Due Diligence - nuances and constructs of the need and method

Measure of a company’s or an organization’s worth begins with the identification of its patent docket and ends with its monetary valuation. A strong patent portfolio and a favourable patent environment are two important criteria for the success of an emerging technology business. Not all patents are of the same value. Face value and true value of a patent may have sizeable differences; the face value being the conceived value, and the true value being the actual value. The ability to use or license a patented invention to earn a profit is, of course, the real value of a patent to its owner.

Due diligence, is hence, an essential methodology of evaluating and recording the true worth of a patent or a docket of patents and its off-shoots, such as the protection it provides, and the business it generates or is perched to generate. In the entire ensemble of things relating to mergers and acquisitions, growth and development, initial public offerings, it is patents which provide the engine for driving the same.

Each patent is also, only as worth as the strength of the words describing the invention. Hence, it is easy to design around some patents, and it is easy to block some patents.

Course of Action:
The path to obviate the after-effects of a vagrant approach towards recognizing the worth of a patent portfolio, which does not adequately define the cornerstones of its worthiness, is to indulge in a meticulous due-diligence affair. A thorough approach can be defined in lieu of the following steps:
1) Engage a competent counsel
2) Engage a validation professional
3) Identify the boundaries of each patent
4) Map out the mine of patents in and around each patent
5) Check for cross-connections
6) Render it fool-proof

The first path of the due-diligence process begins whilst drafting the patent application.

Purpose:
The basic premise of a due-diligence exercise is to provide the bearer of the exercise with a better understanding of the target’s business, its capability, its previous worth and its future course and value. Another object is to understand the liabilities of the target which may include license deals, or even surfacing of the fact that certain patents held by competitors have rendered the target’s practice or bouquet of patents virtually non-exercise-able.

In this exercise, the larger idea is to have a complete map, typically of the Research and Development output vis-à-vis the patents it holds, and hence, strive to perceive gains, losses, or pitfalls.

Path:
An ideal due-diligence affair should bring to fore the entire history of each patent held by the target in direct correlation with:
a) the competitor’s patents and technology;
b) the monetary edge over the competitor’s technology;
c) the hindrances posed by the competitor’s patents and technology.

When a person buys milk at the supermarket, he ain’t worried about the technology or the Research and Development or the other details of milking. The sentiment of such casual demeanour should be obviated strongly whilst dealing with the cause of take-overs and mergers, and hence, the need to practice an efficient due-diligence exercise, the steps of which include:

1. Review all issued, pending and abandoned U.S. and foreign patent applications and patents. Include all applications and patents filed by the seller, currently or formerly owned by the seller, or licensed to the seller.

2. Review all patent searches conducted by or on behalf of seller related to inventions or designs.

3. Confirm payment of maintenance fees for all patent applications and issued patents.

4. Review all cooperative research agreements, license agreements and merchandising agreements, regardless of whether seller was the licensee or licensor.

5. Review all threatened or pending interferences involving seller's patent applications or patents.

6. Review all invention disclosures related to the business assets being transferred that are either awaiting disposition or are to be the basis of a patent application.

7. Review all technologies that are material to the business assets being transferred, together with a description of how each such technology was developed or acquired and copies of all documents evidencing any such acquisition.

Meticulous planning and extreme alertness is the key to provide a due-diligence affair report, for it is upon this report that sizeable decisions would be chalked out and taken.

Japan - accelerated Patent examination

In a constructive step towards executing the idea of ‘accelerated examination’ for patent applications [as mentioned in a previous post], Japan, has leapfrogged in setting a benchmark. The Japan Patent Office which receives 420,000 applications annually, indeed has an uphill task of processing these applications in a timely and justified manner.

In a collaborative effort of usurping the negative attributes of a slow patent obtaining process, the Japanese Government has enacted the Expeditious Patent Examination Law in 2004. Since 2004, the Japanese Patent Office (JPO) has begun groundwork to achieve a waiting time for examination process to be the world’s shortest at 11 months in 2013, and towards realizing the ultimate goal of a zero period of waiting.

To deal with the massive amount of applications, the Japanese Patent Office expects to meet a target of hiring 500 examiners over a 5-year period to provide the pillars of support to the on-going process of accelerated examination. As a precedent of sorts, the JPO has granted the world’s fastest patent after a mere 17-day screening process. The patent deals with a process of detecting toxic metals in water, granted to Keio University.

PatentInc* Viewpoint:

Armed with the belief that a faster examination process will not only expedite the cascaded effects of translating patent applications into rightful patents, but also be the pivoting cause for more and more people/enterprises/RnD centres to acknowledge the patent protection route, the JPO has indeed begun to pave a way for building a faster, formidable patent docket.

[* PatentInc. – a proprietary outfit in the field of Intellectual Property, India]

Technology awards 2008 - upping the bar

Buoyancy in the fiercely competitive market is a formidable quality.

Defining the state-of-the-art, then, in the same fiercely competitive market becomes a laudable quality. It is for want of this recognition that 700 entries for innovation awards were made to the Journal, out of which, were the following category winners (of 2008) [as seen in the link below]:

http://www.dowjones.com/innovation/

This includes the home bred (Indian) Tata Consultancy Services in the ‘Wireless’ category for their invention relating to development of a communication system for providing crop advice to farmers as also the home bred (Indian) Tata Motors in the ‘Transportation’ category for manufacturing the world’s cheapest, fuel-efficient family car.

Increased innovations translate into increased dependence on technology, increasing our convenience factor, reducing the spatial and time domain factor. Quantum leaps vis-à-vis such inventions, hence, pave the way for a technologically-bred ‘super’ [sic] human (?)!



References:

[1] http://www.dowjones.com/innovation/

YEAHH!! – to obsessive professional nerdism!

Well, that’s what I thought when I received news about a movie as an e-mail from one of the IP blogs, I subscribed to. Nonplussed, till now, I never knew the affinity or hate (usually, extreme reactions) that the display of one’s profession on a medium causes.

So, Flash of a Genius, had me on grips almost immediately, its sole reason being the subject matter of the movie, which revolves around one man’s (Robert Kearns') invention which stemmed vis-à-vis his own need – the intermittent wiper system – in cars, and the US automobile industry which 'infringed' upon his invention. (The antagonists in this case, being Ford and Chrysler). So, goes the protagonist on his salvaging journey amidst the techno-legal framework and the burden of fighting it out against the tide. Undeterred and plausibly in Hollywood, melodramatic style, this movie aims to woo the audience showcasing the victory and turmoil of this lone man (as pitched against the stalwarts).

Interestingly, intermittent wipers came about after Robert Kearns was hit in his left eye by a champagne cork on his wedding night in 1953. Later, Kearns was driving his Ford Galaxie through a light rain, and the constant movement of the wiper blades irritated his already troubled vision. He modeled his mechanism on the human eye, which automatically blinks every few seconds.

Kearns invented and patented the intermittent windshield wiper mechanism for use in light rain or mist and tried to license it to the big automakers. They all rejected his idea and then some went ahead and put intermittent wipers in their cars beginning in 1969. In 1967, he received the first of more than 30 patents for his wipers. He sued Ford in 1978 and Chrysler in 1982 for patent infringement.

Ford argued that Kearns’ patents were overly broad and therefore invalid. In 1990, a jury decided that Ford infringed on Kearns’ patent, though it concluded the infringement was not deliberate. Ford had contended the patent was invalid because the windshield system contained no new concepts. But Kearns argued a new combination of parts made his invention unique.

That jury failed to reach agreement on how much he should be awarded, and another jury later ordered Ford to pay Kearns $6.3 million, trimmed by a judge to $5.2 million. To settle the case, Ford agreed to pay $10.2 million and to drop all appeals. Chrysler ended up paying Kearns $18.7 million plus interest.

Interesting to read are the following Robert Kearns patents:

1) Windshield Wiper System with Intermittent Operation; United States Patent 3,351,836

2) Intermittent Windshield Wiper System; United States Patent 3,602,790,

3) Intermittant windshield wiper control system with improved motor speed; United States Patent 4,544,870

Amidst the scriptwriters' on-going hunt for ubiquitous-ly laudable subject matters, it would be interesting to see the portrayal of the patent system on a motion medium. A neat way to drive home the point about the need for the system and its intricacies, too, albeit Hollywood style!

References:

[1] http://www.flashofgenius.net/

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Kearns

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Motor_Company

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler

[5] http://www.google.com/patents?id=_qVQAAAAEBAJ&dq=Robert+Kearns (US Patent 3351836)

[6] http://www.google.com/patents?id=JF4TAAAAEBAJ&dq=Robert+Kearns (US Patent 3602790)

[7] http://www.google.com/patents?id=EO8rAAAAEBAJ&dq=Robert+Kearns (US Patent 4544870)

Accelerated Examination at the USPTO: view and counterview

If,
we begin with the hypothesis that all endeavours (read as ‘inventors’) may be classified in the following formats:

- the absolute genuine; one having the premise that he understands the entire spectrum of the subject matter of his invention, its credibility, its genesis, its patentability and its subsequent conjecture in relation to the technological advance over the prior art;

- the discombobulated; one having the premise of understatement (not able to recognise the worthiness of his efforts and invention) with respect to his subject matter, or with a genuine interest in his know-how, albeit, not aware whether his know-how is prosecutable for protection;

- the marauders; one having the premise of nonchalant destruction and is prying the system only to scavenge for loopholes, and plausible leeway to gain entry and sublime recognition;

Then,
assumption of the hypothesis validates the clause that only the first type of people enumerated above, should arguably follow this new path.

Follow the two diametrically opposite viewpoints cited below:

1) Pointing the anomalies of the system;
versus
2) Elaborating the worthiness of the system.

New Entry, much fanfare: Sound Marks

In a further cementing step, to aid the establishment of the boundaries of one’s cognitive processes, and to provide legal rights towards the same, the Indian Trademark registry increased the recognition form from its ‘intellectual and visual’ ability to an ‘intellectual and audible’ ability.

What followed was India’s first sound trademark (1), (2), whereby, the Indian Trademark Registry (Delhi Office) awarded Sunnyvale, California-based Internet firm Yahoo Inc.’s three-note Yahoo yodel, a mark relating to its yodeling sound [listen here (3)]. A sound trademark1 essentially refers to an audible rendition such that it is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings.

The US practice of registering an audio or video reproduction of the sound (for a Trademark) reveals that a detailed written description of the application should also be included, while the Europe practice dictates that the sound mark should be represented graphically through musical notation. Such practices are fairly logical.

In sync and in continuum with such ‘non-conventional’ marks, WIPO, the United Nations agency, has now initiated an Intellectual Property Conference (4) in Singapore (first time in Asia) in order to revise its 1994 treaty on global trademarks.

What presumably follows next, is the incorporation of another one of the human senses as an attribute towards distinction of products, typically, the nose, and its associated characteristic, the smelling function, e.g. the smell of a perfume or any product, for that matter.

PatentInc*. Viewpoint:
We await to see the appropriate filing requisites for increasingly intangible matter. Also, the question now arises as to whether we should take cue from these to also expect further incorporation of the remaining two senses, viz., the ‘taste’ and the ‘feel’ of a product. Is it going too far? Or how far is too far?

In any case, defining of such visual and further non-conventional marks, more importantly with a viewpoint in cases of potential infringement and justifications sought thereof, is going to be an upheaval task, mainly because of the non-precedential subject matter. Till the time being, let the mark holders rejoice in the sentiment of acquiring new non-tangible lengths and breadths, and increase their monopolistic stranglehold towards completely defining their product.


References:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_trademark

2. http://www.livemint.com/2008/08/22002259/Yahoo-awarded-India8217s-fi.html

3. http://www.uspto.gov/go/kids/soundex/75807526.mp3

4. http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Revised-trademark-treaty-may-cover-sound-&-smell/40242/

*PatentInc. - – a proprietary outfit in the field of Intellectual Property, India.

IPR regime – INDIA

The idea of providing a (much needed) structured impetus towards paving a path wherein, inventors, corporates, and the like are not impeded by lack of directions or even lack of knowledge (ignorance) of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), for that matter, has been flirting in the minds of senior personnel already active in the (IPR) field. What is lacking, however, is the aligning of forces in one particular mega-direction in order to snowball the efforts. A 3-pronged approach, as detailed below, can be attempted to channelise the flow of processes in the IPR regime.

The envisioned pathway should follow the outlined pattern, thus:

1) Schools and educational institutes mainly should comprise the bandwagon for nurturing a professional’s thoughts. A first tier of the recipients of such education should be the professionals servicing the IPR industry. Lack of experience, relative newness of the Indian Patent Act, flimsy attempts by the IPO to write and re-write the patent manual, relatively less exposure, are some of the major stumble-blocks in today’s Indian IPR scene. As reported here [1], the Kerala government has initiated a drive to introduce IPR as a compulsory subject in schools and universities. With training at the grassroots level, the Kerala government affirmatively hopes to align students’ thought processes and attempt to solve the country’s shortage of trained professionals; thus expanding the current realm.

2) Meticulous gardening of thoughts and weeding out the randomness in a plausible inventor is a firm step that ought to be taken by corporates towards training/mentoring their employees which include understanding the genesis of a technology over the years through patents and its concurrent effects on the industry in the progressive time scale. The strings of this causal relationship between innovations and industry growth become visible clearly, by this study [2]. Particularly, Indian SMEs currently only invest in need-based research and development (or only when they have exhausted the option of ‘not-copying’). A recent development as reported here [3] is a definite positive step towards creating awareness of a strong IPR regime to impress and authorise their work at the national and international level, without trespassing each other’s domains and subsequently conform to uniform global standards. Finally, this recognition is bound to translate into economic benefits for the company at a micro-level as well as for the nation at a macro-level.

3) Miscellaneous:

An active lobby of current IPR professionals need to progressively create awareness within their sphere of influence in an unbiased manner. E.g. keeping an inventor involved at all times, creating adequate transparency in the process, propagating the finer points of the IPR spectrum in relation to theoretical knowledge as well as from derived practical exposure ensures the smoothness of the learning curve for newer professionals, and hence, aids in stimulating this endeavour.

Nipping the brain drain is just as important. Increasing off-shore activity (i.e. foreign MNCs recruiting Indian talent, and claiming protection as a derivative of their work for the company), relatively less stimulation in Indian companies from an innovation point of view, and restricted resources for such innovative steps and research hinder the innovative flow-chain and provide only for transient surges in the patenting scenario, if any. As can be seen here [4], foreign firms have increasingly filed patents with Indian employees as the inventors. This results in a total loss of economy for the nation and home firms in parallel sectors.

For India to boast a comprehensive enforceable patent docket in various sectors of technology, it needs to exhibit an un-impeded continuum of enforce-able patents; one where the genesis is easily traceable, without gaps, and one such that commands international value. Further, it should be coupled with able personnel manning the IPR regime (typically, IPR agents, IPR attorneys, IPR valuation services, judicial system bolted by strong precedents and laws and the like). With a start [1] in the training segment, we are definitely on our way to come of age.

References:

[1] http://www.livemint.com/2008/08/26232915/Kerala-to-introduce-intellectu.html?h=B

[2] http://www.livemint.com/2008/06/08235610/Foreign-firms-drive-surge-in-t.html

[3] http://www.livemint.com/2008/08/18190329/Training-programme-for-Indian.html

[4]http://www.livemint.com/2008/06/08235610/98E45802-64F5-4CF6-A9A5-FD112B66658BArtVPF.pdf

watering woes in the Indian bottled water industry - creating and protecting an identity (trademark)

Tussle over taming the grandeur of the highest mountain range in the world for a commercial venture has reached the courtrooms. Aquifers nestled in Himalayas have been used by the Tata Group (previously Mount Everest Mineral Water Ltd.) and Bisleri International to source a premium segment of bottled water (enriched in minerals) as a launch-pad to hoist their international flags and towards a niche uber-urban segment.

The trouble brews in the fact that ‘Himalaya’ is a registered TradeMark with the Tatas. The counter argument of Bisleri states that ‘Himalaya’ is a generic name. Both parties accessed the provisions of the Indian Judicial System by raising their respective claims. More specifically, Ramesh Chauhan (chairman, Bisleri International) has sought cancellation of Tata’s Himalaya brand through a rectification application filed with the Intellectual Appellate Board (IPAB), Chennai, based on the Geographical Indications Act which forbids the registration of a geographical name by a private company.

Statistics’ disclosures maintain that ‘Himalaya’ brand mineral water, currently owned by the Tatas was bought over from Dadi Balsam (an NRI from Singapore) in 1991. The bottles formerly had horizontally located circumferential ridges and square cross-sectional bottles. Bisleri, on the other hand kicked off their premium segment edition in December, 2006. They have only recently accelerated their marketing of said product. Visually, the bottles are unribbed/unridged carrying a vertical label called ‘Himalayan’ (and in small descriptive font ‘from the Himalayas’).

While the matter was heard in courts on June 23rd and June 24th, 2008, an interim arrangement has been sought by both parties whereby, Bisleri has agreed to stop using the domain ‘www.bislerihimalayan.com’. It will continue to market water bottles that say ‘from the Himalayas’ as a descriptive mark in small font to denote the origin of the water. It has also agreed to inform its stockists about these arrangements. Come October, and a judgement will hopefully be doled out.

Representative Advocates:
- for Tatas: Fali S. Nariman
- for Bisleri: AS Chandhiok

Crunching Business Parameters:
The numbers game disclosing current and potential marketing trends and statistics are the driving force for either party to assert their dominance, while it is the onus of the courts to simultaneously ensure a level playing field.

Currently pegged at Rs. 1000 – crore, the Indian bottled water industry is projected to grow @ 40% to touch Rs. 5000 – crore by 2010. The ingoing fight over establishing and protecting the identity of the premium bottled water segment is mainly to create an entry into foreign markets and thus define a global presence. e.g. exploiting the US market which is touted to touch US$ 50 billion.

PatentInc.* Viewpoint:
Any registered TradeMark is designed with an aspect to provide the basis, thrust, and most importantly, to impart a unique identity to a commodity (product/service). Infringement of any registered TradeMark is substantiated when it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the purported infringer has/is caused/causing confusion about the identity of the product, which ought to be protected by the registered TradeMark. Also, an infringement hints at the strength of the registered TradeMark in the market vis-à-vis its identification of the product and seemingly entices potential copiers to piggy-back on an already paved way of the ‘recognised’ commodity. An efficient judicial system enabled by strong laws and defined precedents need to be in place to thwart such ‘piggy-backing’ attempts.

A further objection could be raised wherein, the very identity of the product is threatened i.e. whether a mark/word(s) ought to be the subject matter in the first pace.

Apropos the bottled water industry, visual statistics1 clearly point out the increasing demand in a developing nation like India.


(Visual statistics - 1 - Growth in the bottled water demand in India)


Primarily, for this reason, the cross-tracking attempts and attempts to create well-defined, non-confusing niches within the juxtaposed players of the same market, a non-generic identity mark is of paramount importance.

While it remains clear that ‘Himalaya’ is a generic name and a geographical location (and hence, not a subject matter of a TradeMark registration), it remains to be seen if its derivative factions such as ‘Himalayan’ or the like withstand the turbulence caused in respect of this case, and attract favourable judgement, thereto, thus egging other players to register such TradeMarks, and its plausible complications arising out of methods of distinction of such distinctive marks.

[1 - The structure and economics of the Indian bottled water industry; Chandra Bhushan; FRONTLINE; Volume 23 – Issue 07 :: Apr. 08 – 21, 2006.
*PatentInc. - – a proprietary outfit in the field of Intellectual Property, India.]

harry potter - an ambush for allied work by a tertiary publication

The Plot:

17 years of creative outbursts has propelled J. K. Rowling (author of the Harry Potter novel series fame) to the pinnacle of modern fictional literature. The wizard world of Harry Potter as weaved by J. K. Rowling brought along with it a swarm of ‘new words’ indicative of the various spells, potions, magical devices, and characters. She has seemingly construed and brought into force, an otherwise nullity of characters (rummage of alphabets) to showcase the realms and happenstances of her surreal world.

A prompt disclaimer forms a pre-cursor to her books; the disclaimer reads thus – “no part of this publication may be reproduced, or stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the publisher”.

Enter librarian Steven Vander Ark, a 50 year-old librarian from Michigan, a self-confessed Harry Potter fanatic – the doer promoted and pushed by RDR Books.

What started with a fan-based website (www.hp-lexicon.org), to which the content was provided by the librarian, having comprehensively and continuously researched the books for 8 to 9 years; off which he made $6,500 through advertising between 2000 and 2008, turned into a serious money making business when RDR approached the librarian and struck a deal with him in August 2007 to publish the text of the website and market the same to the public.

This decision stung the nerves of J. K. Rowling who flipped and turned her stance from having praised the web-edition of the Lexicon – even sheepishly admitting that she herself sneaked onto the website whilst writing her book(s), to vehemently arguing against the money-making racket off the print version of the same website and further heading towards mentioning the inaccuracies that this Lexicon reportedly provides.

A first hand look at the website suggests a neat and comprehensive ensemble of the resources referenced and cross-referenced from the plurality of books that comprise the entire Harry Potter series, in that it attempts to archive the various factual derivations from the books.

The Facts:

Verbatim reproductions of statements issued in testimony by:

J. K. Rowling – “..the lexicon is useless because its merely an alphabetical rearrangement of my work, with many inaccuracies to boot....”

Steven Vander Ark - “....Its a reference book to a piece of literature, so naturally it refers back to the source material....There are places where we use phrases that are identical or similar...”

Warner and Rowling’s witness: Bruce Harris, a publishing expert to testify the effect of such a companion guide on future publications.

RDR defense witness: Janet Sorenson, a Berkeley English professor and ‘expert on lexicons’ to historically depict the role of Lexicons.

Steven Vander Ark’s attorney:

David Hammer, a solo practitioner in Manhattan, took lead for RDR. He was supported by Lizbeth Hasse, of San Francisco’s Creative Industry Law Group, as well as Stanford Law School’s Anthony Falzone, a former Bingham McCutcheon litigator and the heir apparent to Lawrence Lessig’s Fair Use Project.

The Proceedings:

J. K. Rowling along with Warner Brothers filed a lawsuit at the New York Federal District Court (Judge: MR. Robert Patterson) against RDR Books seeking an injunction against the hard-copy version of the HP Lexicon website compiled by Steve Vander Ark.

The lawsuit states that, “The infringing book is particularly troubling as it is in direct contravention to Ms. Rowling’s repeatedly stated intention to publish her own companion books to the series” (Intention or no intention, it is interesting to see whether the purpose of copyright holds its own lawful ground and the extent to which it prohibits infringers against use.)

The Copyright Act of 1976 allows incorporation of copyrighted material “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship or research”.

The defense team which includes the Fair Use Project at Stanford University Law School, has replied to the suit arguing:

“In support of her position Ms. Rowling appears to claim a monopoly on the right to publish literary reference guides, and other non-academic research, relating to her own fiction. This is a right no court has ever recognized. It has little to recommend it. If accepted, it would dramatically extend the reach of copyright protection, and eliminate an entire genre of literary supplements: third party reference guides to fiction, which for centuries have helped readers better access, understand and enjoy literary works.”

Fair use is a doctrine in the United Stated Copyright Law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders such as use for scholarship, review or classroom use. The blur between copyright infringement and free use is showcased by the Fair Use Project, whose pillars of support form the basis on non-infringement of a copyright material.

The 4 pillars of Fair Use Policy:-

1) Purpose and character:

One must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new. A key consideration is the extent to which the use is interpreted as transformative, as opposed to merely derivative. Derivative use rights ought to be the copyrighter’s jurisdiction. RDR’s crux pointing towards transformative use takes cue from its admission that the Lexicon is a valuable tool for organizing the vast work of Harry Potter books that are spread over thousands of pages.

2) Nature of the copied work:

Facts and ideas are separate from copyright; only their particular expression or fixation merits such protection. In contrast, a fictional work merits more protection automatically.

3) Amount and Substantiality:

The quantity or percentage of the original copyrighted work that has been imported into the new work ought to be looked at.

4) Effect upon work’s value:

A measure of the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner’s ability to exploit her original work. To check whether such use in general, if widespread, would harm the potential marker of the original. Ms. Rowling contests and negates this by her ardent claims of publishing her own lexicon (in future).

The Justice:

Yet to be decided.

PatentInc.* School of Thought Viewpoint:

This case has assumed preposterous peaks because as Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project at Stanford Law School and one of RDR’s lawyers pointed out that, “This is the first time that anybody has argued seriously that folks do not have the right to do that (compile and print Lexicons)” This obviously marks a milestone, then and a precedent in many future similar lawsuits.

Copyright issues in literature arise when one person’s creative ability is compromised in order to merely ‘lift’ an author’s symposium of words and orchestrate the same to be a ‘derivative faction’ of the author’s work, in that, the perpetrator believes that it is ‘his ingenuity’ that has aroused him to spot a specific pattern which is purportedly unknown in the author’s own work.

As a fan, I would testify that I would never even contemplate buying cursory books, merely because of the plausible incongruities. Had it been a J. K. Rowling authored publication, I would be tempted to lay my hands on it. That is the kind of profound effect a writer subjects his/her readers to and prompts loyalty for/towards. Any trespassing/departure on/from that front is bound to be seen as derogatory/inflammatory/prejudicial to the author’s work.

[* PatentInc. – a proprietary outfit in the field of Intellectual Property, India]