* * * CITIZEN POKE MAGAZINE * * *
w w w . c p o k e . c o m
Thursday, March 6
Hormel Foods Corp. v. Jim Henson Productions
For last year’s release of the film, Muppet Treasure
Island, Jim Henson Productions added some news additions to
the Muppet arsenal. Among them was Spa’am, the high priest
of a tribe of wild boars that comes to worship Miss Piggy
as it’s queen.
Funny, Right? Not to Hormell the makers of the SPAM who
decided to sue. Hormel also expressed concern that even
comic association with an unclean "grotesque" boar will
call into question the purity and high quality of its meat
product. But the district court found no evidence that
Spa’am was unhygienic.
Are we talking about the same SPAM here?
Key was the testimony of Anne Devereaux Jordan, an expert
in children’s literature, who found Spa’am to be a positive
figure in the context of the movie as a whole — even if he
is not "classically handsome."
The case is still under appeal.
Read Citizen Poke, the Net’s Favorite Comedy ‘Zine.
Updated Daily.
http://www.cpoke.com
Questions? Comments? Criticism? Email p…@unix.amherst.edu
* * * CITIZEN POKE MAGAZINE * * *
w w w . c p o k e . c o m
Thursday, March 6
Hormel Foods Corp. v. Jim Henson Productions
For last year’s release of the film, Muppet Treasure
Island, Jim Henson Productions added some news additions to
the Muppet arsenal. Among them was Spa’am, the high priest
of a tribe of wild boars that comes to worship Miss Piggy
as it’s queen.
Funny, Right? Not to Hormell the makers of the SPAM who
decided to sue. Hormel also expressed concern that even
comic association with an unclean "grotesque" boar will
call into question the purity and high quality of its meat
product. But the district court found no evidence that
Spa’am was unhygienic.
Are we talking about the same SPAM here?
Key was the testimony of Anne Devereaux Jordan, an expert
in children’s literature, who found Spa’am to be a positive
figure in the context of the movie as a whole — even if he
is not "classically handsome."
The case is still under appeal.
Read Citizen Poke, the Net’s Favorite Comedy ‘Zine.
Updated Daily.
http://www.cpoke.com
Questions? Comments? Criticism? Email p…@unix.amherst.edu
Hi Raj,
I was at first as outraged as you when I read about this. However,
upon cogitating this, I have changed my mind. As an independent inventor
who works in a damp basement, I take a dim view of people who utilize
tax funded facilities for private profit. This is theft, pure and simple.
Therefore, what you have here is a rare instance of thieves publicly fighting
among thieves. Taborsky deserves to go to jail. The University
administrators, who fomented this policy of wholesale theft, should be
thrown into the nearest alligator pond.
University patenting is a hair brained idea guaranteed to alienate
(further), the now evil academic institutions from the rest of us. The original
goal of an academic institution was to conserve and create knowledge.
If they want to patent research, let them fund themselves, not use tax
money. Otherwise, this rightfully belongs in the public domain for everyone to
use as they see fit.
University patents are a wasteful, Quixotic effort to wring
blood from a stone. The overwhelming majority are garbage patents,
which cost much tax money to fund. What is worse, sleaze-bag
"entrepreneurs" are paying small fees to licence this garbage, and ,
by so doing, are getting free use of the "prestigious" name
brand of MIT, Stanford, Harvard, etc.,etc.. This name brand is all some
entrepreneurs want, and often is used to swindle investors of their
money. In the end, we are mortgaging the prestige of the
scientific endeavor itself.
As an aside, here is how a university licence strategy works. A
University is not able to commercialize an invention. The only item
they will have to sell is a patent. Therefore, this puts a weight on
getting the patent. It does not matter if the patent will hold, as
the licensee will have to worry about that. University licence
agreement often have a clause that holds the licensing institution
harmless should the patents be shoddy.
This plethora of government funded shoddy patents in infecting
the current system. Legitimate business have to file more interferences
against these. An interference is a boon for the lawyers, and
drastically balloons costs. In the end, bean-counters who run legitimate,
profit oriented companies rightly conclude that research is that much
less worth doing. This is the essence of Terrence Kealey’s book,
referred to in earlier posts, on the economics of Scientific discovery.
Public funding of science drives out more than it’s share of private
research. The whole affair becomes a garden party of wine and cheese
intellectuals.
Regards,
Marc Andelman
In article <3322C993.1…@ultranet.com> Marc Andelman <drgon…@ultranet.com> writes:
> University patenting is a hair brained idea guaranteed to alienate
>(further), the now evil academic institutions from the rest of us.
This is a good post, Marc. I do a lot of work collaborating with university
people, and the most painful part always is dealing with their IP people.
A university’s first position is always "We own everything, even if you
pay for it, but we’ll gladly license it to you." They’ll generally
yield to hard bargaining, but sometimes they won’t, and they’ll let a project
die even though the principals and the money are all in place.
Chances are that, like a lot of get-rich-quick fads, this one won’t die out
until a few years have passed, and the auditors start getting numbers on
whether the IP staff are a net money sink or source.
Bill
"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes.
Then when you criticize him, you’re a mile away and you’ve
got his shoes." (A. Landers)
********************************************************
Bill Penrose, President, Custom Sensor Solutions, Inc.
526 West Franklin Avenue, Naperville, IL 60540
630-548-3548, fax: 630-369-9618
email wpenr…@interaccess.com
********************************************************
Applications of gas sensors: Contract R&D, product
development, and consultation.
********************************************************
Well said!
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Marc Andelman <drgon…@ultranet.com> wrote:
>Hi Raj,
> I was at first as outraged as you when I read about this. However,
>upon cogitating this, I have changed my mind. As an independent inventor
>who works in a damp basement, I take a dim view of people who utilize
>tax funded facilities for private profit. This is theft, pure and simple.
>Therefore, what you have here is a rare instance of thieves publicly fighting
>among thieves. Taborsky deserves to go to jail. The University
>administrators, who fomented this policy of wholesale theft, should be
>thrown into the nearest alligator pond.
> University patenting is a hair brained idea guaranteed to alienate
>(further), the now evil academic institutions from the rest of us. The original
>goal of an academic institution was to conserve and create knowledge.
>If they want to patent research, let them fund themselves, not use tax
>money. Otherwise, this rightfully belongs in the public domain for everyone to
>use as they see fit.
> University patents are a wasteful, Quixotic effort to wring
>blood from a stone. The overwhelming majority are garbage patents,
>which cost much tax money to fund. What is worse, sleaze-bag
>"entrepreneurs" are paying small fees to licence this garbage, and ,
>by so doing, are getting free use of the "prestigious" name
>brand of MIT, Stanford, Harvard, etc.,etc.. This name brand is all some
>entrepreneurs want, and often is used to swindle investors of their
>money. In the end, we are mortgaging the prestige of the
>scientific endeavor itself.
> As an aside, here is how a university licence strategy works. A
>University is not able to commercialize an invention. The only item
>they will have to sell is a patent. Therefore, this puts a weight on
>getting the patent. It does not matter if the patent will hold, as
>the licensee will have to worry about that. University licence
>agreement often have a clause that holds the licensing institution
>harmless should the patents be shoddy.
> This plethora of government funded shoddy patents in infecting
>the current system. Legitimate business have to file more interferences
>against these. An interference is a boon for the lawyers, and
>drastically balloons costs. In the end, bean-counters who run legitimate,
>profit oriented companies rightly conclude that research is that much
>less worth doing. This is the essence of Terrence Kealey’s book,
>referred to in earlier posts, on the economics of Scientific discovery.
>Public funding of science drives out more than it’s share of private
>research. The whole affair becomes a garden party of wine and cheese
>intellectuals.
>Regards,
>Marc Andelman
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
On Sun, 9 Mar 1997, Marc Andelman wrote:
> Hi Raj,
> I was at first as outraged as you when I read about this. However,
> upon cogitating this, I have changed my mind. As an independent inventor
> who works in a damp basement, I take a dim view of people who utilize
> tax funded facilities for private profit. This is theft, pure and simple.
> Therefore, what you have here is a rare instance of thieves publicly fighting
> among thieves. Taborsky deserves to go to jail. The University
> administrators, who fomented this policy of wholesale theft, should be
> thrown into the nearest alligator pond.
> University patenting is a hair brained idea guaranteed to alienate
> (further), the now evil academic institutions from the rest of us. The original
> goal of an academic institution was to conserve and create knowledge.
> If they want to patent research, let them fund themselves, not use tax
> money. Otherwise, this rightfully belongs in the public domain for everyone to
> use as they see fit.
> University patents are a wasteful, Quixotic effort to wring
> blood from a stone. The overwhelming majority are garbage patents,
> which cost much tax money to fund. What is worse, sleaze-bag
> "entrepreneurs" are paying small fees to licence this garbage, and ,
> by so doing, are getting free use of the "prestigious" name
> brand of MIT, Stanford, Harvard, etc.,etc.. This name brand is all some
> entrepreneurs want, and often is used to swindle investors of their
> money. In the end, we are mortgaging the prestige of the
> scientific endeavor itself.
> As an aside, here is how a university licence strategy works. A
> University is not able to commercialize an invention. The only item
> they will have to sell is a patent. Therefore, this puts a weight on
> getting the patent. It does not matter if the patent will hold, as
> the licensee will have to worry about that. University licence
> agreement often have a clause that holds the licensing institution
> harmless should the patents be shoddy.
> This plethora of government funded shoddy patents in infecting
> the current system. Legitimate business have to file more interferences
> against these. An interference is a boon for the lawyers, and
> drastically balloons costs. In the end, bean-counters who run legitimate,
> profit oriented companies rightly conclude that research is that much
> less worth doing. This is the essence of Terrence Kealey’s book,
> referred to in earlier posts, on the economics of Scientific discovery.
> Public funding of science drives out more than it’s share of private
> research. The whole affair becomes a garden party of wine and cheese
> intellectuals.
> Regards,
> Marc Andelman
Marc has a point here, folks. Universities, particularly the large
prestigeous research univerisities, have become "corporatized" in the last
decade and a half and I think its not a good thing.
Art Sowers
>On Sun, 9 Mar 1997, Marc Andelman wrote:
…stuff deleted…
>> As an aside, here is how a university licence strategy works. A
>> University is not able to commercialize an invention. The only item
>> they will have to sell is a patent. Therefore, this puts a weight on
>> getting the patent. It does not matter if the patent will hold, as
>> the licensee will have to worry about that. University licence
>> agreement often have a clause that holds the licensing institution
>> harmless should the patents be shoddy.
To add to the above…the university will also likely **not pay to submit a
patent application**, therefore they need to find potential licensees who
will. This is probably best supplied by the researcher(s) themselves, since
they know who the likely interested parties are. In the event that a
researcher would like to have the patent for themselves, I think there is a
clause whereby the university has "first right of refusal", then they give it
to the researcher(s) to pursue themselves (i.e., getting a patent).
>Marc has a point here, folks. Universities, particularly the large
>prestigeous research univerisities, have become "corporatized" in the last
>decade and a half and I think its not a good thing.
>Art Sowers
Yes, that’s hard to grapple with, especially since they take a hefty slice
(indirect costs) off the top (i.e., 40-70% of grant) and then take it all off
the bottom too (i.e., own the patents too).
-Regards, Peter
In article <MURIANAP.759.0038C…@foodsci.purdue.edu> MURIA…@foodsci.purdue.edu (Pete Muriana) writes:
>To add to the above…the university will also likely **not pay to submit a
>patent application**, therefore they need to find potential licensees who
>will. This is probably best supplied by the researcher(s) themselves, since
>they know who the likely interested parties are. In the event that a
>researcher would like to have the patent for themselves, I think there is a
>clause whereby the university has "first right of refusal", then they give it
>to the researcher(s) to pursue themselves (i.e., getting a patent).
I wouldn’t depend on this advice. Every school has a separate policy. Some
schools have a fund to pay for patent processing. After all, all they have to
do is jack up tuition again to cover the cost.
"First right of refusal" is a liberal policy. My guess is that it is not
very common. If the university declines to patent something and the inventor
decides to pursue it anyway, the university can still come back later and
claim ownership. It is crucial that the inventor get a signed waiver from the
university and have it vetted by his *own* legal counsel.
Legal hassles over intellectual rights are especially pernicious because they
often start out with casual agreements or no agreements at all, because they
are all brothers in the scientific community, doing basic research. Then the
possibility of real money appears, and people begin to protect themselves,
sometimes legally, sometimes illegally, like copying notebooks, etc. As the
money gets bigger, the stakes get bigger and people and institutions get
greedier.
The moral is, get the legalities out of the way first. My own policy is,
before beginning a collaboration on any research that may lead to something
valuable, even while writing the initial proposal, I make an agreement with
my collaborators where all the terms are written down and equitable. It is
a trivial investment that pays off big later on in terms of legal fees and
lost relationships.
Bill
********************************************************
Bill Penrose, President, Custom Sensor Solutions, Inc.
526 West Franklin Avenue, Naperville, IL 60540
630-548-3548, fax: 630-369-9618
email wpenr…@interaccess.com
********************************************************
Applications of gas sensors: Contract R&D, product
development, and consultation.
********************************************************