PHOSITA :: an IP Blog!

Dunlap Codding Featured in Oklahoma City’s The Journal Record

Linda Hazelton — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 19:53:49 +0000

The new law offices of Dunlap Codding on Film Row in Oklahoma City were featured in The Journal Record on April 1, 2013, in a story written by Molly M. Fleming, with photos by Brent Fuchs. The article focused on the firm’s rehab of a 1920s warehouse into offices befitting its representation of creative thinkers and innovators. Dunlap Codding is the oldest and largest intellectual property boutique law firm in Oklahoma and serves global and sophisticated clients, helping them to license and protect their creative works and inventions.

The 14,000 square foot space at 609 W. Sheridan Avenue in the Film District maintains and respects the character of the original building while incorporating high tech and whimsical elements. The firm intends to make the space available for use community creative organizations for art shows and programs. The design features a number of open spaces fostering collaboration, including a large lounge/kitchen opening via a glass garage door to a spacious outdoor courtyard. Another feature unique to law firms but in keeping with the Film District is the firm’s specially commissioned neon signage.

Fleming quoted firm director and shareholder Doug Sorocco who said, “We wanted to be in a neighborhood. We wanted to provide a space for folks [clients] to get together and work collaboratively to grow to the next stage of evolution.” Michelle Briggs, an associate with the firm, noted “…[T]here’s a sense of community down here….There’s a sense that we’re all in this together….We’re now in this place that’s reflective of the work we do…Our clients are innovative, creative, entrepreneurial types. I hope that in this space they feel like they’re in their element.”

Lawyers and SXSW—Oil and Water or Cookies and Milk?

Linda Hazelton — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:59:03 +0000

Emily Campbell and Michelle Briggs

Why would a lawyer want to attend SXSW?

You can strike up a conversation with nearly anyone at SXSW—with fellow passengers on a shuttle ride, with the people standing next to you in line, with people at bar on 6th street, or even with a table sitting next to you at a restaurant. We met some really awesome folks in many of those ways at SXSW—musicians, developers, entrepreneurs, and creatives of all kinds. We decided to devote a couple of PHOSITA posts to the questions people asked us the most. Check out our previous post here. This post is devoted to “you’re a lawyer, why are you at SXSW?” Here are three reasons why we decided to make the investment and attend SXSW:

1. Networking. Duh.

2. To gain perspective. Lawyers often look at things from one perspective, their own. Lawyers sleep, eat, and breathe statutes, treatises, and legal briefs. Consuming this much law makes it nearly impossible not to think and speak legalese. SXSW is a metaphorical step outside of that world. SXSW will shift your point of view. You will begin to think like an entrepreneur. You will be inspired to take risks instead of think of every single possible reason why to avoid them. You will begin to think like your clients. Gaining this new perspective is incredibly valuable to your professional development as an attorney.

3. To become inspired. As an intellectual property attorney, your work can feel like a small piece of the jigsaw puzzle of innovation and creativity. SXSW gave us a 10,000 foot view of the whole creative industry. From pitches to sessions to actual product demos on the trade show floor, by the end of the conference we saw a convergence of all the pieces involved in innovation. We left with a renewed sense of how important our role is in innovation and frankly, how bad ass it is to be a part of the creative and innovative revolution.

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Practice What You Preach—Don't Cheat!

Linda Hazelton — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:23:09 +0000

Dunlap Codding senior associate Emily Campbell has prepared an informative presentation on copyright law for educators, including a discussion of “fair use” in the classroom and a report on copyright litigation in the field of education.

Oklahoma Rocks SXSW

Michelle Briggs and Emily Campbell — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 20:46:25 +0000

Working the Oklahoma booth at the SXSW trade show, the most frequently asked question was: "Why is Oklahoma here?" Oklahoma has a presence at the conference to answer that very question. If you don't already know, we want to let you know that Oklahoma is a seriously cool place. Our people are a creative force and guess what? They are energized. There is so much going on and so much more in the works. Need examples? Here are a few:

· Start-up accelerators: Venture Spur & Accelerate Genius

· Makerspaces: Fab Lab & Ohm Space

· DeadCenter Film Festival

· Norman New Music Festival

· Festival of the Arts

· TedxOU

· IgniteOKC

· Creativity Forum

Since 2011, Oklahoma had branded its SXSW presence under the moniker, The Buffalo Lounge. While the branding is delicious from a design perspective, it is the energy and experience that Oklahoma creates via The Buffalo Lounge that has folks mesmerized. For instance, I think we can all agree that tattooing yourself is probably the ultimate bodily expression of devotion. Well, the guy pictured above loved the Buffalo Lounge so much he decided to tattoo the signature ‘Buffalo” on his arm. The best part is that he isn’t even from Oklahoma! He came by our booth to let us know how much he—obviously—loved The Buffalo Lounge experience in 2012.

Aside from a colorful and swag-happy booth at the SXSW Trade Show, The Buffalo Lounge set up shop at The 512 on 6th street to host events that showcase Oklahoma Interactive, Music, and Film. This year, the Oklahoma Interactive party was centered around a 90-second pitch competition, where nine Oklahoma startups had a chance to give their best 90-second pitch in front of 100+ people in hopes of winning a cash prize of up to $5,000. The two runners up, each winning $2,500 were ICEdot and ReTenant, LLC. The grand prize winner taking home much glory, as well as $5,000, was SpectrumFX. The pitch competition was followed by “Rock Karaoke” where party attendees karaoked along side live 90s tribute band, “My So Called Band.” Other Buffalo Lounge events included an Oklahoma Film party and information panel, as well as musical showcases featuring dozens of Oklahoma bands and musical artists.

While we may be biased, the comments we received from SXSW attendees from the world over don’t lie, Oklahoma and its Buffalo Lounge blew away pretty much every other state that was represented at SXSW. Oklahoma at SXSW is unassumingly and genuinely impressive. This is not really surprising, however, because it is an extension of what goes on in our state every.single.day. At The Buffalo Lounge, just as in Oklahoma, you find professionals from all walks of life and industry coming together to collaborate, create, and grow our humble state. Oklahomans don’t operate in silos, we band together to make awesome things happen. We are a best kept secret, and from the looks of it, our secret is getting out.

For information about the Buffalo Lounge please check out the following:

http://thebuffalolounge.com/

http://www.facebook.com/sxswBuffalo

http://www.growinokc.com/index.php?src=news&submenu=NewsforOKCEntrepreneurs&srctype=detail&category=News&refno=207&view=news_detail_basic

Counsel Beware: Standard Clauses Can Cause Problems in Technology License Agreements

Michelle Briggs and Chic Krukiel — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:56:37 +0000

The Licensing Opportunity

The universe of “technology,” embraced within patents, copyrights, trademarks, unpatented technical information, know-how, and trade secrets (collectively, “intellectual property” or “IP”) represents a highly valued and important tradable asset. As such, intellectual property can be used and licensed in a variety of ways in high value propositions which can generate license fees, running royalties, and/or grant-backs to new developments for the licensor and provide the licensee with early (and possibly exclusive) freedom to operate in emerging markets. This article spotlights the licensing opportunity in terms of the challenge and risks that can arise from reliance on “standard” clauses.

A license is permission, in the form of a written contract, granted by an owner of intellectual property (the licensor) to another (the licensee) to use said intellectual property on agreed terms and conditions, for a defined and particular purpose, sometimes in a defined and particular territory, and for an agreed period of time. License agreements are typically structured with certain standard clauses that define the metes and bounds of the relationship and set forth each side’s rights and obligations. It should be understood, however, that every license agreement is unique and, as such, there is really no such thing as a “standard” clause. Terms and definitions which are found in almost all license agreements are: Subject matter (the “technology” to be licensed), treatment of confidential information, grant of rights, royalties, territory, parties, rights to improvements, dispute resolution, and term. Each of these clauses must be mindfully considered and vetted in light of the probability that the parties’ structure, needs, and desires will change over time. Considerations for negotiating and crafting some of these terms and definitions are explored below.

What is the Technology to be Licensed?

Technology, generally speaking, “is the practical use of scientific information.” Merriam-Webster® further defines technology as “the practical application of knowledge, the capability given by the practical application of knowledge, or the manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical process, methods, or knowledge.” The challenge for the drafter of the license agreement, therefore, is to define the technical subject matter in clear terms so there is no opportunity for future misunderstandings as to the scope of the license right being granted. In some instances the technical subject matter of the license agreement may be a single patent or a group of patents. In these cases, the patent(s) can speak for themselves, and there may be no need for further technical definitions. In other cases the grant of rights may include use of certain technical information and know how to be provided by the licensor to the licensee (e.g., engineering drawings, computer software, formulae, process information, etc.). In these cases, the license agreement should specify that the licensor’s obligation relates only to information that is “in documentary or other tangible form.” The objective is to avoid future disputes as to whether the licensor has met its obligation to provide the licensee with the technical information it will need to exercise its full rights under the license.

Something else to keep in mind when defining the technology to be licensed is whether the technology is complete or in a state of development. If the technology falls into the latter category, then it is very important to consider whether to identify who will be responsible and pay for further development of the technology and which party will own the IP rights to the completed technology.

Regardless of whether the technology is complete or in development, it is important to understand where the technology is likely to go and what rights the licensor should retain for ongoing research and development.

Protection of Confidential Information

A license agreement is often accompanied by an exchange of confidential business and technical information that is related to the patent(s) at issue and which may also include valuable trade secrets. Although the parties may have entered into confidentiality agreements prior to negotiations, it is recommended that the license agreement include a specific clause or clauses for protecting confidential information that supersedes the prior agreements. These clauses should include, among other things, licensee procedures for safeguarding the information; they should provide liability in the case of unauthorized disclosure to third parties; and they should identify whether confidentiality continues and for how long after termination of the license agreement.

Grant of Rights – The Parties

The license agreement should clearly identify the parties. A dilemma can emerge from a lack of understanding regarding who is involved in the agreement, and who might become involved in the agreement going forward. The drafter of the agreement needs to confirm, for example, whether the licensee is a specific entity, whether the entity includes subsidiaries (U.S. and Non-U.S.), and whether the agreement may also extend to affiliates. If affiliates are within the scope of the license, the drafter must pay close attention to affiliate definitions. The agreement should also be written to manage potential changes in control by addressing the possibility of a licensee being acquired where the acquiring entity may desire rights under the original license, including rights to extend the license through sub-licensing, e.g., to a competitor.

Scope of License Grant

The language setting forth the “license grant” can vary widely as illustrated by the examples which follow:

Irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive, royalty-bearing license to Licensee with right to sub-license affiliates;
Non-exclusive, royalty-bearing license to Licensee and its subsidiaries with no right to sub-license;
Exclusive royalty-bearing license to Licensee, with right to sub-license affiliates.

Irrespective of whether the license is exclusive, non-exclusive, etc., a best practice is to avoid language that is ambiguous and terms that might have different meanings or be subject to different interpretations in different regions. Where a license covers a package of patent(s), trade secrets, know how and/or trademarks, the drafter should consider royalty payments over a period of time. Where a technology is fairly defined, a lump-sum royalty may be more appropriate.

The grant of rights refers as well to the scope of restrictions on a licensee’s use of the licensed technology. A typical restriction is via a “field of use.” “Field of use” is a term of art referring to restrictions placed on a license granted for the use of a patent(s). These restrictions may limit the use of the patented technology to certain industries or product markets. Consider, for example, a patented pharmaceutical. The drug may be used to treat cancer, and it may also have application as a treatment for gastrointestinal distress. These are two separate “fields of use” for essentially the same “technology,” and rights to operate within each field may be granted to two unrelated licensees. One purpose of a field of use limitation is to allow a licensor to manage exploitation of a patented discovery, e.g., a new drug, and thereby benefit from new market opportunities and/or alliances that may become available to advance the technology in different areas. The consideration exchanged by the parties will largely be determined by the expanse of the field of use.

A restriction related to field of use is the geographic territory for which the license is granted. A license agreement may restrict the geographic territory in which a licensee is free to operate to certain countries, regions, states, or even cities. License agreements may cover multiple territories and can be drafted to provide exclusive license rights in one territory while at the same time providing non-exclusive rights in another. Territorial restrictions should be carefully considered in light of potential export control and/or tax issues.

Rights to Improvements

Improvements to the licensed technology, in the form of updated versions, enhancements, or new models, may arise from efforts of both the licensor and the licensee. It is critically important when preparing the agreement to be aware of the likelihood for improvements and who will have rights to the improvements. Improvements may require, at the least, flexibility in the license agreement to modify royalties and, at the most, an entirely new license agreement. Issues related to improvements arise primarily in engagements involving early stage technology. If improvements in the licensed technology are expected, the parties will want to define: who will pay for and own the improvement; obligations to seek patent or other protection for the improvement; and scope of rights to use the improvement(s). The expectations of the parties need to be addressed in the original license agreement.

Term

The term, or length of the agreement, largely depends on the subject matter of the agreement and the relationship of the parties. Do the parties contemplate an ongoing engagement and exchange of technical information, or is the license agreement a simple grant of rights? Examples of term limit structures include: fixed term, the life of the licensed patent(s), or where technical information and patents are licensed, life of the patent(s) + X years, taking into account the useful life of the technical information.

Final Considerations and Recommendations

Counseling a party in a license agreement negotiation requires forethought as to the present and future state of the technology/patent(s) being licensed, the business objectives, and how the parties and their engagement may evolve over time. Don’t let standard clauses and basic contract terms replace sound judgment and careful consideration.

This article appeared in the March 2013 issue of the International Society of Primerus Law Firms' e-newsletter.

Photo by By Mdd at en.wikipedia [Public domain or Public domain], from Wikimedia Commons

Australia's Patentability Requirements Expanding

Kathryn Hester — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 18:11:36 +0000

The months of February and March 2013 are both exciting and challenging for US patent practitioners, as we are preparing for implementation of the final portion of the America Invents Act (AIA). On March 16, 2013, the US patent system will move from a First-to-Invent patent system to a First-Inventor-to-File patent system.

In addition to all of the AIA changes that are occurring in the US, Australia is also implementing changes to their patent system; these changes will expand the scope of prior art and raise Australia's patentability requirements, ultimately making it harder to obtain a patent in Australia. The new rules will apply to all Australian applications for which a Request for Examination (RFE) has not been filed prior to April 15, 2013. If you have a pending Australian application for which an RFE is due after April 15, 2013, we recommend that you go ahead and file the RFE prior to April 15, 2013, so that you can maintain your application under the old law.

SXSW Amazes!

Michelle Briggs — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 23:37:22 +0000

Check out this impressive infographic by Rocksauce Studios, posted on Alltop.com. SXSW is a force unto itself! We are excited to attend this year and to be proud sponsors of The Buffalo Lounge. Hope to see you there!

Austin Convention Center photo by Chris Saucedo

Important Changes in Patent Law and Fees Go Into Effect in March

Lewis Craft and Ann Robl — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 20:57:55 +0000

America Invents Act (AIA)

If you are currently considering converting provisional patent applications to non-provisional applications or filing continuation-in-part applications, you may want to consider doing so before March 16, 2013.

The U.S. patent system is changing from a First-to-Invent system to a First-Inventor-to-File system. On March 16, 2013, the First-Inventor-to-File provisions of the America Invents Act (“the new system”) will go into effect for all patent applications filed on or after that date. The new system includes an expansion of the scope of what is considered to be prior art, which may make it more difficult to avoid some prior art. For example, under the current law, only sales and public uses which occur in the United States act as prior art. Under the new system, sales and public uses anywhere in the world can act as prior art.

Additionally, the current law allows applicants to antedate prior art (such as publications, public uses, or sales) occurring within one year of the first U.S. filing date. This means applicants can remove prior art by demonstrating that their invention was conceived before the cited reference. The new system limits this one year “grace period” to public disclosures made by the inventor within one year prior to the first “effective filing date” (whether in the U.S. or elsewhere) and provides that such a disclosure prevents any subsequent third-party disclosures of the same subject matter from becoming prior art.

Further, applications filed after March 16, 2013, that claim a priority date before March 16, 2013, may or may not be examined under the new system rules. Final rules have not yet been published by the USPTO; however, the proposed rules provided that if even a single claim in the application is subsequently found to contain “new matter” that was not present in the application filed prior to March 16, 2013, then all the claims of the application will be examined under the new system rules. Any further filings of continuations, divisionals, or continuations-in-part would then also be subject to the new system rules. However, as the final rules will not be published until mid-February at the earliest, there is still uncertainty as to how the USPTO will apply the new law.

USPTO Fee Changes

Another provision of the AIA is that the USPTO has been give fee setting authority. On March 19, 2013, the USPTO is implementing a new fee structure, and the overall cost of a patent through the life of the patent will increase approximately 25%. For a large entity, fees for a patent from filing through third-stage maintenance (with no requests for continued examination) will increase from $12,190 to $15,160. For a small entity, the same fees will increase from $5,945 to $7,580.

One change of note is an increase in the utility patent filing fees from $1,260 to $1,600 for large entities (with small entities retaining a 50% reduction in these amounts). Additionally, the fees for requests for continued examination (RCEs) will increase and vary depending on the number of RCEs previously filed. The current $930 RCE fee will increase to $1,200 for a first RCE and $1,700 for each subsequent RCE (small entities will also continue to receive a 50 % reduction in these amounts).

Another important change is the increase in maintenance fees as shown in the following table:

	Large Entity current fees	Large Entity* new fees
Due at 3.5 years	$1,150	$1,600
Due at 7.5 years	$2,900	$3,600
Due at 11.5 years	$4,810	$7,400

*Small entity fees are typically 50% of the amount charged to large entities

However, a new micro-entity status has been added for which fees are typically half that required for small entities. To qualify for micro-entity status an entity must meet the narrow requirements of 35 U.S.C. 123(a) and (d).

Because of these changes, you may want to consider paying any pending fees before the March 19, 2013, effective date unless you qualify as a micro-entity. For a detailed schedule of the fee changes click on the following link:

http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/AC54_Final_Table_of_Patent_Fee_Changes.pdf

Twitter Photos: No Free For All

Elizabeth Lauderback — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:30:10 +0000

On January 12, 2010, Daniel Morel, a photojournalist, captured the aftermath of a devastating natural disaster, the earthquake in Haiti. Morel then posted his photos to Twitter via TwitPic where another user, Lisandro Seuro, retweeted the images. That same day, Agence France Presse (AFP) scoured the Internet for pictures of Haiti to distribute through its international wire and databank for subscribers to access. AFP distributed a number of Morel’s photos to Getty Images, which then published the photos to its customer-facing website, crediting Seuro. The next day, AFP caught the attribution mistake and sent out correction captions to identify Morel as the photographer, but Morel’s images credited to Suero remained on Getty’s system.

The following day, Getty received a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notice from Corbis, Morel’s worldwide licensing agent. Although Getty removed all photos attributed to Morel, it did not remove the images attributed to Suero until a week or two later when Corbis contacted Getty once again. At this point, both AFP and Getty were well aware of Morel’s copyright claims in his images.

One of Getty’s subscribers, the Washington Post, received from Getty and published on its website some of Morel’s images—three credited to Suero and one credited to Morel. Approximately two months after the Haiti earthquake, Morel’s attorney sent the Post a letter and an email regarding Morels photographs, but the Post denied having a record of either. A few months later, Getty notified a Post employee that the photos were subject to a copyright dispute and should be removed. Around the same time, Morel’s attorney sent the Post another letter but this time directed it to the Post’s legal department. Over a year after Morel’s attorney sent the Post the initial letter regarding Morel’s images, the Post finally removed the images from its website.

In March 2010, AFP filed suit against Morel in New York seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of Morel’s copyrights. Morel counterclaimed and moved for summary judgment alleging that AFP, Getty, and the Post infringed his copyrights and violated the DMCA.

In his infringement claim, Morel accused AFP and Getty of violating his exclusive statutory rights to reproduce, publicly display, and distribute his copyrighted works. AFP argued that by posting his photos on Twitter, Morel had granted it a license. Pointing to Twitter’s Terms of Service (TOS), AFP reasoned that it is a third-party beneficiary of the license between Morel and Twitter. District Judge Alison Nathan disagreed.

Twitter’s TOS state that “by uploading your photos to TwitPic you give TwitPic permission to use or distribute your photos on TwitPic.com or affiliated sites. All images uploaded are copyright © their respective owners.” AFP argued that the following language in Twitter’s TOS established its third-party beneficiary status: “What you say on Twitter may be viewed all around the world instantly. You are what you Tweet!” and “We encourage and permit broad re-uses of Content.” Judge Nathan, however, ruled that under California law, Twitter’s TOS did not establish a third-party beneficiary relationship because there was no evidence of Twitter’s clear intent to grant AFP a license. The Judge stated that “even if some re-uses of content posted on Twitter may be permissible, this does not necessarily require a general license to use [Morel’s images] as AFP has.” The court then held that AFP and the Post were liable for copyright infringement, granting summary judgment on that issue in Morel’s favor but limiting statutory damages to a single award per infringement.

Getty, however, had another defense up its sleeve: a DMCA safe harbor provision designed to protect service providers from infringement claims that arise “by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider.” 17 U.S.C. 512 § (c)(1). To benefit from any of the DMCA safe harbors, the party seeking protection must be a service provider. Additionally, the particular DMCA safe harbor at issue requires that the service provider (1) lack knowledge of the infringing material or quickly remove it upon receiving knowledge of its infringing nature and (2) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity.

Judge Nathan denied Getty’s motion for summary judgment claiming DMCA protection and found that material issues of facts existed regarding whether Getty is a service provider under the DMCA, its intent in licensing the photos, and whether it received a financial benefit from doing so. Judge Nathan also denied summary judgment on Morel’s DMCA and willful infringement claims against all defendants. These outstanding issues are reserved for trial where $1.2 million in damages are at stake if defendants are found to have acted willfully.

This is one of the first cases to address commercial use of images that users make available to the public via social media. This case arguably stands for the proposition that sharing pictures on social media platforms does not destroy your copyright protections in those pictures. But really it all comes down to the TOS of the platform upon which you share your works. For example, Instragram recently received a huge backlash from its users after many of them interpreted changes to Instragram’s TOS as granting Instragram rights to sell images without user permission. Until the courts rule differently, news organizations and other media outlets should be wary about using images posted on social media platforms and should pay special attention to the TOS of each. The parties in this case must have incurred huge electronic discovery costs since so much of the evidence was based in emails and other electronic communications and transmissions. So, think before you use someone else’s TwitPic.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Launches Roundtable Events for a Partnership to Enhance the Quality of Software-Related Patents

Angel Gerdzhikov — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 20:59:01 +0000

On January 4, 2013, the US Patent and Trademark office announced some interesting news in the infamous area of software patents. Everyone has heard about software patents, and most people seem to have a strong opinion about them one way or the other. Love them or hate them, it looks as if software patents are here to stay.

The Patent and Trademark office has announced a new partnership initiative with the software community aimed at enhancing the quality of software-related patents. The Software Partnership, as it is aptly named, will provide an opportunity for bringing together stakeholders (the software community and members of the public) through a series of roundtable talks, starting with two already scheduled talks—one in Silicon Valley and one in New York City. The goal of these talks is offer a forum for an informal and interactive discussion to share ideas, feedback, experiences, and insights on software-related patents.

This is a great idea that has a lot of potential to help the Office in creating sensible patent protection for software-related inventions, while ensuring that all stakeholders’ concerns are heard and addressed in a public forum. The Office has set three clear goals for the roundtable talks. Those three goals are explained in detail in the announcement on the Federal Register, and include:

Establishing Clear Boundaries for Claims That Use Functional Language—ensure that claims have clear boundaries, so the public can understand what exactly is protected by the claim and the patent examiner can identify and apply the most pertinent prior art. There are several specific questions relating to this goal, for which the Office is seeking written comments, including means-plus-function clauses, sufficient structural support for functional limitations, claim definiteness, and linking structure to function.
Future Discussion Topics for the Software Partnership—public input as to how this partnership can be enhanced and operated to achieve its stated goals during future Software Partnership events.
Oral Presentations on Preparation of Patent Applications—comments from the public on whether certain practices could or should be used during the preparation of an application to place the application in the best possible condition for examination and whether the use of these practices would assist the public in determining the scope of the claims as well as the meaning of the claim terms in the specification.

Overall this has the potential to be a very productive partnership. Hopefully this potential will materialize once the reception from the software industry and the feedback from the public becomes available after the first two talks are held. For more information on the Software Partnership, see the original notice in the Federal Register.

Photo credit: kenteegardin / Foter / CC BY-SA