More information about the white paper, including a summary of the conclusions and recommendations it makes, can be found in its Press Release and in the copy of the White Paper available on the ABA IPL Section’s site.
More articles on IP and privacy issues will be posted here soon, but in the meantime, here are several recent articles that have published in other media:
- Participated in a panel discussion on Shutting Down Rogue Websites: International and Domestic Solutions, before the ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law’s 29th Annual IP Conference, on April 3, 2014. An article previewing the session was published by our law student reporter, Anna Oakes, who live-tweeted during the presentation (in accordance with the law student reporter program). I re-tweeted relevant posts about our session that she and other law student reporters tweeted (see @PaTmLawyer). An article and presentation slides were published in connection with this session, but they are only available to meeting attendees.
- Interviewed by Smart Business Magazine, How to protect data security and customers’ trust, published on March 31, 2014. This article briefly describes ways that companies can begin to plan ahead for potential breaches so that their response(s) to breaches can be carefully considered and (hopefully) well-executed.
In addition, on May 9, I will be presenting during the DRI’s Intellectual Property Litigation Seminar on the ability to recover attorney fees in copyright and trademark cases. The article and presentation slides developed on this topic will be available to meeting attendees.
Stay tuned – more soon.
Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Victoria Espinel, has stepped down from her position, effective Friday, August 9, 2013. Andrew Ramonas, “White House IP Chief Victoria Espinel Steps Down,” Corporate Counsel, Aug. 13, 2013. Until a new IPEC is officially named, Howard Shelanski, administrator of the U.S. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, will act as Interim IPEC. Id.
According to Corporate Counsel, “Congress created the intellectual property enforcement coordinator post in the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (text), and the Senate confirmed Espinel as the coordinator in December 2009. She previously was an IP law professor at George Mason University School of Law and the first assistant U.S. trade representative for intellectual property and innovation.” Id. Continue reading
The USPTO recently requested comment from the public on the topic of “processes, data metrics, and methodologies that could be used to assess the effectiveness of cooperative agreements and other voluntary initiatives to reduce intellectual property infringement that occurs on-line—such as copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting.” See Prior Blog Post, White House Releases Second Joint Strategic Plan for IP Enforcement (June 20, 2013). The original deadline for comment was July 22, 2013.
On July 17, 2013, the USPTO extended the deadline until August 21, 2013.
Interested parties should respond to the current regulation (Fed. Reg. No. 2013-17166, see explanation in “Voluntary Best Practices Study; Extension of Comment Period“) and include the information itemized in the original request (Fed. Reg. No. 2013-37210).
On July 15, 2013, the US Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC), Victoria Espinel, announced the adoption of best practices for online advertising, with an aim to reduce the influx of counterfeiting or pirating conduct. The IPEC explained that these practices are aimed at “reducing the flow of ad revenue to operators of sites engaged in significant piracy and counterfeiting.” Victoria Espinel, “Coming Together to Combat Online Piracy and Counterfeiting,” Office of Management and Budget (July 15, 2013). The participants in this program – at least at the outset, are 24/7 Media, AOL, Conde Nast, Google, Microsoft, SpotXchange and Yahoo! Id. While supporting and encouraging initiatives like this, the IPEC also cautioned that these activities be undertaken in the context of other interests in the Internet marketplace:
Earlier Online Advertising Initiatives
In March 2012, the IPEC announced another best practices initiative: IPEC, “Advertisers and Advertising Agencies Address Online Infringement Through Best Practices,” Spotlight at 3 (Mar. 2012). Specifically, the American Association of Advertisers (“4As”) and the Association of National Advertisers (“ANA”) strongly encouraged their members to take affirmative steps to prevent U.S. advertisers from placing their ads on predatory foreign websites (“PFWs”) – those websites based outside U.S. borders that target U.S. consumers and offer predominantly counterfeit products or pirated content. Press Release, “ANA, 4As Release Statement of Best Practices Addressing Online Piracy and Counterfeiting” (undated); Member Bulletin, “Media Matters: Statement of Best Practices to Address Online Piracy and Counterfeiting,” (June 1, 2012).
These affirmative steps include, for example, insertion of language in ad placement contracts that requires ad networks and other intermediaries involved in U.S.-originated advertising campaigns to take commercially reasonable measures to prevent ads from appearing on PFWs. Member Bulletin (June 1, 2012). Other steps include requiring intermediaries involved in the serving of an advertisement to respond expeditiously to complaints by rights holders or advertisers and to provide remediation to advertisers whose ads have been misplaced on PFWs. Id.
The problem of online counterfeiting and piracy undertaken by PFWs causes serious damage to the U.S. economy and U.S. businesses. See, e.g., StopFakes.com, “Top 10 Ways to Protect Yourself From Counterfeiting and Piracy” (undated). Every initiative aimed at reducing the impact of these activities is welcome, assuming that other rights (such as First Amendment, privacy, competition and fundamental due process) are not sacrificed. Hopefully, we will see more initiatives from other key players in the Internet ecosystem that are not only aimed at reducing online piracy and counterfeiting, but also at effectively eliminating the incentive for PFWs to capitalize on U.S. intellectual property rights. By eliminating the incentive, perhaps the “cost” to offer pirated content and counterfeited goods will simply be too high, and these entities will choose to no longer offer them.