Chocolate Aplenty, but Nary a Wonka Bar to Be Found; New York Times, July 3, 2017

Michael Paulson and David Gelles, New York Times; Chocolate Aplenty, but Nary a Wonka Bar to Be Found

"The Wonka brand passed from company to company in a wave of late-20th-century corporate mergers and acquisitions, and along the way came a real-world Wonka Bar, Peanut Butter Oompas, Everlasting Gobstoppers and other candies. In 1993 Nestlé, a Swiss conglomerate, acquired the Wonka name from a British candymaker, Rowntree Mackintosh Confectionery, and, for a time, nurtured the Wonka brand, which eventually encompassed candies including SweeTarts, Nerds and Laffy Taffy, followed by Wonka Exceptionals. But the entire Wonka line has since been discontinued.

Nestlé has been hoping “to refocus the magic of Wonka toward future product offerings around the world,” according to Roz O’Hearn, a company spokeswoman. “We’re considering a variety of options, but for now, our innovation plans remain confidential, so I cannot share more info.”

‘Bombshell’ Canadian Patent Ruling Seen Favoring Foreign Companies; Bloomberg, June 30, 2017

Josh Wingrove, Bloomberg; ‘Bombshell’ Canadian Patent Ruling Seen Favoring Foreign Companies

"“It’s a bombshell of a decision,” said Richard Gold, a law professor at Montreal’s McGill University who studies intellectual property. He’s a member of the university’s Centre For Intellectual Property Policy, which intervened in the case. “We’re now the only country in the developed world that when an inventor says, ‘my invention does X,’ it doesn’t actually have to do X.”

The Supreme Court ruled that a current standard, known as the “promise doctrine,” goes too far, because it allows for patents to be invalidated if an invention doesn’t do any of the things it promised."

Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?; Guardian, June 27, 2017

Stephen Buranyi, Guardian; Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?

"The idea that scientific research should be freely available for anyone to use is a sharp departure, even a threat, to the current system – which relies on publishers’ ability to restrict access to the scientific literature in order to maintain its immense profitability. In recent years, the most radical opposition to the status quo has coalesced around a controversial website called Sci-Hub – a sort of Napster for science that allows anyone to download scientific papers for free. Its creator, Alexandra Elbakyan, a Kazhakstani, is in hiding, facing charges of hacking and copyright infringement in the US. Elsevier recently obtained a $15m injunction (the maximum allowable amount) against her.

Elbakyan is an unabashed utopian. “Science should belong to scientists and not the publishers,” she told me in an email. In a letter to the court, she cited Article 27 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, asserting the right “to share in scientific advancement and its benefits”.

Whatever the fate of Sci-Hub, it seems that frustration with the current system is growing. But history shows that betting against science publishers is a risky move. After all, back in 1988, Maxwell predicted that in the future there would only be a handful of immensely powerful publishing companies left, and that they would ply their trade in an electronic age with no printing costs, leading to almost “pure profit”. That sounds a lot like the world we live in now."

Intellectual Property 101: What Your Business Needs To Know About Trademark Law; Forbes, June 26, 2017

Art Neill, Forbes; Intellectual Property 101: What Your Business Needs To Know About Trademark Law

"Co-author Teri Karobonik contributed to this post*

When you think of a “trademark” you may think of a logo (Apple’s apple logo) or a product or service name (Forbes). You may even assume that trademarks are only a concern for internationally famous brands like fashion companies (Prada) and fast food (Pizza Hut).

In reality, trademark protection extends further than logos and can cover everything from sounds (the 20th Century Fox Fanfare before the opening movie credits), to colors (the “green” on a John Deere tractor), to the design of a taco shop.

Although many of the common examples you hear about are large corporate brands, understanding trademark protection is just as important for startups, independent creators, and small business. So what do trademarks do? They protect consumers from confusion regarding the source of products or services. As your business grows, trademarks become a significant asset because they are the way consumers identify and relate with your company.  You also need to know how and when your business can use the trademarks of other companies.

In this second part of this four part series (see Part 1 on Copyright here), we’ll break down one of the 4 main types of intellectual property (Trademark)  and explain..."

Coraopolis man accused of taking trade secrets from Harsco; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 30, 2017

Len Boselovic, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; Coraopolis man accused of taking trade secrets from Harsco

"A Camp Hill company that recycles mill waste is accusing a former employee from Coraopolis of taking thousands of pages of documents containing trade secrets to a competitor that planned to use them to develop products of its own.

A federal judge based in Pittsburgh this week ordered Stephen Miranda, a former employee in Harsco Corp.’s Sarver office, to remain on administrative leave from Phoenix Services, the Chester County company Mr. Miranda went to work for after leaving Harsco in April."

One Year On: Developments in the Protection of Trade Secrets; U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Director's Forum Blog, June 29, 2017

Director's Forum Blog

One Year On: Developments in the Protection of Trade Secrets Guest blog by Chief Policy Officer and Director for International Affairs Shira Perlmutter U.S. businesses own an estimated $5 trillion worth of trade secrets. Their theft, involving losses in the tens or possibly hundreds of billions of dollars a year, poses a serious threat to our nation’s economy. Because the protection of trade secrets — which by their nature are not patented or publicly disclosed — is critical to the commercial viability of many U.S. businesses, Congress passed the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016. The law provides trade secret owners with a federal civil cause of action, rather than limiting them to state laws or criminal enforcement. Last month, one year after enactment of the law, the USPTO convened a public symposium on “Developments in Trade Secret Protection.” The event brought together nearly 200 participants, at the USPTO’s headquarters in Alexandria Virginia, and via live webcast to individuals and the USPTO’s four regional offices. Shira Perlmutter at Trade Secrets Symposium The symposium consisted of four panels focused on various aspects of trade secret protection. The first panel, of business economists, discussed recent trends, including how to estimate the value of trade secrets and calculate damage awards in litigation, and how calculating damages in trade secret cases differs from cases involving other forms of intellectual property. The second panel, a group of attorneys, addressed the use of the Defend Trade Secrets Act in practice, including the provisions for ex parte seizure of stolen trade secrets. The third panel, with participants from academia, private practice, and the World Intellectual Property Organization, examined the differing ways in which other countries have implemented trade secret protection and identified the elements that make up an effective regime. The final panel brought together participants from private practice, the U.S. government, and U.S. Chamber of Commerce to role-play as a corporate legal team called on to consider enforcement options for dealing with a case of trade secret misappropriation occurring overseas. The practical information exchanged at the symposium should help governments and trade secrets owners improve protection for this valuable form of intellectual property in the United States and abroad. In helping to take forward the federal government’s 2017–2019 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement, the USPTO will continue its work to promote the adoption of effective systems of trade secret protection and enforcement around the world.Videos of all four sessions of the trade secret symposium are posted  to the Trade Secret Policypage of the USPTO website, as well as additional useful information about the protection of trade secrets. Read more from the Director's Forum Blog

Stay connected with the USPTO by subscribing to regular email updates. Visit our subscription center at www.uspto.gov/subscribe to update or change your email preferences. This email was sent from an unmonitored mailbox. To contact us, please visit our website www.uspto.gov/about/contacts. To ensure that you continue to receive our news and notices, please modify your email filters to allow mail from subscriptioncenter@subscriptions.uspto.gov.

Should robot artists be given copyright protection?; Phys.org, June 26, 2017

Andres Guadamuz, Phys.org; Should robot artists be given copyright protection?

"But who owns creative works generated by artificial intelligence? This isn't just an academic question. AI is already being used to generate works in music, journalism and gaming, and these works could in theory be deemed free of copyright because they are not created by a human author.

This would mean they could be freely used and reused by anyone and that would be bad news for the companies selling them. Imagine you invest millions in a system that generates music for video games, only to find that music isn't protected by law and can be used without payment by anyone in the world."