Anyone who uses the Internet is familiar with the two classes of top-level domain names:  country-specific top-level domains such as ".us" and ".ca" and standard top-level domains such as ".net", ".org" and the ever-popular ".com".  In 2012, the Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), established a procedure to add "generic" top-level domain names (known as gTLDs) to this list.  Implementation of these new domains is taking place over multiple phases.  The first phase occurred when over 2,000 applicants paid ICANN an application fee of $185,000 to apply to register new top-level domains such as ".home", ".inc" and ".cisco".   Now, the second phase--where other can object to these registrations on multiple grounds--ends very soon on March 13, 2013.  Filing fees for these objections vary but they are well into the thousands of dollars.  All these procedures and sky-high fees (which do not even include the time and expense it takes to prepare the applications and objections themselves) leads me wonder: what is the point to all this?

Business owners must be ever-vigilant to make sure that their valuable names are protected in cyberspace.  Facebook, Twitter, Linked In and Google+ each have their own procedures to prevent "cyber-squatting," not to mention the problems that arise when more than one company has legitimate claims to the same trademark such as United Airlines and United Van Lines.  The effort is endless.  ICANN's initiative to add gTLDs to this mix (especially generic names like ".book" or ".hotel" that potentially could be locked up by one company) makes things needlessly harder for trademark owners.  Even worse, the fees make this procedure prohibitive for all but the largest companies.  And where is the benefit to the average consumer or Internet user in all of this?  I fail to see the benefit to any of it.

On February 14, 2013, President Obama conducted the second Fireside Hangout on Google+ of his presidency. During the discussion, Limor Fried expressed her concerns to the President that successful entrepreneurs are often targeted by "software patent trolls, these are firms that collect software patents just for the purpose of litigation and getting money out of small companies that can’t afford patent defense."

Referencing the recently-enacted America Invents Act President Obama did not have kind things to say about such entities: "A couple years ago we began a process of patent reform. We actually passed some legislation that made progress on some of these issues. But it hasn't captured all the problems. The folks that you're talking about are a classic example. They don't actually produce anything themselves. They're just trying to essentially leverage and hijack somebody else's idea and see if they can extort some money out of them."

The President then called for all stakeholders to come together to build additional consensus on "smarter patent laws."  He recognized that high-tech issues require balancing the need for privacy, openness and civil liberties with the rights of copyright and patent owners.

Whatever one's views, I am excited as an IP professional to see this issue discussed in the same forum where questions on immigration reform, government transparency and drone strikes were addressed.  Ms. Fried's question is yet another example of how IP policy has become a vital issue of our time.

In our adversarial legal systems, the courts rely on each party to advocate for its side of a dispute so that all aspects of an issue can be fully heard. But sometimes a court needs to take matters into its own hands to make sure this happens such as when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently heard an appeal in SEC v. Citigroup.  The appeal resulted from U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff's rejection of a settlement of the SEC's allegations related to a $1 billion mortgage-bond product that Citi allegedly sold to investors without disclosing that it was also betting against the investment. Judge Rakoff rejected the settlement in part because he disagreed with the regulator’s willingness to let Citi settle without admitting wrongdoing.

In most appeals, the winner at the lower court level defends the decision of that court. But since both sides appealed Judge Rakoff's rejection, the Second Circuit was left with the question of who would defend his decision on appeal. Judge Rakoff himself supplied the a suggestion:  he recommended that the Second Circuit appoint John R. Wing as counsel "to argue in support of the district court's position." The Second Circuit agreed, and appointed Mr. Wing to argue on the district court's behalf pro bono.  If Judge Rakoff's ruling is affirmed, we may begin to see more of this procedure as District Judges reject more SEC settlements that they believe are not in the public interest.

I am a big fan of ABC's Shark Tank, a show where entrepreneurs present their ideas to a group of "sharks" in an attempt to obtain financing.  In essence, this is a TV version of angel investment clubs like the New York Angels that meet around the country to consider investments in growing businesses.  As would be expected, patents are often an important part of many presentations. In a recently-aired episode, patent policy took front and center stage during Scott Jordan's presentation for an investment in his clothing company.

At about the 30-minute mark, it became clear that Scott Jordan was interested only in licensing his patent for technology-enabled clothing but not the clothing business itself.  This led to heated debate among three of the sharks (Kevin O'Leary, Daymond John and Mark Cuban) about patent policy, with Kevin O'Leary defending the patent system and Daymond John and Mark Cuban decrying patents that take money and time away from businesses.  Whatever one's position, it is interesting to see that debates about patent policy that have been occurring for years among those professionally involved with patents are now attracting interest from a wider audience.  And since we are in a social media age, the episode is not the last word: Scott Jordan has more to say about his appearance on his website and Mark Cuban told TechCrunch why he is endowing the "Mark Cuban Chair to Eliminate Stupid Patents" at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.