Blog
Home » Blog »
August 30, 2009 at 9:32am
The things that happened around the web this week – maybe you already read about them, maybe you need to again.
I also realized that many of you might have no idea what you're seeing below. Sorry. These are "tweets", 140 maximum character messages sent via Twitter. Within the Twitterverse individual users follow others and have followers (think of it like overlapping Venn diagram circles). To read a tweet, you have to wade through a bit of jargon used to make the most of the 140 character limitation. "RT" for example, is shorthand for "Re-tweet" and the @____ is the username of some other individual on Twitter. Combined together, then, "RT @_____" means that someone else wrote a tweet that I found important and I now want to forward along to my followers. The URL's are then also shortened by shortening services like bit.ly to make the most of the character limitation, too. Lastly, you might see "hash" identifiers "#______" which are ways to tag tweets of a particular flavor for easy searching later.
August 28, 2009 at 9:32am
I've loved Lego since I was a little kid. I haven't really counted, but I'm guessing I still have (in large crates in my garage) somewhere around 300+ Lego sets of varying size. There's something about allowing your creativity to roam that really interests me. And as a company, the Lego Group has also been of keen interest from an intellectual property perspective ever since they started becoming sticklers about calling Lego blocks "Lego Bricks and Toys". But I think they've crossed the line recently with a "rejection" preventing the mock-rock group Spinal Tap from including a Lego-brick-based stop-motion video on their latest DVD.
I use the word rejection in quotes in the prior sentence because I don't think that the Lego Group had any rights on which to make their claim. Per the article, Lego Group claimed copyright over the figures themselves (known in Lego parlance as a "minifig") whereas Spinal Tap's IP lawyer clearly states that they weren't intending to show the Lego Group's logo or use the word Lego anywhere in the DVD. Copyright protects written and visual works embodied in a tangible medium of expression. So I'm trying to figure out how the Lego Group thinks that they have a copyright over the minifigs themselves. I just don't see it. Even from a search at the US Copyright Office, what I see are a slew of Lego registrations over the various books, stories, videogames and logos. I also see one deemed a "sculpture", which I can only assume is a large version of one of the Lego minifig. But then the copyright would only cover that sculpture itself – not necessarily every little conceivable permutation of Lego minifig made possible by the myriad tops, bottoms, heads, hair and accessories available.
But even assuming that Lego holds a copyright in the general design of a Lego minifig, would the use for this DVD not qualify as fair use? I'm not sure it would – it's parody, but not of Lego… it's for profit… it "takes" the entire work. OK. Fair use is out. (Which blows Spinal Tap's attorney's idea away, too.)
So if the minifig IS registered, yet is distributed 4 billion times (per their company profile)… without any kind of licensing document attached to it… by a company that zealously protects its intellectual property rights… leads me to believe that even the Lego Group knows that they're on shaky ground. [Interestingly enough, their company profile also tells the story about the company receiving a patent for their "Lego System" in 1958 - which would have long since expired. In the US, usually (but not always), intellectual property is protected by only one type of protection. You don't get to gain a copyright after your patents run out. Either it's a tangible, useful good... or it's a work of art.]
All in all, I think Spinal Tap gave up WAAAAAAYYYY too early on this one. What's next? Do…
Read more
August 26, 2009 at 9:32am
Justin Fogarty from Supply Excellence e-mailed last week and asked me (and some others as well) about what we thought would be the biggest supply chain risks in a recovery. He was kind enough to think that my response on "Instant Amnesia" warranted a guest post on Supply Excellence. Thanks to Justin for the opportunity!
-----
Read more
August 25, 2009 at 9:32am
A few months ago, I wrote that you can't contract trust – that if you don't trust someone, the contract isn't necessarily going to help. D.C. Toedt picked up the baton and discussed how parties can help build trust between two parties (presumably who do not have an existing history). I really liked his points on the prenuptual provisions folks could employ and I was struck specifically on his followup point that merely proffering a balanced document to start contract negotiations could set a positive stage. I hadn't really given it too much thought before, but I realized I'm biased based on the first document I receive prior to the start of negotiation.
I'm sure it sounds silly. Heck, it sounds silly to me. Even though I consider myself fairly introspective, I hadn't considered this bias before. I hadn't considered that I prejudged my negotiation adversaries based on a piece of paper. But there it was. I am a balanced-contract bigot.
I do not think well of people who allow unbalanced template contracts to leave their outbox headed in the direction of @licensinghandbook.com. I don't like the language, I don't like taking the extra time spent reviewing such agreements, I don't like re-inserting and re-balancing the same typically imbalanced sections over and over again. So once I am forced to do it, I hold it against the people who sent me such an off-kilter document.
This isn't good.
First of all, it's probably not their fault. Most of the contracts people I meet didn't write their own templates – and those that do, probably have to cede control over the final verbiage to another set of individuals. Second, even if they did write the language, there's a certain amount of zealous advocacy I respect and admire that comes out as one-sided contract provisions. But overall, as a professional negotiator, I believe Herb Cohen got it right when he said that our job is to "care, but not that much."
I also think that I'm biased because even when I don't have complete control over templates used by my myriad employers, I always try to encourage contractual balance … especially in those contract sections where I know balance will eventually occur in each negotiation. (Quite frankly, it's a time waster to have to re-negotiate each of those sections and I'd make those recommendations if for no other reason than to save myself effort.)
So the lack of respect I feel towards people who allow these imbalanced agreements to come my way at least affects my very first impression and initial response. This can come across in any number of emotional behaviors (I can be pissy, stand-offish, brusque, curt, argumentative, etc). Note that none of them are positive emotions. So what do you think the other sides' response is to my behavior? Typically, it's mirroring (and not the positive kind). In the end, my behavior contributes to the…
Read more
August 23, 2009 at 9:32am
The things that happened around the web this week – maybe you already read about them, maybe you need to again:
Page 1 of 3 pages 1 2 3 >
