fw-tcyla.com

This was a product announcement, yet Microsoft resorted to its legal department for quotations??? (Novell, of course, offered up a “senior product marketing manager.” It has yet to become a licensing company, and is still focused on thriving as a software company.)

Monty O’Kelley, technical director of legal and corporate affairs at Microsoft
Brent Phillips, senior product manager for intellectual property and licensing at Microsoft

commentary

There was some distressing news buried in Sean Michael Kerner’s look into Novell’s and Microsoft’s virtualization partnership. The news, however, had nothing to do with virtualization, and everything to do with Microsoft job titles.

Every big company has a healthy-sized legal department. Microsoft? Well, if it’s passing out job titles like this, I’m guessing it has run out of titles like “product marketing manager” and “developer” and is instead doing weird mash-ups between its engineering teams and legal.

The two Microsoft employees quoted have bizarro job titles:

When you have someone whose job it is to come up with “intellectual property and licensing products,” you’ve lost your way. Most software companies focus on selling (gasp!) software. Not, apparently, Microsoft.

2. What standard should govern in determining whether a process is patent-eligible subject matter under section 101?

3. Whether the claimed subject matter is not patent-eligible because it constitutes an abstract idea or mental process; when does a claim that contains both mental and physical steps create patent-eligible subject matter?

Maybe you are of a sufficient vintage to remember the game show Let’s Make a Deal. But have you ever thought about the similarities between that show and the U.S. patent system?

When the USPTO rejects a patent application, the applicant can appeal that decision to the Federal Circuit, which is what happened in In re: Comiskey. That case focused on a patent application for a method of mediation and a corresponding piece of software for conducting the same. In upholding the USPTO’s rejection of some of the claims of the patent application, the court held that an otherwise abstract idea is valid only if it “(1) [is] tied to a machine; or (2) creates or involves a composition of matter or manufacture.” That is, unless your business method satisfies one of those two criteria, the deal is off.

Even more recently, the Federal Circuit issued an order that reveals that those judges would like to revisit the patentability of business methods as a whole, not just software patents. In In re: Bilski (PDF), the Federal Circuit decided that it wanted the “en banc” court (that is, all of the active judges on that court as opposed to the normal panel of only three judges that hear most cases) to consider the following questions:

The Federal Circuit’s last question suggests that it may be looking to overrule, narrow, or just clarify its holding in the State Street Bank case. In other words, the Federal Circuit could be trying to rein in business method patents, perhaps by more concretely defining if and when business methods are patentable. Argument in the Bilski case is scheduled for May–we’ll keep you posted as it develops.

In the game show, contestants would have to pay a price (a wallet containing $500) to see what was behind door No. 3 (maybe a live goat; maybe a brand new faux wood-paneled station wagon). Similarly, in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the government pays a price (allowing a unique brand of monopoly) to see what is in envelope No. 3 (your invention). The analogy may seem far-fetched, but the basic premise is the same: that is, paying a price to see what is otherwise concealed. And even in the realm of patent law, sometimes the government ends up with…a goat.

5. Whether it is appropriate to reconsider State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), and AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999), in this case and, if so, whether those cases should be overruled in any respect?

Fortunately, unlike the game show, there are several ways the USPTO can get out of the deal even after the envelope is opened and the invention disclosed. To be worthy of a patent, the invention must be new, useful, and non-obvious. While the “new” and “non-obvious” requirements normally get most of the attention, the USPTO and the U.S. Court of Appeals for patent cases (the Federal Circuit) have taken a somewhat surprising approach in the past couple of months to back out of deals with potential patentees–rejecting patent applications on the basis of usefulness. In other words, the Federal Circuit has been deciding that certain classes of inventions just aren’t patentable.

1. Whether (Bilski’s) patent application claims patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101?

What is really creating a buzz in the patent world is that the USPTO and the Federal Circuit have recently addressed an almost decade-old class of patents that has developed a reputation as the runt of the litter as far as patents go–business method patents. Love them or hate them, the Federal Circuit’s 1998 decision in the State Street Bank case has been widely interpreted to allow for the patenting of new and novel business methods. Since that case, the USPTO has been inundated with business method patent applications and, more specifically, software applications. The question is, will this trend continue?

4. Whether a method or process must result in a physical transformation of an article or be tied to a machine to be patent-eligible subject matter under section 101?

Could an initial public offering be on the way for the highly ambitious Glam Media? The Valley-based advertising and media company has hired a new chief financial officer, Stephen E. Recht, who was the CFO of photo-printing site Shutterfly when it went public in 2006.

That could mean a few things: on one hand, an initial public offering, but on the other hand, Glam could have recruited him simply because it needs to make more money. With an advertising recession looming and talk of dot-com doom spreading all over the Web, Glam could just be getting down to business. For obvious reasons, a financial crisis isn’t the greatest time to go public; Glam is also rumored to have gone through a round of layoffs earlier this fall.

Depending on whom you talked to, that buyout offer was either a fake rumor started internally to drum up Glam’s market value or a savvy pre-IPO move. And that’s the bipolar perception of Glam in both the tech and advertising sectors: some think it’s the future of the industry, whereas skeptics see it as a big, drawn-out case of pride before a fall.

Recht replaces Ernie Cicogna, a co-founder of Glam. Cicogna will remain with the company as executive vice president of Glam Partners and general manager of the Glam Publisher Network.

“(Glam) has perfected a unique media business model and established itself as the leader in vertical content networks online,” Recht said in a release. “I’m looking forward to the opportunity to contribute to the company’s continued upward trajectory.”

But now it looks as if there’s one ex-Shutterfly executive who’s betting on the former.

That said, Glam (and its colorful CEO, Samir Arora) is known for its audacity. The company first made its name as an ad network on fashion and celebrity gossip sites, before branching out into everything from eco-living to African-American lifestyle to the luxury market. It’s raised an astonishing amount of venture capital, has stocked its executive ranks with veterans of both print publishing and Silicon Valley, and was at the center of a rumored billion-dollar buyout offer.

Licensing agreement. (Click for a larger image.)

The service, called the Self-Serve Ad Service and still in beta, lets anyone capable of filling out a basic Web form promote a band or business on MySpace.com.

Choosing an ad template> (Click for a larger image.)

Getting started with a new ad. (Click for a larger image.)

Next, you set your budget–that is, the amount of money you’re willing to spend on the overall ad campaign (minimum: $25), and how much you’re willing to spend per click (minimum: 25 cents). After reviewing the details of your ad campaign and giving up your credit card number, you’re up and running.

(Via Social Times)

Users can choose to either upload their own ad or create one using MySpace’s system. After selecting from a few dozen templates and uploading an image to place in the ad, users get to select their target audience: gender, age, region, city/state, and interests. For instance, you could target your ad to women ages 27-52 who live in Rancho Cucamonga, Calif., and who love the book Brave New World.

MySpace looks to be kicking off a new do-it-yourself service for creating and placing ads on its site.

This is what MySpace's new Self-Serve Ad Service looks like. (Click for a larger image.)

Presumably, people who fit the profile you set will get served your ad and directed to any Web site specified by you during the process. Click-through rates on ads served to 27-52 year olds who live in Rancho Cucamonga, Calif., and who love the book Brave New World were not available at the time of publish.

“I would rather have Digg sold to Google than to Microsoft,” wrote one user who goes by the name neil1492. “Although it’s odd how Google is buying up almost everything on the Internet. What gives?”

Google has been in talks to bring Digg into the Google News group, but it could be a few weeks before the deal closes, if it closes, according to the report.

Usually a “no comment” or the like is the response to questions about rumored acquisition negotiations. However, that was not the case in March–when the Digg takeover rumor mill was in full swing.

By becoming a member of the Google family, they instantly get put on the mainstream fast-track. Google also gets a property that can compete with Yahoo Buzz. The biggest problem current Digg users may have is the flood of new users to the service. Digg is not overly welcoming so it would be interesting to see how that progresses.

Social-news site Digg.com, a perpetual target of acquisition rumors, is in “final negotiations” to sell itself to Google for $200 million, according to a TechCrunch report Tuesday that cited multiple sources.

Rumors back in March that the social news site might be purchased by Google, Microsoft, or a major media company had whipped a sizable number of Digg users into a panic. Digg CEO Jay Adelson, perhaps in an effort to assuage those fears of having a corporate owner, posted a blog that month that seemed to go a little above and beyond the call to deny the rumors.

In contrast, the silence this time around is a bit curious. Digg users, meanwhile, have been more vocal with their opinions. In addition to how much compensation founder Kevin Rose and others in the Diggnation would receive was bandied about, some Digg users expressed relief that Google appears to be beating out Microsoft in this race.

Representatives for Google and Digg did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

“Normally our policy is to not comment about things like this,” Adelson wrote in March, “but this morning’s rumors about a bidding war involving Google and Microsoft have created such a stir we feel compelled to tell you all directly that they are completely inaccurate.” He continued: “Sorry to burst any drama theories, but they aren’t true. We remain focused on improving Digg and rolling out great features.”

Will the rumor prove true this time around? Stay tuned.

Meanwhile, the Regular Geek blog welcomed the prospect of a takeover, arguing that it would give Digg some of the Google cachet: