Archive | May, 2008

Yankee Doodle Panda?

In anticipation of the Beijing games, I figured it was as good a time as any to address China in regard to the counterfeiting problem. I had recently read Matt Mason’s debut book “The Pirate’s Dilemma” to find my interest in anti-counterfeiting matters stronger and enlightened. I’m not reviewing the book here, but I do recommend all of you read it (see link beside the article).

What I wanted to discuss was his likening of China to the good ol’ United States. I was recently quoted in a newspaper saying that the problem may subside “…once China is advanced enough to understand that intellectual property is the currency of the future.” I may be correct and possibly deemed a prophet.

Mason, hand over fist, makes fair comparisons between the 19th Century US and Modern China in regard to their disregard for others’ intellectual property. Though product counterfeiting was not as prevalent as it is now, our Founding Fathers did ignore many dozens of global patents and counterfeited countless European inventions. Our history of counterfeiting and piracy did not curtail until we ourselves had a financial interest in protecting our own intellectual property. Interestingly, Mason points out that our Euro-nominated nickname Janke (pronounced “Yankee”), was Dutch slang for ‘pirate’.

Maybe I was correct. Maybe China is where the United States was at one time. Maybe they are not. A crime is a crime and proper punishment, discipline, diplomacy are answers. But it dawned on me that understanding our neighbors may be one of the great secrets o’ life.

I’m going to finish my coffee. Thank you.

Rob

Leave a Comment

May 26, 2008 0 Comments Short URL Views

Report from IACC Berlin!!!

Posted by: Mark Schonfeld of Burns & Levinson LLP (mschonfeld@burnslev.com)

The IACC had a very successful meeting in Berlin with about 290 attendees from all over the world. The Conference was held at the beautiful Ritz Carlton Hotel.

The Program Co-Chairs for the meeting were Beate Lalk-Menzel of Daimler and Doris Moeller of APM-Germany. Also conducting and supervising the conference were IACC Chairman Dave Simpson of Nike and IACC President Bob Barchiesi.

On Wednesday, May 14th, we had the following:
• Internet Committee Meeting
• Internet Workshop conducted by:
• Margie Milan; Mark Monitor
• Guido Baumgartner; Coty Prestige, Lancaster Group
• Dawn Buonocore Atlas; Calvin Klein
• Andy Coombs

This was followed by a report of the new IACC President, Bob Barchiesi, which contained an informative background on strategic plans of the IACC. The evening concluded with a cocktail reception at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel.

On Thursday, May 15th, we had the following presentations:
• Keynote address by Wolfgang Starein of WIPO. Mr. Starein gave an informative presentation on the state of IP worldwide.
• “China Update” presented by Joseph Simeone, Baker & McKenzie and Joseph Pattloch, IP Officer of EU Delegation to China.
• Some of the key points of the presentation were:
• Mr. Pattloch: China legislation is TRIPS compliant, but enforcement is weak.
• There is strong growth in domestic attempts for IP protection by Chinese companies. This may lead to greater IP protection.
• Civil enforcement is expensive and takes a long time.
• Criminal prosecution may have reached its peak. The Chinese government is not willing to do much more in criminal prosecution.
• Mr. Simeone:
Noted the following trends:
• Bigger government cases
• Increased criminalization of web copyright piracy
• Criminal cases a bit easier to pursue
• Big exporters of fakes are more willing to negotiate
• Most brands regard the current situation as “same” or “worse” than before.
• Increasing landlord liability

There is a coalition that has achieved that has achieved success in some markets. It consists mainly of luxury brands and some others. An example of its success is the Luohu market in Shenzhen.

The next panel was the “Trade Association Panel” with John Anderson (GACG), Doris Moeller (APM-Germany), Amargit Singh (ACGI-India), John Cotter (CACN-Canada) and Lorne Lipkus (CACN-Canada). This very informative panel showed the advantages of companies acting together to protect and enforce their IP.

The afternoon panels consisted of the following:
• “European & US Design Laws” presented by Tony Keats (Keats, McFarland & Wilson) and Axel Nordeman (Boehmert & Boehmert). This panel showed how design protection, long ignored in the USA, has greater strength in Europe and designs can be used thwart counterfeiting.

• John Newton of INTERPOL stressed INTERPOL’s ability to fight IP crime. He pointed out that his organization has a significant database of international IP crime and is ready to assist companies in the battle against counterfeiting.

The last presentation of the day was “Digital Piracy Update” with Trevor Albery (Warner Bros.) and Andreas Dustman (Boehmert & Boehmert). This panel discussed the complete change of movie piracy from DVD to illegal downloading. It also pointed out methods to achieve ISP cooperation.

On Friday, May 16th the following events took place:
• Keynote address by Dr. Michael Ryan of George Washington University on the Top 10 Reasons Why Developing Countries Should Protect IP.

• This was followed by “Knitting Together the Global Anti-Counterfeiting Effort” with the panel of Richard Heath (BASCAP), Brad Huther (U.S. Chamber of Commerce) and James Luo (QBPC). These panelists gave an informative talk on the state of IP protection in their respective countries, especially by trade associations.

• The final presentation was “Law Enforcement Officials Discuss Critical Border Issues” with RJ Falconi (CSA-Canada) and Lisa Pearson (Kilpatrick Stockton). Mr. Falconi discussed CSA’s innovative program of using its employees to locate counterfeits. Ms. Pearson discussed her recent Davidoff case as an illustration of how grey markets goods and counterfeit goods interact.

• Chairman Dave Simpson then concluded the meeting. All IACC staff, Chairman Simpson, President Barchiesi, Ms. Lalk-Menzel and Ms. Moeller deserve our thanks for making this an excellent meeting.

Leave a Comment

May 20, 2008 0 Comments Short URL News

Liar Liar Pants On Fire

One of the reasons companies hire me is for my unrelenting commitment to never, ever accuse an innocent of a crime. In my opinion, there is nothing more lazy than doing that. If you have a doubt, keep the file open. A reasonable client would rather wait for you to get your facts straight than be wrong.

An amateur mistake is to confuse probability with fact. Probability is the basis for following a clue. Without it, we would have no starting point, sidewalk, road or vehicle. In true great detective work, one does not reach a conclusion until every ounce of his being says he can stake his life on that very thing. That it not being exceptional. It is being a decent human being.

I close over a thousand cases per year and have been doing this work since 1995. I have developed proprietary methods never used outside our IPCyber-walls. Some techniques my people utilize are so subtle, so delicate, that we extract just enough data without ever arousing suspicion. A suspect provides identifying data to me, never knowing what they had just done.

So when I close a case and nail every nail in the coffin of a counterfeiter, and they cry after being served with a lawsuit, exclaiming what I call the ‘Dylan defense’ (Ain’t Me Babe), I can only reply with a song Chuck Brodsky originally wrote about Richard Nixon. Here is the chorus:

Liar liar, pants on fire
See you squirm, see you perspire
Not a word you say is true
There’s never been one out of you

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Leave a Comment

May 6, 2008 2 Comments Short URL Views

Tools, Not Fools

We in the anti-counterfeiting industry know how hard it is to find a good search tool to suit our needs. I speak with clients, colleagues and others with the same result. One company pays an exorbitant amount of money for an online tool that suits a need or two. Another company does the same with another just-as-costly product. Truthfully, these companies’ search tools were developed for other markets and ‘tweaked’ to be sold to ours. A primary (and not completely unrelated) market would be channel control of genuine hard goods, minimum advertised price monitoring, and such.

That’s all neat. But why are we the square peg, the red-headed stepchild? Is it because brand owners’ legal departments are given budgets that are dwarfed by those of their counterparts in marketing, etc.? If that is the case, industry-wide budget constraints can be the answer to that question. I have a different answer.

It could be that NONE of these search companies have actually authored a tool that can effectively filter suspected counterfeit goods. Channel control and minimum advertised price filtering is a fairly simple process if you know how to write code. Those tools are comprised of algorithms and form, yes. A.I.? No. Though all claim so. I dare say it is a falsity.

I have been given webinars by a number of these companies and found that none of my most basic questions were answered to my satisfaction. Whenever one asks about how the A.I. works, the salesman responds something like, “There is always a human element involved.” Yeah. More than they care to say. Patented technology? I say schmatented technology!

Each of these companies’ interfaces show your infringements in a list with a nice pretty bow. But it was plugged into a back end by a person. Yes. No computer did that. A human was paid to Google for goods and copy and paste results into a database that looks magical. It is no more magical than when I pull a quarter from my nephew’s ear.

I know daring to use the “F” word may appear rude at first. But I have been working within this community for much of my life. I run into people regularly who think that using smoke and mirrors to sell a product is OK. It is the purest form of cognitive dissonance. A number of these companies are very, very good at channel/price control and even name/mark use. As far as anti-counterfeiting is concerned, some will soon take the advice of Seth Godin and recognize it is a cul-de-sac and a few will survive ‘The Dip’.

Law firms with whom I work manage a room of college kids trolling the ‘net. I have seen this. It is true. Many of these firms have tailored very effective procedures for this. I, Rob Holmes, have been trolling the Internet for counterfeits since 1995, and lay claim to be the world’s leading expert in this field. I too practice this same method. Internet genius Jason Calacanis’ latest startup Mahalo.com is just that, but for the masses. The immense success of Mahalo as a human-powered Google filter is confirmation that a man using a computer beats a computer… every… single… time. I can say with no equivocation that, frankly, there is no search tool better than a few well-trained employees, Google and a good supervisor.

I give a seminar called “Trademark Search 2.0″ which explains much of this theory in a fashion that is diplomatic and very educational. If you wish to book me in person, please email me at rob@ipcybercirme.com.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Leave a Comment

May 1, 2008 0 Comments Short URL , , Views

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,673 other followers