with no criminal intent. In addition, there is every chance that with: “He said this potentially compromises his business, putting it in breach of Europe’s tough new GDPR data privacy laws and he would have to give privacy breach notifications to his clients” some companies will see dangers to their IP and move away from Australia, merely letting them have third tier access and mere consumer base based products. In this setting all developers would eagerly run away from Australia to protect their IP and patent data until the patents were granted, giving Australia additional downturns soon after the bill passes. On the other side, we will start travelling without our devices and rely on an empty burner phone that allows us to work, but will not retain any data outside the cloud. In that setting how were any of these actions anything less than stupid with a capital S?

People will find a way around it giving the governments less options and a lot more headaches, it never made a difference and the dangerous elements will take additional measures leaving the prosecution services with even less evidence to work with. It is trademarking idiocy on a new level, happy Sunday!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 21, 2018 · 11:50

Waking up 5 years late

I have had something like this, I swear it’s true. It was after I came back from the Middle East, I was more of a ‘party person’ in those days and I would party all weekend non-stop. It would start on Friday evening and I would get home Sunday afternoon. So one weekend, I had gone through the nightclub, day club, bars and Shoarma pit stops after which I went home. I went to bed and I get woken up by the telephone. It is my boss, asking me whether I would be coming to work that day. I noticed it was 09:30, I had overslept. I apologised and rushed to the office. I told him I was sorry that I had overslept and I did not expect too much nose as it was the first time that I had overslept. So the follow up question became “and where were you yesterday?” My puzzled look from my eyes told him something was wrong. It was Tuesday! I had actually slept from Sunday afternoon until Tuesday morning. It would be the weirdest week in a lifetime. I had lost an entire day and I had no idea how I lost a day. I still think back to that moment every now and then, the sensation of the perception of a week being different, I never got over it, now 31 years ago, and it still gets to me every now and then.

A similar sensation is optionally hitting Christine Lagarde I reckon, although if she is still hitting the party scene, my initial response will be “You go girl!”

You see with “Market power wielded by US tech giants concerns IMF chief” (at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/19/market-power-wielded-by-us-tech-giants-concerns-imf-chief-christine-lagarde) we see the issues on a very different level. So even as we all accept “Christine Lagarde, has expressed concern about the market power wielded by the US technology giants and called for more competition to protect economies and individuals”, we see not the message, but the exclusion. So as we consider “Pressure has been building in the US for antitrust laws to be used to break up some of the biggest companies, with Google, Facebook and Amazon all targeted by critics“, I see a very different landscape. You see as we see Microsoft, IBM and Apple missing in that group, it is my personal consideration that this is about something else. You see Microsoft, IBM and Apple have one thing in common. They are Patent Powerhouses and no one messes with those. This is about power consolidation and the fact that Christine Lagarde is speaking out in such a way is an absolute hypocrite setting for the IMF to have.

You see, to get that you need to be aware of two elements. The first is the American economy. Now in my personal (highly opposed) vision, the US has been bankrupt; it has been for some time and just like the entire Moody debacle in 2008. People might have seen in in ‘the Big Short‘, a movie that showed part of it and whilst the Guardian reported ““Moody’s failed to adhere to its own credit-rating standards and fell short on its pledge of transparency in the run-up to the ‘great recession’,” principal deputy associate attorney general Bill Baer said in the statement“, it is merely one version of betrayal to the people of the US by giving protection to special people in excess of billions and they merely had to pay a $864m penalty. I am certain that those billionaires have split that penalty amongst them. So, as I stated, the US should be seen as bankrupt. It is not the only part in this. The Sydney Morning Herald (at https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/how-trump-s-hair-raising-level-of-debt-could-bring-us-all-crashing-down-20180420-p4zank.html) gives us “Twin reports by the International Monetary Fund sketch a chain reaction of dangerous consequences for world finance. The policy – if you can call it that – puts the US on an untenable debt trajectory. It smacks of Latin American caudillo populism, a Peronist contagion that threatens to destroy the moral foundations of the Great Republic. The IMF’s Fiscal Monitor estimates that the US budget deficit will spike to 5.3 per cent of GDP this year and 5.9 per cent in 2019. This is happening at a stage of the economic cycle when swelling tax revenues should be reducing net borrowing to zero“. I am actually decently certain that this will happen. Now we need to look back to my earlier statement.

You see, if the US borrowing power is nullified, the US is left without any options, unless (you saw that coming didn’t you). The underwriting power of debt becomes patent power. Patents have been set to IP support. I attended a few of those events (being a Master of Intellectual Property Law) and even as my heart is in Trademarks, I do have a fine appreciation of Patents. In this the econometrics of the world are seeing the national values and the value of any GDP supported by the economic value of patents.

In this, in 2016 we got “Innovation and creative endeavors are indispensable elements that drive economic growth and sustain the competitive edge of the U.S. economy. The last century recorded unprecedented improvements in the health, economic well-being, and overall quality of life for the entire U.S. population. As the world leader in innovation, U.S. companies have relied on intellectual property (IP) as one of the leading tools with which such advances were promoted and realized. Patents, trademarks, and copyrights are the principal means for establishing ownership rights to the creations, inventions, and brands that can be used to generate tangible economic benefits to their owner“, as such the cookie has crumbled into where the value is set (see attached), one of the key findings is “IP-intensive industries continue to be a major, integral and growing part of the U.S. economy“, as such we see the tech giants that I mentioned as missing and not being mentioned by Christine Lagarde. It is merely one setting and there are optionally a lot more, but in light of certain elements I believe that patents are a driving force and those three have a bundle, Apple has so many that it can use those patents too buy several European nations. IBM with their (what I personally believe to be) an overvalued Watson, we have seen the entire mess moving forward, presenting itself and pushing ‘boundaries’ as we are set into a stage of ‘look what’s coming’! It is all about research, MIT and Think 2018. It is almost like Think 2018 is about the point of concept, the moment of awareness and the professional use of AI. In that IBM, in its own blog accidently gave away the goods as I see it with: “As we get closer to Think, we’re looking forward to unveiling more sessions, speakers and demos“, I think they are close, they are getting to certain levels, but they are not there yet. In my personal view they need to keep the momentum going, even if they need to throw in three more high exposed events, free plane tickets and all kinds of swag to flim flam the audience. I think that they are prepping for the events that will not be complete in an alpha stage until 2020. Yet that momentum is growing, and it needs to remain growing. Two quotes give us that essential ‘need’.

  1. The US Army signed a 33-month, $135 million contract with IBM for cloud services including Watson IoT, predictive analytics and AI for better visibility into equipment readiness.
  2. In 2017, IBM inventors received more than 1,900 patents for new cloud technologies to help solve critical business challenges.

The second is the money shot. An early estimate is outside of the realm of most, you see the IP Watchdog gave us: “IBM Inventors received a record 9043 US patents in 2017, patenting in such areas as AI, Cloud, Blockchain, Cybersecurity and Quantum Computing technology“, the low estimate is a value of $11.8 trillion dollars. That is what IBM is sitting on. That is the power of just ONE tech giant, and how come that Christine Lagarde missed out on mentioning IBM? I’ll let you decide, or perhaps it was Larry Elliott from the Guardian who missed out? I doubt it, because Larry Elliott is many things, stupid ain’t one. I might not agree with him, or at times with his point of view, but he is the clever one and his views are valid ones.

So in all this we see that there is a push, but is it the one the IMF is giving or is there another play? The fact that banks have a much larger influence in what happens is not mentioned, yet that is not the play and I accept that, it is not what is at stake. There is a push on many levels and even as we agree that some tech giants have a larger piece of the cake (Facebook, Google and Amazon), a lot could have been prevented by proper corporate taxation, but that gets to most of the EU and the American Donald Duck, or was that Trump are all about not walking that road? The fact that Christine has failed (one amongst many) to introduce proper tax accountability on tech giants is a much larger issue and it is not all on her plate in all honesty, so there are a few issues with all this and the supporting views on all this is not given with “Lagarde expressed concern at the growing threat of a trade war between the US and China, saying that protectionism posed a threat to the upswing in the global economy and to an international system that had served countries well“, it is seen in several fields, one field, was given by The Hill, in an opinion piece. The information is accurate it is merely important to see that it has the views of the writer (just like any blog).

So with “Last December, the United States and 76 other WTO members agreed at the Buenos Aires WTO Ministerial to start exploring WTO negotiations on trade-related aspects of e-commerce. Those WTO members are now beginning their work by identifying the objectives of such an agreement. The U.S. paper is an important contribution because it comprehensively addresses the digital trade barriers faced by many companies“, which now underlines “A recent United States paper submitted to the World Trade Organization (WTO) is a notable step toward establishing rules to remove digital trade barriers. The paper is significant for identifying the objectives of an international agreement on digital trade“. This now directly gives rise to “the American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property Law also requested that the new NAFTA require increased protections in trade secrets, trademarks, copyrights, and patents“, which we get from ‘Ambassador Lighthizer Urged to Include Intellectual Property Protections in New NAFTA‘ (at https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ambassador-lighthizer-urged-to-include-52674/) less than 10 hours ago. So when we link that to the quote “The proposals included: that Canada and Mexico establish criminal penalties for trade secrets violations similar to those in the U.S. Economic Espionage Act, an agreement that Mexico eliminate its requirement that trademarks be visible, a prohibition on the lowering of minimum standards of patent protection“. So when we now look back towards the statement of Christine Lagarde and her exclusion of IBM, Microsoft and Apple, how is she not directly being a protectionist of some tech giants?

I think that the IMF is also feeling the waters what happens when the US economy takes a dip, because at the current debt levels that impact is a hell of a lot more intense and the games like Moody’s have been played and cannot be played again. Getting caught on that level means that the US would have to be removed from several world economic executive decisions, not a place anyone in Wall Street is willing to accept, so that that point Pandora’s Box gets opened and no one will be able to close it at that point. So after waking up 5 years late we see that the plays have been again and again about keeping the status quo and as such the digital rights is the one card left to play, which gives the three tech giants an amount of power they have never had before, so as everyone’s favourite slapping donkey (Facebook) is mentioned next to a few others, it is the issue of those not mentioned that will be having the cake and quality venison that we all desire. In this we are in a dangerous place, even more the small developers who come up with the interesting IP’s they envisioned. As their value becomes overstated from day one, they will be pushed to sell their IP way too early, more important, that point comes before their value comes to fruition and as such those tech giants (Apple, IBM, and Microsoft) will get an even more overbearing value. Let’s be clear they are not alone, the larger players like Samsung, Canon, Qualcomm, LG Electronics, Sony and Fujitsu are also on that list. The list of top players has around 300 members, including 6 universities (all American). So that part of the entire economy is massively in American hands and we see no clear second place, not for a long time. Even as the singled out tech giants are on that list, it is the value that they have that sets them a little more apart. Perhaps when you consider having a go at three of them, whilst one is already under heavy emotional scrutiny is perhaps a small price to pay.

How nice for them to wake up, I merely lost one day once, they have been playing the sleeping game for years and we will get that invoice at the expense of the futures we were not allowed to have, if you wonder how weird that statement is, then take a look at the current retirees, the devaluation they face, the amount they are still about to lose and wonder what you will be left with when you consider that the social jar will be empty long before you retire. The one part we hoped to have at the very least is the one we will never have because governments decided that budgeting was just too hard a task, so they preferred to squander it all away. The gap of those who have and those who have not will become a lot wider over the next 5 years, so those who retire before 2028 will see hardships they never bargained for. So how exactly are you served with addressing “‘too much concentration in hands of the few’ does not help economy“, they aren’t and you weren’t. It is merely the setting for what comes next, because in all this it was never about that. It is the first fear of America that counts. With ‘US ponders how it can stem China’s technology march‘ (at http://www.afr.com/news/world/us-ponders-how-it-can-stem-chinas-technology-march-20180418-h0yyaw), we start seeing that shift, so as we see “The New York Times reported on April 7 that “at the heart” of the trade dispute is a contest over which country plays “a leading role in high-tech industries”. The Wall Street Journal reported on April 12 that the US was preparing rules to block Chinese technology investment in the US, while continuing to negotiate over trade penalties“, we see the shifted theatre of trade war. It will be about the national economic value with the weight of patents smack in the middle. In that regard, the more you depreciate other parts, the more important the value of patents becomes. It is not a simple or easy picture, but we will see loads of econometrics giving their view on all that within the next 2-3 weeks.

Have a great weekend and please do not bother to wake up, it seems that Christine Lagarde didn’t bother waking up for years.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,