Internationalized Domain Names are domain names which do not use the English a-z and 0-9 characters previously required by the domain name system. Under the new system for example, a domain name might be entirely in Chinese characters. The aim is to make it easier for those users who do not have English as a language to use the Internet (if you look at the primary language in the home location of most users, there are more Internet users from non-English countries than from English).

Internationalized Domain Names have been around for quite some time though. Software developed in the late 90s and early 2000s enabled translation of Latin characters into other character sets. So while the ability to use different characters in domain names has been available for quite some time, it hasn’t officially been baked into the domain name system (sometimes even the Internet moves slowly!).

Any change to the domain name system brings with it new opportunities for abuse. Hackers have had many years to think of ingenious ways to divert users from their intended destination. One of the most common was to register a domain name in a character set that looked visually similar to English, but being a different character set, would be an entirely different domain and different website. For example, the Cyrillic characters ‘а’, ‘е’, and ‘р’ all look very similar to the Latin ‘a’, ‘e’ and ‘p’. Imagine trying to tell the difference between “paypal.com” and “paypal.com”!  Specific case rules were built into browsers to combat these issues.

Whether this will be a significant issue when international domain names are more widely used remains to be seen.

[Photo credit: hermanusbackpackers']

1. The GPL isn’t magic

Even after twenty years, the GPL still seems to have a certain magical aura and in part that has been the reason for its success. But reality is that the GPL is much more mundane than has been made out. It’s just a private contract between two parties ... or is it?

Perhaps the most interesting and still debated technical point is whether the GPL is a bare "licence" or a "contract", and that’s really a point of interpretation based on the jurisdiction. In summary, if the GPL is enforcing obligations over and above what is governed by copyright, it’s a contract. If it’s just providing a permission to do something, it’s a licence. Breach of a licence would be a copyright infringement issue. Breach of a contract is a contractual issue. So it depends, and in some countries it just doesn’t matter.

2. The GPL needs copyright

Regardless of whether the GPL is a licence or contract, it relies on copyright.

This point is often missed and is fundamental the GPL. If I own copyright in some software, I own the exclusive right to permit reproduction of that software (and in most countries, some sort of distribution right). If I own the exclusive right to permit reproduction, I can dictate the terms on which that reproduction is made. In this case, I make those terms the terms of the GPL.

If we didn’t have copyright, you could just reproduce the software without my consent and without agreeing to my choice of terms. (Obviously I could just keep the code secret as a practical step, but open source isn’t really about confidential information). So copyright, open source and the GPL are actually best friends, not enemies.

3. The GPL isn’t a model document (for something designed to be used globally)

Now I’m not saying it’s a bad document, but if there are any complexities from the GPL, they come from within itself. At least in earlier versions it was very US centric, non-legalistic (when some terms of art were required) and inconsistent. Much of this has been improved in the recent version, but there remains issues in using the one document in different legal systems all around the world (such as what is meant by “distribution”).

None of that means open source is a poor business model or the GPL is ineffective at achieving what it’s designed to achieve. It just means that relying on a strict legal interpretation of the terms is more difficult.

4. The GPL has a strong following of enthusiastic supporters

For me, this is the key point. Ignoring all the legalities and issues, there’s a community understanding of what the GPL “should be”, not necessarily what it is. At very least as a public relations issue, working against that community spirit is a disaster. There are many examples of non-litigious “enforcement” of the GPL through community pressure. And rightly so, after all it’s the community that has often done the heavy lifting in development. As a consequence though, something more often enforced through community pressure than litigation means the legal issues raised are somewhat academic.

Even the current version of the GPL has issues, including issues relating to the global nature of software, inconsistent copyright regimes and difficulties with interpretation. On top of that, unlike many other “business grade” software licences, there is no indemnity – so if something goes wrong, you’ll likely be without coverage. The GPL is a popular licence and will continue to be. It’s just not any more or less complex than other licence agreements.

[Photo credit: jin.thai]

Please do go and make your suggestions at the newly refurbished www.iphalloffame.com.

You can also see the announcement over at the IAM Blog.

1. Would it allow free online content to all?  How would it reward creativity?
2. Would it allow free medicines to all?  How would it reward research and development?
3. Would it eliminate counterfeiting?  How would you know?
4. Would you simply do away with intellectual property altogether? 

The truth is, you can't design the perfect intellectual property system.

No one can.

What you can do is understand how it works, where it can improve, think and plan strategically, act and iterate.

That doesn't mean you should not generate and participate in public debate about how the intellectual property system should evolve.

(And contrary to the views of some recent commentors on this blog, I do believe it needs to continue to evolve to continue creating value.)

[Photo credit: Stuck in Customs]

http://www.abajournal.com/blawgs/blawg100_submit

Don't nominate us, just tell us how we can become more useful for you.  Though we're always delighted about being on these lists, we'd appreciate your feedback much more.

I'll tweet interesting insights from the sessions I attend at www.twitter.com/ipthinktank

Please do come and join in the conversation.

‘Open’ business models do not remove legal risks traditionally associated with closed and proprietary systems.

Microsoft was recently ordered to stop selling Word and other office software due to an XML document formatting option infringing a software patent owned by i4i. Microsoft has been moving away from its proprietary “.doc” format for a number of years now in an effort to introduce a new open XML format. While the move to an open format has had benefits in interoperability and addressing some of Microsoft’s critics (especially anti-competitive and open source), I’d wager the strategy has had some doubters inside Redmond.

Here’s what the judgement means in practical terms.

1. No, a technical workaround by Microsoft would not be difficult
2. Yes, the difficulty of managing the supply chain and replacing all existing physical versions of Word to comply with the current order would be difficult and inconvenient (very)
3. No, this judgement is unlikely to damage Microsoft’s reputation with end customers (most probably don’t really care about the technicalities of XML document formats, or even software patents for that matter)
4. No, this isn’t a great opportunity for Google Apps, OpenOffice, etc, etc (anyone who has actually tried to use those or similar products for serious, document heavy business purposes will know that those products are not at the same stage of maturity as Word and Excel)

I’ve no doubt that the judgment is just one step towards a commercial solution and, in that regard, establishes some useful parameters. The cost to implement a technical fix is most likely insignificant, so it’s unlikely to feature in any calculation. However the cost to manage the supply chain is most likely much more significant. What’s the cost of the alternative? What’s the cost of the appeal? What are the chances of the appeal succeeding (in this case Microsoft have some technical legal issues with the grounds of appeal which limits its opportunity)?

Another important factor is Microsoft’s product revision cycle – the impending release of Word 2010 will almost certainly introduce a non-infringing replacement product. It’s also possible for Microsoft to “patch” existing versions to make them non-infringing. Any settlement therefore needs to take into account the product’s definite and short life span.

Notwithstanding the opportunity for this matter to be settled, it highlights an often overlooked difficulty with open standards. Just because something is open doesn’t mean you can ignore legal risks more traditionally associated with closed and proprietary systems.

• Korea’s new state-run non practicing IP entity;
• IP business models;
• Nortel’s bankruptcy and evolution to patent licensing entity;
• Licensing large portfolios of patents;
• David Kappos’ appointment to the USPTO; and
• The spread of the pirate party in Europe

We hope you enjoy this week’s show, and as always, we look forward to your comments and feedback. 

Marc Adler - http://adlerip.com/

We hope you enjoy this week's show, and as always, we look forward to your comments and feedback.

Links:

People

Bruce Tonkin - http://www.melbourneit.com;  http://www.icann.org

Let me know what you think. 

Don't be fooled by the 140 characters - there is quite a lot to digest in all of this.  (Note for those trying to follow in Twitter - @DuncanBucknell has changed to @IPThinkTank.)

CIP Forum in Sweden is coming up in early September - it promises to be an incredible few days. I'll be presenting on IP Management and tweeting in between times.

DuncanBucknell can we leave the baggage of the industrial economy behind and instead focus on the benefits of IP in the knowledge economy? #IPBC

DuncanBucknell what processes are you putting in place to get the ROI you should demand for your IP investment? #IPBC

DuncanBucknell LESI's 1 day licensing course sounds like a great idea - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell the relationship between Strategy and Process - combine the 6 sigma blackbelt with IP Strategy - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Need to further away from allowing IP to managed by legal & as a cost to by business and as a profit centre - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell HP built a separate IP Strategy grp with diverse skillsets (but not legal) - they report into business and work closely with legal #IPBC

DuncanBucknell B4 IP protected the business, now IP is the business - but who will manage these - IP people or Bus people - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell & choosing those to speak @ RT @thinkfireip: #ipbc meta observatin: speaking at conferences can be part of the communication strategy for ip

DuncanBucknell AST (defensive patent aggregator) type of strategy is not about being a long term player - more about short term freedom to operate #IPBC

thinkfireip #ipbc bill Barrett of liquid logic: you must convey value through a story

DuncanBucknell IP Strategy plays a bigger role in smaller businesses - #IPBC - not sure I agree...

DuncanBucknell Chicken or egg - IP strategy first or business strategy first - #IPBC - has to be iterative - each informing the other

DuncanBucknell how can 'IP bubble' ask for more prominence if can't get this right - RT @thinkfireip: #ipbc 2/3rds of deals have title issues initially

DuncanBucknell Flexibility in deploying different approaches over time and across aspects of your business re IP - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell The term 'strategy' is definitely overused in the context of IP - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell do knowledge based businesses need a portfolio of strategies applicable to each area of business? #IPBC

DuncanBucknell understanding which technologies you need to control to achieve your goals is key skill in knowledge economy #IPBC - applies 2 open innov 2

DuncanBucknell So why buy at all? RT @DuncanBucknell: Defensive patent aggregators will take a license if necess isntead of purchase - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Acacia model - later you leave it in neg & lit the higher price they ask - how doe this relate to damages calculations - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Is it only after being rebuffed that an inventor will go to an NPE such as ACP or Acacia? Don't they also look for IP? #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Freedom to operate analysis - some industries v complicated, sure but simply ignoring the issue is fraught #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Freedom to operate - steering clear sounds like a v bad idea - wilfullness spectre alone is not sufficient - need to do at least some #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Freedom to operate / freedom of action - are large companies not clearing sufficiently? - #IPBC is this a factor in rise of NPE?

JackDTodd Acacia: no one wants to enforce "weak" patents; no one signs up with an aggregator unless there is actual liability. #IPBC

JackDTodd Defensive patent aggregators ought to engage offensive NPEs to pursue the companies (potential clients) who have not signed up. #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Why don't defensive patent aggregators withdrawing these patents to stop maintenance fees? Bc they want to try recover some $ - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Is dis-aggregated R&D together w low willingness of larger companies to license driving NPE phenomenon & impact of open innovation? - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell non practiced patents from entities who are making other products - an interesting corollary to NPE issue - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell RPX - past activities of pat owner is impt part of assessing whether to buy - does this incent NPEs to sue 1st so can sell later - #IPBC?

DuncanBucknell defensive patent aggregators - maybe it's ok to focus on US - NPEs aren't as much of a problem elsewhere - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell defensive patent aggregating companies - are they really thinking about global patent portfolios as well or just US? #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Subscriptn services like RPX and AST - if you subscribe for 1 year do you get all prev licences, and do they continue after that year? #IPBC

DuncanBucknell If RPX sell patents - will protect members with perpetual licence - #IPBC - this won't be an effective assignment in many countries, guys

DuncanBucknell RPX takes patents off the market for benefit of members (don't assert them) - so also benefiting others - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Esp. if around IP reputatn RT @tuyettran: What about discussn of brands & IP that includes how social networking affect reputatn at #IPBC?

JackDTodd IP Practioners have allowed IP to become "commoditized." If a commodity, then it must not be valuable. That is the problem. #IPBC

DuncanBucknell It's a great point that people still seem to talk only about patents and trademarks when discussing IP - v narrow - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Is the new media currently saturated with the point of view that IP is bad? Certainly in online world that must be right. #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Sure - v different models, regulation, etc - RT @DuncanBucknell: Are the IP issues completely different in green tech vs pharma? - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Brand IP working group - a v useful initiative - get in touch with Caroline Kamerbeek at Philips to join - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell How does the IP industry, with its varied interests etc. get better at coordinating on key issues (eg. software patents) - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Distinctiveness - anti IP movement uses emotive messaging - which works - #IPBC

thinkfireip #ipbc kamerbeek "stop the legal talk" be open about deals link to innovators, opportunities created.

thinkfireip RT @DuncanBucknell: Has Rembrandts in the Attic done more damage than anything else to the IP function - CEOs all want a Rembrandt - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Most messages in mainstream media about IP are about fights and litigation - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Microsoft regularly reporting metrics to Seniro Execs on patent quality, quantity, costs (inc. perception of quality externally) - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Fearlessness as a critical requirement for CIPOs - comment on Sunday was build the parapet then stand on it, not just head above it - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Role of lobbying and communications as part of the IP function? - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Pt about call otions is that there isn't on;y one 'event' in IP - value goes up w each event - file, issue, enforce, licence, etc - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Call option approach to valuing IP - sure but only as analogy to make the pt that value is uncertain now and will crystalise later - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell As in many situations, demonstrating IP value is easiest done in hindsight and v hard to do propsectively - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Is internal or external communication more difficult for the IP function? Doesn't this depend on stage / sophstication of the entity? #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Not sure that I agree that you can't over communicate an IP metric you've picked - you have to pick a good one 1st - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Tying IP value to margins - ie what premium do we get bc we have this IP for this product - #IPBC - sounds easy huh? it's not.

DuncanBucknell Keep reassessing and iterating your IP valuation model - this is to prove value to internal stakeholders so they get it - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Creatie your own metrics internally if you need to measure value delivered by IP organisation #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Shouldn't companies be sharing their internal IP valuation models - even within industries to start with? #IPBC

AwakenIP Phelps: IP provides legal scaffolding for creating relationships. If open source & msft (oil & water) could get together, anyone can. #ipbc

DuncanBucknell As you set out to navigate your internal organisation - think about how you can help each of the stakeholders - #IPBC

JackDTodd Microsoft: IP/CIPO must be evangelist for IP and must be able to politic with the business units. Must overcome the internal "No." #IPBC

DuncanBucknell biggest mistake in IP - hiding IP function and hiding IP within organisation - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Critical that you work on gaining trust and credibility within your organisation is just as important as externally - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell it's not so much how IP function is structured but how well you do your job - Ruud Peters #IPBC

JackDTodd Philips: IP team in company must be "connected" or closely aligned/in synch with business units. #IPBC

jmattbuchanan RT @JackDTodd: MUST capture IP internally when it is created or it will be lost and dissipated. CAPTURE, OPTIMIZE, PROTECT/PATENT. #IPBC

AwakenIP Phelps: Having patent licenses with customers and competitors in other countries can help with governmental relationships abroad. #ipbc

DuncanBucknell Depends on context? RT @AwakenIP: Should CIPO come from business, law or technical backgrounds? Split voting results at #ipbc audience.

DuncanBucknell Same for those tryign to implement open innovation RT @DuncanBucknell: Do wanna be CIPOs need to bc students of change management? #IPBC

DuncanBucknell add - don't care about job title - RT @thinkfireip: #ipbc Cipo qualities: communicatn, negotiatn, taking arrows in back, educate, fearless

DuncanBucknell global, explosive, viral - some of the best of open innovation #IPBC and just try to apply old world IP principles to that :)

DuncanBucknell Do you need to be able to protect with patents to do open innovation? #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Imperative for P&G to tap international networks to spread their open innovation efforts - which networks is an interesting qn #IPBC

DuncanBucknell & industry RT @JackDTodd: Session/CIPO: role of CIPO differs based on company (start-up, large company; M&A activity). #IPBC

DuncanBucknell but how to get them to let you speak? RT @thinkfireip: #ipbc being at right meetings to elevate ip function as critical element.

DuncanBucknell Question = how much of this is true open innovatn & how much just collaboration? RT @DuncanBucknell: open innov in pharma Exelixis #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Also attorney's fees if lose, RT @DuncanBucknell: reducing cost of US pat litigati - discovery, court appointd experts? #IPBC

ipdotcom RT @DuncanBucknell Disconnect between IP industry and CEO's understanding of importance IP - a big theme of this conference #IPBC

DuncanBucknell patent litigation cost in the US is a little out of control - Duane Valz (Yahoo) - yeah but what do we do about that? - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell "If you want to get rid of the NPEs, you're burning down the house to get rid of mice" - Ralph Eckardt #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Getting IP on to the balance sheet - sure - but don't we have to agree on some valuation first? #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Ralph Eckardt building a case that enforceability of patents increases R&D spending - (of course), what's next though? #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Incredible that USPTO may be become more application friendly just because they have budget shortage as a result of many abandonments #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Like many, GSK are abandoning many patents & TMs - impressive that they are also bundling some with data for proposed outlicense - #IPBC

DuncanBucknell Damages apportionment - I don't think it is a good idea to have different patent systems for different industry segments - #IPBC US patents

riemannzeta MFM: based on description by panelists, Chinese IP Office may within 10 years become the most important in the world. More efficient. #IPBC

So what’s this all about?

The IIPA recently released a commissioned report (the twelfth in the series) on the performance of US “copyright industries” compared to the US GDP. According to the report, the copyright industries continue to boom, contributing disproportionally to the US GDP and, with continued vigilant fight against copyright infringement, see a rosy future.

It’s a convenient conclusion. And it may be true. But it’s just not possible to tell from the information examined by the report.

The report first groups industries based on whether a significant proportion of the goods they sell would qualify for copyright protection. If most of an industry’s goods would qualify for copyright protection, then it’s part of the “core” (such as movies, music and software). If an industry sells goods which only partly qualify, then it’s part of the non-core copyright industries. Performance of the core and non-core industries is then measured and compared to GDP.

Ars Technica points out some issues with the numbers and comparative growth rates. However, there is a much more fundamental issue before you even get to the numbers.

Inclusion in the core and non-core categories should be based on the extent to which copyright protection actually contributes to or detracts from the business performance. It’s a much harder question, but only then can you start to discuss the contribution copyright regulation makes to the economic performance of a country. For example, there would be significant service related revenues from elements within the core industries which do not rely on copyright. There are also business models which rely on fair use, or are even disadvantaged by copyright, but still within the core. Finally there are also businesses which qualify for copyright protection, but which do not benefit (as significantly as they should) due to the practical difficulties of enforcement. It’s difficult to justify the those elements being counted towards an overall “copyright performance” measurement. Finally, as a measurement, the Gross Domestic Product includes a number of factors which are not directly relevant to copyright including, for example, government spending. It’s therefore not clear exactly what the comparison of “copyright industry” revenue compared to GDP actually means in practical terms – variations in unrelated issues like heath care and defence make the comparison meaningless without a very detailed explanation for cause and effect (which may have been prepared, but wasn’t included).

It will be interesting to see how the report is framed as the global financial crisis has a larger than normal impact on GDP independent of material changes to copyright regulation, enforcement or infringement.

Post by Ben Lehman

(Photo credit: treadrinker)

Particularly worth a read

3 interesting things in this issue were:

(1) A great review of the increasingly important Customs Seizures practices in Europe by Christoph Cordes;

(2) 60 University spin-outs in 3 years, 94% still alive, lowest cost per spin-out in the US - Utah's model for University commercialisation; and

(3) Valuation of software and the importance of confidential information by Dwight Olson.

Most surprising was the concern expressed in one article over the magnitude of the impact in Canada of the Quanta patent exhaustion decision by US Supreme Court.

Find out more at: the Licensing Executives Society International website.

Associated Press v All Headline News Corp., 2009 WL 382690 (SDNY, 17 February 2009)

Ben and Marie-Louise provide an update on the 'Hot News' doctrine and the recent District Court of the Southern District of New York case which considered the application of ‘hot news’ misappropriation in the context of an internet-based news headlines aggregation service.

You can obtain a copy of this article in the Oxford University Press  'Journal of Intellectuap Property Law & Practice' in Volume 4, Number 7, July 2009.

3 interesting things in this issue of IAM Magazine were:
(1) The twice yearly ‘Practice Business Review’ sessions held at Microsoft and their ongoing efforts to quantify the value that the IP function adds;
(2) Despite great strides made by numerous large pharmaceutical companies, Oxfam still finds much to complain about rather than congratulate and collaborate about; and
(3) William Barret’s piece on crazy inventions and their place in allowing innovation (and invention?) to flourish – particularly when contrasted with Craig Opperman’s piece on the ‘Elephant in the Room’ (which basically highlights the elderly chestnut that senior executives should focus on patent quality, not quantity).

Most surprising was the quote: “At present we don’t have a coherent, unified approach to applying antitrust principles to IP-related activities and transactions.” from Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft’s Chief Intellectual Property Officer.  Actually, after the initial surprise, it makes a great deal of sense.  The overlap between IP and Competition law is incredibly complex, particularly when you overlay the many differences that arise across national boundaries.

Find out more at: www.iam-magazine.com 
 

Check out this article by our online specialist, Ben Lehman - "The world's most popular free patent search engines are..."

Ben ranks the top sites in order of popularity and explains how this is derived (we won't spoil the results here.)  He also explains how to measure popularity without looking just at traffic rank and provides practical insights into some of the basics of the world of internet metrics.

As always, please let us know what you think.

I’ve explained some of the metrics we’ve used below.  Note that the numbers above change on a daily basis, so it might be different when you check for yourself.

The top result highlights some of the limitations of the available data.  The statistics for the Google patent search service are actually for the overall Google search engine!  So while the Google patent search service does offer some unique features for free, it’s not as popular as the above table makes out.  And it’s not possible with public data to really compare the Google service with others due to the popularity of its general search engine confusing the results.

Therefore, the most popular free patent search website is FreePatentsOnline, which has also recently added a free chemical search service.  At 1.6 million unique users per month it’s well ahead of the pack. 

But sheer traffic popularity alone shouldn’t be the sole metric by which you measure the popularity of a website.  For a service based website, it’s sometimes more interesting to compare visits per person over the month, which speaks more about the service and type of person accessing the site than raw traffic numbers alone.  For FreePatentsOnline, there are at most 160k users which return to the site more than once a month, a small fraction of its overall traffic.  For sites like PatentLens, all of its users return more than once a month, but it’s still a drop in the ocean compared to FreePatentsOnline overall returning traffic.  Patents.com has 12 times the traffic of PatentLens, but only twice the number of returning users.

It’s difficult to draw any conclusions from that information, particularly given that these services are freely available for anyone to use.  Perhaps the number is more a comment on the consequences of being prominent in Google.  Often being listed high in Google’s search results for generic terms like “patents” will generate significant traffic, but not necessarily traffic that is highly targeted to your particular service.  While other, more targeted links might send only a small trickle of users, but all of them are high users of the service.

Of the government sites, the US sites receives the most attention by far.  Even though it’s scope is narrow, it beats some of the more general free search sites.  Next is the European Patent Office.  Looking at the government sites shows the imprecise nature of the data – there is some significant differences between the Alexa traffic ranking and the Compete.com unique users per month.  There are a number of reasons for these differences, but sometimes it’s the result of advertising increasing the number of users hitting the site, but not actually using the service.

As mentioned above, the data for these sites is changing all the time, as are the services provided by those sites.   It will be interesting to review these services again in 6 months time. 

Please let us know if you have any favourites that should be added to the list.


Notes on the metrics used.

Three popular ways to compare website performance are Google PageRank, Alexa Traffic Rank and Compete.com.  There are many others, but these three are free and commonly used.

Google PageRank is the method used by Google to rank websites on its search engine.  The higher the PageRank (out of a possible score of 10), the more important Google thinks the website is.  While the finer details of the method are known only inside Google (and for good reason), the basic algorithm uses the number of sites linking to a particular site as a measure of its popularity.  The more sites that link, the more important it must be and the higher the PageRank.  When ranking the relevance of search results, Google combines the PageRank value of a website together with the prominence of the particular search term on the page, which determines the order of results.  You can check the PageRank of a website here.

Alexa Traffic Rank is a little different.  Alexa ranks websites based on the overall traffic to that website.  The lower the rank, the more traffic Alexa thinks your website receives.  It’s almost an impossible task to determine the real traffic going to a website, but Alexa makes a reasonable estimate using the log files from many different ISPs and other service providers.  One of the issues/features of using Alexa is that it measures traffic at the domain level, not the page.  So, using Google as an example, Alexa doesn’t distinguish between http://www.google.com and http://www.google.com/patents

Compete.com is similar to Alexa Traffic Rank, but keeps data on subdomains, one of the key reasons for significant difference above. 

And just so you can find them, here are the URLs:

#    Name    URL
1    Google Patent Search    http://www.google.com/patents 
2    Free Patents Online    http://www.freepatentsonline.com
3    EAST (US Govt search)    http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/pssd/
4    European Patent Office (EPO)    http://ep.espacenet.com/
5    Patents.com    http://www.patents.com 
6    IP Australia (AusPat)    http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/auspat/index.htm
7    Delphion simple search    http://www.delphion.com/simple
8    Patent Lens    http://www.patentlens.net/daisy/patentlens/patentlens.html
9    Surf-IP    http://www.surfip.gov.sg/_patent-f.htm
10    Patent Analysis Search System    http://www.patentanalysis.com/

(Post by Ben Lehman)

Firstly, thanks

In our opinion, the biggest news in the IP world this month was the Swedish Pirate Party winning a seat in the  EU parliament.

There were also some big IP wins for some of our clients in the news, but we can’t mention them here, except to say congratulations again.

The best podcast moment was the US, Europe and China discussion with Hal Wegner, Weijiang Si and Jeremy Philips.

In other news we’re delighted to be adding a second outstanding Indian team member to our firm.  We’re looking forward to when she can start.  We’re currently in discussions with potential team members from China and the USA.

Finally, we’ve decided to open up the IP Think Tank’s virtual doors to allow others to publish high quality articles in our articles area.  We have a number of research projects ongoing and will be keen to collaborate when appropriate as well.  Please do let us know if you would like more information about this initiative.
 

(Photo credit: marcelgermain)

• The draft patent enforcement and validity principles released for comment in China;
• David Kappos's nomination to head the USPTO and the likely impact;
• The impact of civil servant appointments in China;
• Comparative advertising in Europe and China; and
• Potential fallout from the digital Britain.

We hope you enjoy this week's show, and as always, we look forward to your comments and feedback.

Stay tuned for an upcoming panel on Bio-similar molecules in the pharmaceutical industry.

Links:

People

Jeremy Phillips - http://www.jeremyphillips.eu;  http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/

Hal Wegner - http://www.foley.com/people/bio.aspx?employeeid=16338

Weijiang Si - http://en.debund.com/website/team-1.html

And, yes, we're opening our virtual doors to publish (or republish) high quality, research based articles from others.  We will collaborate on some of these articles, when appropriate.)  

Here are a few interesting excerpts from the article:

'What can be done to calm the situation and to stop the international “IP war”? The crucial element in this exercise is to understand the concept of “incentives”. Both, business and civil society have an “incentive” to move from a stage of war to a constructive, solution driven approach.'

'So far, IP has been largely looked upon from a legal perspective, which comes as no surprise since current educational systems worldwide only train lawyers in IP.'

'A different perspective on IP, one that looks at it as a strategic asset more than a legal framework gives way to new managerial perspectives on intellectual property.'

'It needs political will, business initiative and the concerted effort of both business and the public sector to foster inclusion and knowledge equity rather than further marginalization and discrimination.'

Please do come and add your thoughts to the debate.

(Photo credit: ~jjjohn~)