Two More Stories of Access (and Creation): Veronica Mars and Semaphore Press

Following up on my last post, here are two more stories of access and creation.  Veronica Mars is a television series involving a young female detective played by Kristen Bell.  The television series has a strong and loyal following, but was cancelled after a few seasons.  Apparently, there were grumblings about creating a movie based on the television series, but nothing was happening.  Well, something has happened—in a little over one day via crowdfunding on Kickstarter over 2.7 million dollars has been raised to create the movie.  There are over 45,000 backers of the film.  Read more here, and here.  There are also incentives for various giving levels.  At the top, for one person who donates more than $10,000:

You will get a speaking role in the movie. Here’s the scene — Veronica is eating with the man in her life. Things have gotten tense between them. You are the waiter/waitress. You approach the table, and you say, “Your check, sir.” We guarantee you will be on camera as you say the line. Unless you go all hammy and ruin the scene and we have to cut you out, but that would be a sad day for all of us. Just say the line. Don’t over-think it. You’re a waiter. Your motivation is to turn over the table. In addition to appearing in the movie, you’ll receive a framed copy of the page of the script that includes your line. You’ll get an invitation to the premiere and the after party. You are, after all, in the movie. Think of yourself as Guy Fleegman from Galaxy Quest. People will surely want autographs. You’ll also receive the signed movie poster, the Blu-Ray/DVD combo pack, the digital version of the movie, the T-shirt and a pdf of the shooting script.

That actually doesn’t sound like a bad deal to me.  I wonder how much I would pay to appear in a new Star Wars movie—probably not as much as many other fans.  At the lowest gift amount, $10 or more, you receive a pdf of the script and updates about the movie.  Will Veronica Mars’ success change the game for filmmaking?  No, according to one Forbe’s author who points to the facts that the Veronica Mars project had a loyal fan base, a script and the buy in of Kristen Bell, the lead actress.  Great points, but I am a bit more optimistic--maybe with some tweaking it can change the game for some types of indie films. 

Semaphore Pressis the brain child of Professors Lydia Loren and Joseph Miller.  Professor Loren is a intellectual property law expert, who specializes in copyright law at the Lewis and Clark Law School and Professor Miller is a intellectual property law expert, who specializes in patent law at the University of Georgia Law School.  Semaphore Pressoffers books for sale based on a suggestedprice:

What do you have to pay?
Each publication has a suggested price. We price full casebooks based on our belief that it is fair to ask a student pay about $1 for the reading material for each one-hour class session. Different schools use different calendars and credit hours, so we've settled on a suggested price for most of our casebooks of $30. We ask that you pay the suggested price either with a credit card (by clicking the appropriate link on our page), or by sending us a check, and then download a digital copy of the casebook. Note that if your professor has assigned, e.g., only 10 class sessions of material from a Semaphore Press book, then we suggest that you pay $10.

We have expenses that we need to cover. Our authors hope, and deserve, to receive some royalty revenue from the works that they've created. But we also recognize that law school is expensive. We've heard stories of students not buying the required books because they just can't afford them. These students - who want to learn just as much as those who can afford the books - borrow a classmate's book some days, read the copy that is on reserve in the library other days, and some days simply can't do the reading. We think that is not the best way to go about obtaining, or offering, an excellent legal education. Download the required reading and pay what you can, or what you think is fair.

Yes, you read correctly—you could pay nothing for their books.  And, I am sure that some choose not to pay.  How much do casebooks usually cost? Casebooks can cost as much as $180.  Semaphore Press currently offers three casebooks: Intellectual Property Law: Cases and Materials; Internet Law: Cases and Problems; and Interstate Compacts: Cases and Materials.  I have used the Intellectual Property Law: Cases and Materials book and I think it is excellent.  If you need a casebook concerning US intellectual property law, I highly recommend it.  And, I highly recommend you pay at least the suggested price.

Great (IP) Brands (Products) Never Die

During the last election cycle, US Presidential candidate Mitt Romney attacked the beloved US children’s television show, Sesame Street, in a debate with Barack Obama.  In a bizarre exchange, Romney basically said he was going to shut down the Public Broadcasting Service show—Big Bird, the Grouch, the Count, Bert, Ernie and Elmo were in trouble.  My children, who watched the debate, were horrified.  At the time of the debate, my children were ages 8, 5 and 3 (we had to work to get them to focus).  After the debate, they would say things like, “We hate Romney,” and “Romney hates kids.”  I tried to explain to my kids that Romney is not against Sesame Street; Romney just doesn’t like the fact that the government is partially paying for the production of Sesame Street while our country has so much debt.  I also pointed out that Sesame Street is a very popular show and that a firm in the private sector would be sure to “pick it up”—they probably wouldn’t miss a show.  (trying to be objective here)  But, my kids were not having it.  They still, to this day, dislike Mitt Romney.  And, if you ask my now four year old what her religion is she says, “Democrat.”  (So much for Sunday school.  And, I do confess that there are other reasons my kids support the Democrats and they also think President Barack Obama is “very cool.”)

Here is another teaching moment.  The beloved American snack food and brand, the Twinkie, is reborn.  Last year, the Hostess company announced its bankruptcy.  Some of its brands were American icons such as Wonder Bread and Twinkies.  CNN reports that a joint venture of private equity firms is purchasing the Hostess snack food business, including Twinkies, for $410 million.  CNN has also reported that the “Wonder Bread” brand and Hostess bakeries has been purchased by Flower Foods for $360 million.  Looking forward to seeing Twinkies on the shelves again—although I confess I prefer Sno Balls. (I wonder if my kids are now going to love a joint venture of private equity firms.)

GE: Can the Eight-Hundred Pound Gorilla Successfully Operate a Health Care Investment Fund?

The question is a simple one: Can one of the world's largest multinational companies successfully operate an investment fund? The company at issue is GE and the focus of the fund is innovations in the health care area (especially through GE Healthcare). As part of the Stanford Technology Ventures Program, a spirited lecture in support of the proposition was recently given by Dr Susan Siegel, who was named in 2012 as CEO of Healthymagination, a GE initiative that was launched in 2009.

Looking for more information, I found the following description of the fund:

"The healthymagination fund is an equity investment fund focused on identifying, partnering with and growing highly promising healthcare technology companies. The fund invests in companies globally that have innovative technologies aligned with the strategic objectives of GE Healthcare and GE's global healthymagination initiative. The fund also targets healthcare companies developing innovative and unique business models and services."

The company states that the $250 million fund has an investment focus in three major areas: (i) Broad-based diagnostics; (ii) healthcare information technology: and (iii) life sciences, especially in biopharmaceuticals stem cells and vaccines. Given the sorry state of investment funding in the health and medical device fields, an initiative of the size of "Healthymagination" would seem to be a welcome one. And yet, one has to wonder what one can reasonably expect from the project. Unfortunately, a search for readily available information about how the initiative is doing did not provide much user-friendly guidance. As such, it is difficult to get a sense of just how well the funding initiative has been going (except perhaps for the statement by the company that "Healthymagination has grown to more than 50 validated products").

Against that background, I have the following thoughts:

1. From a macro view, one wonders whether it is better or worse that GE seeks to invest in innovative companies technologies "aligned with the strategic objectives of GE Healthcare." Might such an alignment of interests work as a counter-weight to what one would hope is the outcome of the initiative, namely provide the company with access to technologies and ideas that are not being successfully developed at the company itself. Perhaps GE is seeking out primarily companies that are already well down the development path, thereby enabling GE to "cherry-pick" those companies best-suited to its overall goals?

2. Can a company the size of GE really provide the panoply of services to its investment companies in a manner similar to those that can be offered by the best private funds? We are not speaking only about money, but more generally about management guidance on how best to develop and grow the company. Siegel argued that, despite GE's size, it could effectively provide its investment companies with a unique set of cross-platform corporate competencies. She may be right. Still, there is a lingering sense that the nimbleness that a small company requires might be poorly served by the 800-pound GE gorilla, no matter how good and vast the resources.

3. What is the time commitment by the company for the initiative? The company states that the initiative has set a goal of 2015 to meet certain targets. Since that is only six years from the inception of the initiative, one would reasonably conclude that 2015 is not an end-point. But what is supposed to happen after that time is not made clear. Health care and health care products being what they are, it is the extended time line that has posed such a daunting challenge to anyone who has sought to invest in this area.

It would be great if "Healthymagination" will move the needle in improving health care and products. Indeed, if it does, GE might be able to claim a new paradigm for R&D and product development. At the moment, however, it is just all too vague to reasonably know.

More on healthymagination here.

Who Owns the Firms That Own IP?

Jonathan Band and Jonathan Gerafi have recently released at infojustice.org(March 5, 2013) a paper entitled, “Foreign Ownership of Firms in IP-Intensive Industries.”  In this paper, the authors examine the question of whether firms in IP-Intensive industries are owned by US companies or are foreign owned.  The general finding of the authors is that, in fact, many if not most firms in IP-Intensive industries are foreign owned—perhaps contrary to popular belief and the belief of policymakers.  The interesting conclusion the authors draw is that, "IP policies adopted by [the US] Congress and the [US] Executive Branch may benefit foreign corporations at the expense of U.S. consumers.” 

The report lists the following “key findings”:

Four of the “Big Six” publishers, the largest English language trade publishers, are foreign-owned. More than 80 percent of the global revenue of the Big Six is generated by these foreign-owned companies.  These foreign-owned companies publish more than two thirds of the trade books in the U.S.

Four of the five largest STM (science, technical and medical)/Professional publishers are foreign-owned.

More than 90 percent of the revenue of the five largest STM/Professional publishers was generated by foreign-owned firms.

Only seven of the world’s 50 largest publishers of all categories are U.S.-owned.

The book publishing industry in Europe has approximately twice as many employees as in the United States.

Of the top ten best-selling fiction authors in any language whose work is still in copyright, five are foreign.

A British author wrote three of the top five best-selling books in the U.S. in 2012.

Two of the three major record labels are foreign-owned. These two labels have a market share of 59 percent.

Thirteen of the twenty best-selling recording artists are foreign.

Of the 50 most popular motion pictures in the United States in 2012, 50 percent were filmed partly or entirely outside of the United States.

In 2013, the Oscar winners in thirteen of 24 categories were foreign. In 2012, the Oscar winners in eleven of 24 categories were foreign.

Seventy percent of the most recent generation of game consoles were manufactured by Japanese companies. Japanese companies have manufactured 92 percent of all game consoles ever sold.

In 2011, foreign companies obtained 7,000 more U.S. patents than U.S. companies.

In 2011 and 2012, seven of the top ten companies receiving U.S. patents were foreign.

57 percent of the global revenue of the fifteen largest pharmaceutical companies was generated by foreign-owned companies.

The majority of the employees of both the U.S. and the foreign-owned pharmaceutical companies work outside of the United States.

And the paper states that:

Since 2008, foreign companies have obtained more U.S. patents each year than U.S. companies. . . .  Additionally, in 2011 the number of patents obtained by U.S. companies grew less than 1 percent, while the number of patents obtained by foreign companies grew more than 3 percent. . . .  A total of 29,220 U.S. patents were issued to the top 10 companies; 66 percent—19,319—were granted to foreign companies.

(Hat Tip to Professor Michael Carroll at American University Washington College of Law for notice about the paper.  Professor Carroll is also the Director of the Program on Information Justice and IP).

Intellectual Property, Cultural Appropriation and Value(s)

The intersection of intellectual property and cultural appropriation raises many issues and is rife with controversy.  The allegations of the, at least immoral if not unlawful, taking of cultural property, traditional cultural expressions or biological resources for “outsider” commercial exploitation are not new.  The use of intellectual property to then protect and exclude others (including insiders) from using that property is also not new.  Here is a recent allegation of cultural appropriation by MSNBC reporter Melissa Harris-Perry concerning the viral “Harlem Shake” videos.  The usual suspect of issues exist concerning  allegations of cultural appropriation such as “who is the owner of “Harlem Shake” the term and the dance?”; “who has the power to include or exclude others to the original dance or term?”; “what is fair attribution or respect for use of the dance or term?”; “what is fair compensation for use of the term or dance?” in light of “Western” notions of intellectual property.  (Hat tip to Professor and Associate Director Steve Jamar at Howard University School of Law in Washington DC for the lead to the video.  Professors Lateef Mtima and Jamar lead the Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice at Howard University.) 

Patent valuation: how much does it cost?

A reader has contacted this weblog to ask the following request for information:

I need to know the typical or average fee charged to clients for "patent valuations." I have found a few Powerpoint presentations, papers, and the like downloaded on the Internet, which indicate a typical fee ranging from a low end of roughly $1,500 US per patent "family" for a so-called "internal" valuation (I assume this must be a "down and dirty" or bare bones valuation), up to about $40,000 per patent family for valuations done for banks, etc. I take it the latter would be the full-blown, more extensive approach, involving detailed market analysis and full pat scope studies, etc.

This blogger has no direct experience of patent valuation and imagines that the cost would be a function of various things: the methodology adopted, the nature of the patent(s) being valued, the magnitude and complexity of the prior art and even the purpose for which the valuation was sought. Can readers be of any assistance at all in giving some guidance in this matter?

Quantifying maximum benefits of law reforms: questions about Hargreaves

Veteran copyright and information science expert Professor Charles Oppenheim has keen keeping an eagle eye on the predicted benefits of the promised/threatened UK digital copyright reforms outlined in the hastily-conceived and even more hastily-composed Digital Opportunity (the Hargreaves Review, which you can read all about on its very own web page here). Apparently questions have been asked in the House of Commons:

""John Whittingdale (Maldon, Conservative [and Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Intellectual Property Group]) asked Secretary of State Vince Cable MP why the estimates of maximum financial benefits from the implementation of the Hargreaves Report have been cut, following on from the news that the revaluation had brought the gains down from £27 billion to to £790 million through the Modernising Copyright plan.

Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire, Liberal Democrat), responding, stated that the reason for the reduction in net gains to the British economy is due to the fact that Modernising Copyright does not contain the creation of the single EU patent or the Digital Copyright Exchange (DCE)".

Comments Charles:

"REALLY? Are the single European patent and the DCE going to be that valuable to the UK economy (and over what period?) I'm amazed!".

Comments this blogger (who shares Charles's amazement), what does the new patent package have to do with the valuation of the benefits of a new digital copyright regimes anyway?  He also thinks that the real reason why the DCE will not confer vast value on the British economy is that most digital products are ripe for being exploited globally via the internet, while the DCE can hardly confer benefits that extend beyond the jurisdiction.