Archive for March, 2009
Posted by Dan on
March 31, 2009
Sony filed last week for a trademark registration on the mark “PS Cloud”. Here’s the beef:
Serial Number: 77697735 Assignment Information Trademark Document Retrieval
Registration Number: (NOT AVAILABLE)
Mark
(words only): PS CLOUD
Standard Character claim: Yes
Current Status: Newly filed application, not yet assigned to an examining attorney.
Date of Status: 2009-03-30
Filing Date: 2009-03-24
Transformed into a National Application: No
Registration Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)
Register: Principal
Law Office Assigned: (NOT AVAILABLE)
If you are the applicant or applicant’s attorney and have questions about this file, please contact the Trademark Assistance Center at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov
Current Location: 042 -New Application Processing
Date In Location: 2009-03-30
LAST APPLICANT(S)/OWNER(S) OF RECORD
1. Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment
DBA/AKA/TA/Formerly: TA Sony Computer Entertainment Inc.
Address:
Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment
2-6-21, Minami-aoyama, Minato-ku
Tokyo 107-0062
Japan
Legal Entity Type: Corporation
State or Country of Incorporation: Japan
GOODS AND/OR SERVICES
International Class: 009
Class Status: Active
CLOUD COMPUTING DATA CENTER MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE; COMMUNICATIONS SOFTWARE FOR CONNECTING INTERNET RADIO; COMMUNICATIONS SOFTWARE FOR CONNECTING INTERNET RADIO FOR HAND-HELD GAMES WITH LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAYS; COMPUTER GAME PROGRAMS; COMPUTERS; CONSUMER VIDEO GAME CONSOLES FOR USE WITH AN EXTERNAL DISPLAY SCREEN OR MONITOR; DOWNLOADABLE ELECTRONIC PUBLICATION IN THE NATURE OF MAGAZINES, BOOKS AND NEWSPAPERS IN THE FIELD OF MUSIC, VIDEO AND VIDEO GAME; DOWNLOADABLE IMAGE FILES VIA THE INTERNET; DOWNLOADABLE MUSIC FILES VIA THE INTERNET; ELECTRONIC CIRCUITS AND CD-ROMS, ALL ENCODED AUTOMATIC PLAYING PROGRAMS FOR ELECTRONIC MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS; GAME PROGRAMS FOR HAND-HELD GAMES WITH LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAYS; GAME PROGRAMS FOR MOBILE PHONE; GAME PROGRAMS FOR CONSUMER VIDEO GAME MACHINES; HAND-HELD DIGITAL AUDIO PLAYERS; METRONOMES; PERSONAL DIGITAL ASSISTANTS; PHONOGRAPH RECORDS FEATURING MUSIC; PRE-RECORDED VIDEO DISCS AND VIDEO TAPES FEATURING MUSIC, COMEDY, DRAMA, ACTION, ADVENTURE OR ANIMATION
Basis: 1(b)
First Use Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)
First Use in Commerce Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)
International Class: 038
Class Status: Active
AUTOMATIC TRANSFER OF DIGITAL DATA BY TELECOMMUNICATIONS; BROADCASTING SERVICES AND PROVISION OF TELECOMMUNICATION ACCESS TO AUDIO CONTENT PROVIDED VIA AN ON-DEMAND SERVICE VIA THE INTERNET; BROADCASTING SERVICES AND PROVISION OF TELECOMMUNICATION ACCESS TO AUDIO CONTENT PROVIDED VIA THE INTERNET; BROADCASTING SERVICES AND PROVISION OF TELECOMMUNICATION ACCESS TO TELEVISION PROGRAMS PROVIDED VIA AN ON-DEMAND SERVICE; BROADCASTING SERVICES AND PROVISION OF TELECOMMUNICATION ACCESS TO VIDEO AND AUDIO CONTENT PROVIDED VIA A VIDEO-ON-DEMAND SERVICE; BROADCASTING SERVICES AND PROVISION OF TELECOMMUNICATION ACCESS TO VIDEO AND AUDIO CONTENT PROVIDED VIA AN ON-DEMAND SERVICE VIA THE INTERNET; CABLE TELEVISION BROADCASTING; COMMUNICATION BY COMPUTER TERMINALS; COMMUNICATION BY MOBILE TELEPHONE; COMMUNICATION BY TELEPHONE; COMMUNICATION SERVICE BY MEANS OF COMPUTER TERMINALS, VIDEO GAME CONSOLES OR HAND-HELD GAMES WITH LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAYS; ELECTRONIC MAIL SERVICES; IMAGE AND MESSAGE TRANSMISSION BY MEANS OF COMPUTERS; INTERNET RADIO-BROADCASTING SERVICES; PROVIDING INFORMATION ABOUT BROADCAST TELEVISION PROGRAMS, CABLE TELEVISION PROGRAMS AND RADIO PROGRAMS; PROVIDING TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONNECTIONS TO A GLOBAL COMPUTER NETWORK; PROVISION OF ACCESS TO THE INTERNET; RADIO BROADCASTING; RENTAL OF TELECOMMUNICATION DEVICES AND EQUIPMENT CONNECTABLE TO THE COMMUNICATION NETWORKS; TELEVISION BROADCASTING; TELEVISION BROADCASTING INFORMATION; CABLE TELEVISION BROADCASTING INFORMATION; RADIO BROADCASTING INFORMATION
Basis: 1(b)
First Use Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)
First Use in Commerce Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)
International Class: 041
Class Status: Active
ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, NAMELY, PROVIDING AN ON-LINE VIDEO GAME THAT USERS MAY ACCESS THROUGH THE INTERNET; ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, NAMELY, STREAMING OF AUDIO SIGNALS FEATURING MUSIC VIA THE INTERNET; PRODUCTION OF INTERNET RADIO PROGRAMS; PRODUCTION OF RADIO PROGRAMS; PROVIDING DISPLAY OF ON-LINE MEDIA, NAMELY, LITERARY, PICTORIAL, MUSICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL WORKS AND EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS IN THE FIELDS OF MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, HUMANITIES, SOCIAL SCIENCES, BUSINESS AND EDUCATION VIA A GLOBAL COMPUTER NETWORK; PROVIDING A COMPUTER GAME THAT MAY BE ACCESSED NETWORK-WIDE BY NETWORK USERS; PROVIDING ELECTRONIC PUBLICATIONS IN THE FIELD OF MUSIC; PROVIDING INFORMATION ABOUT RENTAL OF ELECTRONIC MAGAZINES AND BOOKS; PROVIDING ON-LINE, NON-DOWNLOADABLE, ELECTRONIC DICTIONARY, BOOKS AND MAGAZINES VIA AN ELECTRONIC MAIL; PROVIDING OTHER ELECTRONIC PUBLICATION, NOT DOWNLOADABLE; RENTAL OF AMUSEMENT MACHINES AND APPARATUS; RENTAL OF ELECTRONIC MAGAZINES AND BOOKS; RENTAL OF GAME MACHINES AND APPARATUS; RENTAL OF MEMORY MEDIUM RECORDED GAME PROGRAMS FOR VIDEO GAME MACHINES AND ELECTRONIC GAME MACHINES WITH LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY; RENTAL OF PHONOGRAPHIC RECORDS AND PRE-RECORDED MAGNETIC TAPES FEATURING MUSIC; RENTAL OF PRE-RECORDED MAGNETIC TAPES FEATURING MUSIC, COMEDY, DRAMA, ACTION, ADVENTURE OR ANIMATION; RENTAL OF TOYS
Basis: 1(b)
First Use Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)
First Use in Commerce Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)
International Class: 042
Class Status: Active
COMPUTER SERVICES, NAMELY, APPLICATION SERVICE PROVIDER SERVICES TO THIRD PARTIES FEATURING REMOTE HOSTING OF OPERATING SYSTEMS AND COMPUTER APPLICATIONS; COMPUTER SERVICES, NAMELY, PROVIDING VIRTUAL AND CLOUD COMPUTING ENVIRONMENTS ACCESSIBLE VIA THE INTERNET AND ORGANIZATIONAL NETWORKS FOR THE PURPOSE OF REMOTE MANAGEMENT IN THE NATURE OF CREATING AND OPERATING ON-LINE COMPUTER APPLICATIONS; CALCULATING BY COMPUTER; CONVERSION OF DATA OR DOCUMENTS FROM PHYSICAL TO ELECTRONIC MEDIA; DATA CONVERSION OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS AND DATA (NOT PHYSICAL CONVERSION); DESIGNING COMPUTER NETWORKS; DESIGNING PROGRAMS FOR VIDEO GAME MACHINES WITH TELEVISION FOR PERSONAL USE; DEVELOPING COMPUTER SYSTEMS; DEVELOPING SOFTWARE FOR VIDEO GAME MACHINES; ENCRYPTION OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON A COMPUTER; ENCRYPTION OF COMPUTER DATA IN RELATION TO ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION; ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING A WEB PAGE IN INTERNET COMMUNICATION; HOURLY RENTAL AND LEASING OF COMPUTERS VIA ON-LINE NETWORK; MAKING, PROCESSING, AND EDITING COMPUTER PROGRAMS; PLANNING, PRODUCING, AND MAINTAINING COMPUTER SYSTEM PROGRAMS FOR DATA SECURITY AVAILABLE ON A COMPUTER; ONLINE VERIFICATION AND ATTESTATION OF USERS IN RELATION TO ELECTRONIC COMMERCE; ESTABLISHING AND MANAGING INTERNET WEB SITES; ONLINE VERIFICATION OF ELECTRONIC MAIL AND/OR WEB PAGE USERS IN RELATION TO ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION; PRIVATE AUTHENTICATION SERVICES THROUGH INTERNET COMMUNICATION; PROVIDING INFORMATION ABOUT COMPUTER PROGRAMS AND COMPUTERS; RENTAL AND LEASING OF MAGNETIC TAPES ENCODED WITH PROGRAMS FOR COMPUTER FOR COMPUTER SYSTEM SECURITY; RENTAL OF MEMORY OF SERVERS FOR WEB PAGES; RENTAL AND LEASING OF COMPUTERS AND COMPUTER PROGRAMS
Basis: 1(b)
First Use Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)
First Use in Commerce Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
(NOT AVAILABLE)
MADRID PROTOCOL INFORMATION
(NOT AVAILABLE)
PROSECUTION HISTORY
NOTE: To view any document referenced below, click on the link to “Trademark Document Retrieval” shown near the top of this page.
2009-03-27 – New Application Office Supplied Data Entered In Tram
2009-03-27 – New Application Entered In Tram
ATTORNEY/CORRESPONDENT INFORMATION
Attorney of Record
GEORGE W. LEWIS
Correspondent
GEORGE W. LEWIS
JACOBSON HOLMAN PLLC
400 7TH ST NW STE 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2218
Phone Number: 202-638-6666
Fax Number: 202-393-5350
Domestic Representative
GEORGE W. LEWIS
Phone Number: 202-638-6666
Fax Number: 202-393-5350
Oh man, does this sound like OnLive or what?
Popularity: unranked [?]
Posted by Gwyddia on
March 31, 2009
They can be taught. Apparently learning something from the Spore and Mass Effect DRM debacles, Electronic Arts, publisher of The Sims franchise, announced this week that they will be returning to serial code-only copy protection for their upcoming triple-A PC title, The Sims 3.
EA’s decision comes at a time where draconian DRM schemes come under great suspicion. Many industry sources have suggested that the company cut deeply into their own profits by including strict SecureROM limitations on the PC version of Spore. It is widely believed that, as a result of the DRM on that title, Spore became the most quickly (and perhaps massively) illegally downloaded game in history. At the same time Valve and Stardock are making money hand over fist with their DRM-free models.
While not quite a mea culpa, EA’s official statement goes a long way toward assuaging potential players’ fears about any unwanted DRM on their shiny new Sims game. Here’s hoping the sales of the Sims 3 are strong enough to persuade EA continue to see the light.
Popularity: unranked [?]
Posted by Liz Surette on
March 25, 2009
Everyone thought they had it figured out. But to the surprise of some, Gov. Jon Huntsman has vetoed Jack Thompson’s Truth in Advertising Act amendments. Rumor has it that the legislature will try to override the veto, but that remains to be seen.
Popularity: unranked [?]
Posted by Dan on
March 18, 2009
Under Development Law has a review on legal issues that developers of iPhone applications should be aware of. While some of them are seemingly common sense, such as “any music used in your game needs to be licensed to you or owned by you,” some of them are a little more sneaky, such as “Under the SDK Agreement developers are required to comply with “all applicable privacy and data collection laws”.
And of course there’s the obligatory “stay away from viral open source code” issue, though Groklaw has a quote from Professor Eben Moglen of the Free Software Foundation that seems to say otherwise:
Suppose a company really did mingle GPL code into a program with their own proprietary code and then distributed the merged product under a proprietary license or without living up to the terms of the GPL? Now what happens? What will the judge do now? Order the code released under the GPL over the wishes of the owner? ….Here is Professor Moglen’s explanation of what happens:
“Because the GPL does not require any promises in return from licensees, it does not need contract enforcement in order to work. A GPL licensor doesn’t say in the event of trouble “But, judge, the licensee promised me he wouldn’t do what he’s doing now.” The licensor plaintiff says ‘Judge, the defendant is redistributing my copyrighted work without permission.’ The defendant can then either agree that he has no permission, in which case he loses, or assert that his permission is the GPL, in which case he must show that he is obeying its terms. A defendant cannot simultaneously assert that the GPL is valid permission for his distribution and also assert that it is not a valid copyright license, which is why defendants do not ‘challenge’ the GPL.
“The claim that a GPL violation could lead to the forcing open of proprietary code that has wrongfully included GPL’d components is simply wrong. There is no provision in the Copyright Act to require distribution of infringing work on altered terms. What copyright plaintiffs are entitled to, under the Act, are damages, injunctions to prevent infringing distribution, and–where appropriate–attorneys’ fees. A defendant found to have wrongfully included GPL’d code in its own proprietary work can be mulcted in damages for the distribution that has already occurred, and prevented from distributing its product further. That’s a sufficient disincentive to make wrongful use of GPL’d program code. And it is all that the Copyright Act permits.”
So, mingle your licenses, and you may have to pay damages, or lose distribution rights in the App Store, but you’re probably not going to lose your code.
One thing that wasn’t mentioned directly was trademark infringement for services. For instance, in my work with Wikimedia, I’ve probably reviewed dozens of requests to create an App Store program using the Wikipedia name. Some of them were already in advanced stages of development. Inevitably, the majority of these were declined. How much would it suck for you to work for weeks or months on a program, then be slapped in the face with damages and an injunction because you forgot to get trademark permissions before hand?
This is a growing problem with independent developers, who typically lack any sort of legal department to handle these things. Secure your licenses BEFORE developing! If you didn’t create it, if you reference something, LICENSE IT. Better to find out early in the development process than at the end of a painful development cycle, especially if you have investors.
Popularity: 6% [?]
Posted by Liz Surette on
March 17, 2009
With all the recent discussion about Sony voluntarily pulling ads for Killzone 2 that were near schools in Toronto, questions have been raised about where American law stands on advertisements near schools–despite the lack of government action (or even the applicability of the United States Constitution) in this scenario. Read the rest of this entry »
Popularity: 14% [?]
Posted by Dan on
March 16, 2009
Gamepolitics reports via Knowledge Ecology Notes that the ESA’s VP of IP Policy, Stevan Mitchell, has been cleared for access to the ACTA negotiations. ACTA, or Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, is a multinational treaty-in-progress that has been developed in secret since mid-2007. It covers a fairly broad scope, but it has been confirmed to include regulation on “internet distribution and information technology.” ACTA has been opposed by the Free Software Foundation and the EFF, while groups calling for greater disclosure in the agreement’s language include the Consumers Union, IP Justice, Public Knowledge, National Consumer Council, and Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders).
There’s obviously a danger here, in that the ESA is a representative of video game publishers, whose interests involving copyright, counterfeiting and DRM are often detrimental to those of the consumers who purchase their products. Any of you following my twitter feed have surely noticed that restrictive DRM has caused me to be entirely unable to play Empire: Total War for two weeks, with no fix in sight. Unfortunately, if language from the DMCA is included in ACTA, we can look forward to a significantly more frustrating user experience in the future and a fundamentally muddled legal landscape surrounding copy-protection and anti-circumvention measures. It’s difficult enough to determine appropriate law in the U.S., it’s even worse when international law is implicated.
Except, we’ve got no clue what is on the menu for ACTA, because the discussions are still being held in secret. But we do know now that there is very little consumer representation on the “cleared access” list, compared to heavy IP industry presences from Time Warner, Cisco, ESA, RIAA, MPAA, IP Owners Association, IBM, Intel, and others. This simply can’t be good.
A FOIA request for information about ACTA was denied for national security reasons. However, Wikileaks managed to get a copy of a discussion paper about the proposed agreement. This is not the first time an information request was denied; according the Vancouver Sun, the University of Ottawa’s Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic filed the Canadian version of a FOIA request, but received only a document stating the title of the agreement, with everything else blacked out.
Ironically, today is the Freedom of Information Day Celebration, with festivities being hosted at American University, Washington College of Law. Speakers include Sen. Patrick Leahy, investigative journalists Michael Isikoff and Scott Armstrong, representatives from the National Archives and Records Administration, the EFF, the ABA, and the Collaboration on Government Secrecy. ACTA does not appear on the symposium’s schedule.
Popularity: unranked [?]
Posted by Liz Surette on
March 13, 2009
Due to the amendment of HB 353 in the Utah Senate, it was sent back down to the House of Representatives for a new vote. After little fanfare, the House concurred with the Senate’s amendments. The bill is complete, and must now be signed into law by Utah Governor Huntsman. Not knowing much about him, it is difficult to predict whether he will veto or not. Time will tell.
Popularity: 3% [?]
Posted by Liz Surette on
March 13, 2009
After more debate and yet another shameful playing of the kid-shoots-cop-after-playing-GTA card, Jack Thompson’s Utah bill that would allow a civil cause of action against retailers who sell M-rated games to minors contrary to their advertising policies was passed 25 to 4. However, because the bill was amended, it will be sent back to the House for further proceedings. Read the rest of this entry »
Popularity: unranked [?]
Posted by Liz Surette on
March 12, 2009
The Utah Senate has just passed an amendment to HB 353, adding the words “by presenting false age identification” to the supposed safe harbor provision of the bill that protects a retailer from liability when a purchaser misrepresents their age to the retailer.
Concern was expressed that this amendment creates a de facto requirement that retailers card for purchase of M-rated games, and a worry that treble damages would result from a breach. However, Senator Dayton denied that treble damages would be imposed.
As I write this, new amendments will be argued and the bill’s fate overall will be voted on later tonight. Stay close.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Posted by Dan on
March 6, 2009
As Game Politics has reported, today was a banner day for the game industry gaining notice in state and local legislatures. Mike and Jerry (or more commonly known as Gabe and Tycho) from Penny Arcade received honors from thw Washington State Senate commending them for the Penny Arcade Expo:
WHEREAS, Jerry Holkins and Mike Krahulik recently celebrated the comic’s 10th anniversary;
and WHEREAS, In 2004, Jerry Holkins and Mike Krahulik launched the first annual Penny
Arcade Expo, a gaming festival… and WHEREAS, The Penny Arcade Expo attracts thousands of tourists from around the globe to visit the city of Seattle…
(continued, .PDF link)
In addition, the City of San Diego has named March 10th to be Sony Online Entertainment Day, for 10 years running Everquest. (Sony forum post)
Congratulations to all involved on their achievements.
Once place, however, where the game industry was not so well received was in Philly, where GamePolitics covered the latest video game violence hearings via Twitter. From the looks of it, it didn’t go so well, and there were some misconceptions. Similarly, in Britain, hearings about implementing the Byron report were apparently well received.
On the judicial side of things, the Supreme Court has requested the Solicitor General’s advisory opinion in the case of American Needle v. New Orleans Saints. SCOTUSblog has an excellent summary of the case:
The case raises a core question of antitrust law: what kind of joint ventures, perhaps including pro sports leagues, are immune to the Sherman Act because they may qualify as “single entities”? To American Needle, it is all about whether it is going to be allowed to compete with Reebok International, Ltd.., to sell league-sanctioned sports apparel, like hats.
The NFL used to license American Needle to sell hats that bore the logos, the names or other insignia of pro football teams. That was when NFL Properties was allowing various companies the right to produce goods bearing their trademarked imagery. It was all part of an effort to build up the public exposure of pro football as an event on which the public would spend its entertainment dollars.
But, in 2000, the NFL opted to solicit bids for an exclusive license to produce caps and other headwear. Reebok won the bidding, and in 2001 got an exclusive ten-year license. American Needle’s license was not renewed. So it sued the NFL, all of its teams, NFL Properties, and Reebok.
American Needle’s case was thrown out by lower courts. Most of the discussion there focused on the Sherman Act’s Section 1. It outlaws “every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy” that seeks to restraint commercial activity among the states. If an entity sued is considered a single operation, though, there is no one to “combine” or “conspire” with but itself, so the Sherman Act does not apply, as a general rule.
The Seventh Circuit Court, in rejecting American Needle’s Sherman Act claims last August, focused upon a premise that clearly led to its conclusion: that is, the NFL and its 32 teams are just one entity, at least for purposes of licensing their protected images for sale on consumer goods for fans.
“Certainly,” the Circuit Court said, “the NFL teams can function only as one source of economic power when collectively producing NFL football. Asserting that a single football team could produce a football game is less of a legal argument than it is a Zen riddle. Who wins when a football team plays itself?”
Selling identifying goods to build itself up in the entertainment market, the Circuit Court found, is part of selling its single product: pro football games. It concluded: “The NFL teams are best described as a single source of economic power when promoting NFL football through licensing the teams’ intellectual property, and we thus cannot say that the District Court was wrong to so conclude.”
The case, from a sports perspective of law, may turn on what the Supreme Court meant in the 1957 decision in Radovitch v. NFL. There, as American Needle notes in its petition to the Supreme Court, the Justices ruled that the NFL is subject to antitrust liability for violations of Sherman Act Section 1. The Court declined to extend to pro football and other sports leagues the antitrust immunity that major league baseball alone has had since an idiosyncratic 1922 Supreme Court ruling.
But, for businesses beyond big-time sports, American Needle’s case may be seen as more important for what it might lead the Court to say about the present meaning of a 1984 ruling, in Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp. There, the Court ruled that a parent corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary can be treated as a single entity for antitrust purposes.
Lower courts have extended this approach to other arrangements, including affiliated companies involved in joint ventures. American Needle argued that it is time for the Supreme Court to get involved again, at least as to pro sports. It argues that the Seventh Circuit ruling not only conflicts with the Radovitch decision, but with rulings in six other federal Circuit Courts.
“The Court has stated, on more than one occasion,” American Needle asserted, “that application of the Sherman Act to professional sports teams is wholly consistent with Congressional inent.” The Seventh Circuit, it added, “stands alone” in concluding otherwise.
There’s no deadline as to when the Solicitor General will be expected to respond, and it’s more than likely that given the recent nomination of Harvard Law School’s Dean Elena Kagan to the seat, that more pressing issues (such as the indefinite detention of military prisoners, something Kagan has supported and been especially criticized for) will take precedence over this antitrust case; I wouldn’t expect to hear back from the SG’s office this term.
Popularity: unranked [?]
