I have used the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system on a limited basis over the few weeks since the rollout of Public PAIR. I haven’t noticed a patent file yet that includes the File Access Log. The Log is a sheet in the file history on which people making copies of the file history document their access to the file. I usually check this log when I review paper file histories to satisfy my curioisty and to get a sense of the interest level (if any) in the patent to which the file history pertains. Sometimes the Log bears juicy fruit.

Does anyone know if IFW will include the Log? Any specific patent numbers for which you’ve seen the Log on IFW?

I suppose it might be useless, if included, unless it was somehow kept current. Hmmm…, maybe that’s another possible idea for improvement….

Link: Following up on a previous post, I noticed a letter from a reader of Fast Company magazine commenting on the recent article about the Starbucks plan to reinvent its brand. The article detailed a plan to grow the Starbucks brand beyond coffee and coffehouses into new areas, including digital music. According to the article, Starbucks plans to place digital music stations in some of its coffeehouses, allowing patrons to (legally) create customized CDs that include songs selected by the patron while drinking a Venti Cafe Mocha.

In the letter, the reader highlights an issue that should be one of the biggest concerns of anyone thinking of taking a succesful brand into new territory: What effect will the proposed plan have on the existing status of the brand? As for the Starbucks plan, the reader thinks its a bad move, noting that many customers

“go to Starbucks to enjoy great coffee in a quiet place where …[they] can relax with friendly people and great service. The last thing …[they] want is to fight through a crowd and listen to loud music.”

A quiet place? CD-burning stations might not fit in with this image, unless of course headphones are included (which I think would be a necessity). The reader concludes “These distractions from what made …[Starbucks] great are a “grande” mistake.” Ouch! I think its a foregone conclusion that the new-and-improved Starbucks brand won’t be viewed by the reader as favorably as the trusty old brand.

What’s a brand owner to do? Don’t sacrifice brand-building opportunities to maintain the vision that others have for your brand. But, when the “others” are your customers, you must listen. Tread carefully. Listen to your brand lovers (ask for their input!) and grow the brand cautiously. You won’t eliminate all grumbling about the change, but you will likely minimize it.

Perhaps Starbucks could target certain coffeehouses for the change, leaving others alone, based on patron profile. Starbucks locations on or near college campuses are probably a safe bet for the CD-burning stations, while those next to professional office buildings may well be left alone.

I’ve been using the new USPTO Electronic Patent Assignment System (EPAS) since its launch earlier this year. I praised the system in an earlier post, and believe that EPAS is a wonderful addition to USPTO’s arsenal of electronic tools.

I have noted two minor problems, though. First, as you go through the steps for uploading a file for recordal, the system never asks for a docket number. It does ask you for one when you enter your deposit account number for payment, but this entry is used for your deposit account statement (I think — I’ve never verified this) and does not appear anywhere on the confirmation of receipt that USPTO sends after the document is uploaded. Of course, there are tricks you can play to circumvent this problem — I name my documents in a manner that includes the matter number. The uploaded documents are listed on the submission form, and therefore an adequate record is created. When an update is made to EPAS, I suggest the USPTO add a field for docket number information, and that the supplied information be used in the confirmation of receipt and Notice of Recordal forms.

Also, I have to wonder, why does the USPTO send the Notice of Recordal by fax? After submitting your documents electronically, the USPTO sends a confirmation of receipt by e-mail. Perfect. Then, usually on the next day, the Office sends the Notice by fax. Bizarre. Not a problem, but it seems to be a bandage on an otherwise complete electronic system. The suggestion (no suprise here) — create the Notice in .pdf format and e-mail it.

Link: The current issue of Wired Magazine has a quick read that lists several patents owned by churches. The subject matter of some of the patents are clearly related to the business of churching, while the connection in others is not so clear.

I was at Kinko’s this week, and grabbed a brochure entitled “Copyrights & Trademarks.” Apprently, Kinko’s “want[s] you to be aware of the legal issues involved when copying trademarked, copyrighted and restricted materials.”

According to the brochure, Kinko’s “requires that customers receive written permission from the…owner before reproducing any…material.” How do you get permission? Kinko’s will help…the brochure includes a “Copyright/Trademark Permission Request Form.” Basically, a person who wants to make copies provides all of their personal information, and indicates the number of copies desired and the intended use and distribution of the copies. Give the completed form to a Kinko’s associate, and they will give you a complimentary fax to the copyright/trademark owner. No copies allowed until the form is sent back.

I didn’t think to do this while I was at the store, but I think I’ll ask a few Kinko’s associates how often they have received completed forms (and given the complimentary fax).

Link: The “Anything Under the Sun Made by Man” blog has an interesting post on an experience with electronic filing. I’ve often wondered how many people are using the electronic filing system. We are not, yet. As a way to take an informal poll, leave a comment of whether you are or are not using electronic filing. If you prefer, send me an e-mail and I will anonymize the comment and post it myself.

Link: Judge Posner was quite prolific in his first day as guest blogger at lessig blog. In this post, he briefly explains the fair use doctrine in copyright law.

Link (subscription required): Today’s Wall Street Journal includes a story (paper page B1) on business method patents and the need for reform in the patent system. The article discusses a recent patent assigned to Washington Mutual as an example of the ridiculous nature of business method patents (the patent actually claims a system, not a method). It also mentions Amazon’s one-click ordering patent.

The article goes beyond the usual call for reform in the patent system, stating that something else is needed. The article states that “Companies need to rethink the conventional wisdom of arming themselves with as many patents as possible, for use as a competitive weapon.”

Claim 1 of the patent is interesting and worth reading. It requires, among other things, a product focal that substantially fills a portion of a wall and includes a fixture to provide brochures to a customer. This is in addition to the one or more check writing ledges positioned near the teller podiums.

Link: Judge Richard Posner is this week’s guest blogger on lessig blog. I’m betting this is going to be fascinating….

Link: The PDF for Lawyers blog has reported on the incompatibility of Microsoft’s digital ink technology in Tablet PC’s with Adobe Acrobat and the .pdf file format (commenting on a post from Phil Windley in Windley’s Enterprise Computing Weblog).

I’ve been working with a Tablet PC for over two months now, and use the tablet features in a variety of situations (in fact, I’m writing this post in my own handwriting.) Overall, I love the form factor and am finding new uses for the tablet in the practice of law all the time. Considering the rapid growth of the .pdf file format in the legal community, extension of digital ink functionality to Acrobat should be at the top of Microsoft’s (and Adobe’s) must-include list for future versions.

If Microsoft and/or Adobe engineers need an example of strong pen functionality in a non-Microsoft software title, they should check MindManager X5 Pro from Mindjet.