Before I start, I’d like to state that I realize that this topic has been beaten to death, but I’d like this to be a continuing series of posts on intellectual property issues in the video game community, and this situation is fairly straightforward and serves as a good introduction to the major issues at hand.

I’ll admit, Chrono Trigger is a very good game. I prefer Chrono Cross personally, but I understand why so many people consider it among the greatest games of all time. The story is lighthearted with some mature undertones, the battle system is simple to learn but has a surprising amount of depth, and the concept of traveling to different periods of time and having your actions affect future timelines was unique and well executed.

It should come as no surprise, then, that the strong fanbase would want more. Chrono Cross took a rather different approach to the series and was released over 10 years ago, and all fans have had since then are a PS1 port plagued with loading time issues and a DS remake that was well received but didn’t satiate long time fans. Long story short, they wanted a new Chrono game, one with updated graphics and a better connection to (or retcon of) Chrono Cross.

Several fan remakes started popping up starting from the early 2000s, but the most notable ones were Chrono Resurrection, Chrono Trigger: Crimson Echoes, and Chrono Trigger HD. Resurrection was a remake of the original game while Crimson Echoes was an interquel that tied together Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross. These first two were notable in that Square Enix, owner of the copyrights and trademarks related to Chrono Trigger, sent cease-and-desist letters to the developers of these games claiming trademark and copyright infringement.

Square Enix’s arguments were very strong. As derivative works, 17 U.S.C. § 106 gives the original copyright holders the exclusive rights to prepare such works, so the fans had to seek permission before creating work with Square Enix’s copyrights. While the developers might have claimed fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107, particularly because they would release the games for free, the preemption of sales that Square Enix would supposedly get by making its own remake is enough of an effect on the potential market to bar the fair use defense. Square Enix had them dead to rights.

Chrono Trigger HD, another attempt at a straight remake using the Unreal engine, is taking a different approach. They have no website and they will not include their names in the credits, hoping that Square Enix will not be able to find out who is infringing their IP. This logic, however, is deeply flawed. As has been noted by Mark Methenitis—a fellow Greek IP lawyer?!—and Zack Bastian, just because they can’t find the original developers doesn’t mean that the game is any less illegal. They’ll use their resources to take down whatever public disclosures they can find, and if the developers want anyone to play the game outside their torrent circle, they’ll probably have to disclose at some point.

Go figure, the law student likes IP protection. Seriously, though, there are a lot of game IP that fans want revisited. Xenogears deserves a proper disc 2. A third Chrono game would sell like crazy. The movement for a Final Fantasy VII remake is stronger than ever. If The Last Story and Mass Effect 3’s Extended Cut have taught us anything, it’s that game companies are listening to fans. If Microsoft is willing to address their Xbox Live harassment issues because of fan promotion of this web video, Square Enix may be willing to hear out Chrono Trigger fans. Infringing their IP is only going to discourage them from creating new content, which is why we have IP protection in the first place.

Of course, this brings up the question of user-generated content in general, such as the mod kits in the Elder Scrolls games, map editors in Starcraft, and level creators in LittleBigPlanet. DayZ is an interesting case as well, being a mod of Arma 2 that eventually became a retail game. But that’s another post.

Have you ever considered what the prices on a restaurant menu cover? Undoubtedly the prices cover the cost of food, the services of the chefs, waiters, busboys, and even the rent and furniture. But have you ever thought that these prices might cover the background music in the restaurant too?

In Title 17 of the United States Code, Congress expressly conferred to copyright holders – composers, songwriters, lyricists, and publishers – the exclusive right to perform or authorize the performance of their works publicly.  The statute expressly defines both “perform” and “in public”.  To “perform” a work is “to recite, render, play, dance, or act it, either directly or by means of any device or process.”  The statute characterizes “in public” as either “(1) to perform or display [a work] at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered” or “(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance . . . by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.”  So, under these broad definitions, just playing a CD in a restaurant constitutes a “public performance” of those works.

Although the statute does include certain enumerated exceptions, an infringer could otherwise be liable for severe financial sanctions: statutory damages currently range from $750 to $30,000 per copyrighted work, or for willful infringement, the court may increase the award to $150,000.

Just last year, the Eastern District of North Carolina found Raleigh’s Fosters American Grille liable for statutory damages in the amount of $30,450 for playing only four unlicensed copyrighted songs – and awarded $10,742.25 in attorney’s fees.  In 2008, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found Schwenksville’s Crazy Carol’s Sports Bar liable for statutory damages in the amount of $16,000 for playing only eight unlicensed copyrighted songs – and awarded $4,830 in attorney’s fees.  Law’s Lunch & Dinner (Riverside, CA), The Vibe (Riverside, CA), Mad Dogs & Englishmen (Tampa, FL), Empire Dine & Dance (Portland, ME), Doug’s Burger Bar (Imperial, MO), Foxy Lady Club (Raleigh, NC), Vanishing Point Bar and Grill, (Mt. Airy, NC) Ron’s Landing (Hampton, NH), Bolero Resort & Conference Center (Wildwood, NJ), and Bacchus (New Paltz, NY) are but ten of the thousands of other restaurants in this country that have been sued for illegally playing songs without proper licensing.

A fine to that tune might seem rather severe, but our law nonetheless protects owners of musical works.  It assumes that the owner of a musical work has the right to be paid for use of his property.  Back in 1917, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote that musical performances in restaurants are not “eleemosynary” but rather, “are part of a total for which the public pays” Herbert v. Shanley, 242 U.S. 591, 594 (1917).  While “music is not the sole object [of a patron’s visit to a restaurant],” he continued, “neither is the food, which probably could be got cheaper elsewhere. The object is a repast in surroundings that to people having limited powers of conversation or disliking the rival noise give a luxurious pleasure not to be had from eating a silent music.”  Justice Holmes believed that without pay, music would simply “be given up.”  He thus found it necessary to incentivize the production and dissemination of new works in order to serve the Constitution’s Congressional mandate: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” No doubt, Justice Holmes saw the copyright owner’s exclusive right to perform or authorize the performance of their works publicly as an incentive that was indispensible to this end.

What do you think? Should restaurateurs have to pay just for playing their iPods at their restaurants?

Last month, copyright students at Michigan Law were able to engage in a Q&A after a presentation from Alfred Perry, the VP of Worldwide Content Protection at Paramount Pictures. The topic? SOPA, PIPA, and the legal issues that surround file-sharing websites, like the recently indicted Megaupload.

Many students were eager to engage in a discussion with a representative of the movie industry, especially given the current debate over the Stop Online Piracy Act, and the possibility of future copyright legislation that would address online infringement. As a copyright student myself, I was anxious to hear what a representative of a company that advocates and supports these recent legislative initiatives had to say.

During the presentation, I was most impressed by the emphasis that was put on the problem with cyberlockers- online file storage providers. While they have completely legitimate uses such as storing documents, and sharing files, some users post pirated content of movies or TV shows. It seems that major media companies are targeting these sites- Mr. Perry said that “We continue to make criminal referrals.” Paramount Pictures stated that their content is not being protected adequately by the current laws. However, these cyberlockers are bound by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and are obligated to take down infringing content when given notice that it has been posted.

During the presentation, five cyberlockers were identified as “rogue” sites- Fileserve, MediaFire, Wupload, Putlocker, and Depositfiles. In a later email, Mr. Perry explained that “My use of the term ‘rogue’ was meant to designate those cyberlockers which would fall within the definition of a foreign infringing site.” However, MediaFire is a cyberlocker that is located in Texas.  They recently released a press release that addressed these claims. The owner, Tom Landridge said  ”MediaFire continues to cooperate fully with the MPAA, RIAA, and various other organizations who work to identify and prohibit the distribution of copyrighted content. We have a variety of advanced automated systems designed to detect violations of our Terms of Service and automatically warn and terminate users.”

It appears that the war between media companies and cyberlockers is only just beginning. Although it is apparent that studios do not like these companies, there doesn’t seem to be a ready solution. Cyberlockers provide a legitimate service, used by many for legitimate purposes. The recent firestorm has caused two sites- Wupload and FireServe to become backup sites, disabling all fire-sharing to avoid the risk of criminal prosecution. While media companies might rejoice, I believe this points to a bigger problem- the media industry business model. Mr. Perry in an e-mail to me, stated “Looking forward, why would anyone invest in an innovative new distribution service if they believed that there would be no legal protection for their fantastic new platform, forcing it to compete with rogue sites that pirate all of their product?”. However, this belies the point that these cyberlockers are innovative- it is the reason they receive 41 billion page views a year. While there is no easy solution, and stolen content is a problem, it might be in the best interest of both cyberlockers and the entertainment industry to work together moving forward- sparing cyberlockers the fear of criminal prosecution, and innovating the media distribution business model.

The Bollywood film industry has been using ideas from foreign films since its inception. This “borrowing” has ranged from melodies for background scores to entire plot summaries and even translated dialogues. However, with the advent of technology and the increasing popularity of Bollywood cinema in the United States, we are beginning to see American film producers “borrowing” Bollywood film elements as well. Prominent examples are the use of the Bollywood song “Chamma Chamma” from the Hindi movie China Gate as a dance number in Moulin Rouge; the use of the Bollywood song “Chaiyya Chaiyya” as the title song for the Hollywood movie Inside Man; and the Black Eyed Peas sampling of songs from both Don and Apradh on the track “Don’t Phunk with my Heart”.

The media exchange between both nations is increasing as Bollywood actors and directors are entering the Hollywood industry while Hollywood filmmakers and production companies are trying to break into the Bollywood media market. As the cross-border media sharing intensifies, the need for answers regarding legal implications for both nations increases. While both countries have copyright statutes and are signatories to numerous treaties regarding intellectual property rights there is a lack of enforcement of these provisions in the Indian courts.

There is a great need for international collaboration between the United States and Indian governments to work towards a solution to this legal issue. As evidenced by the Indian High Court’s ruling against Will Smith’s production company’s suit against the Bollywood producers who re-made Hitch without permission, the two governments have vastly different approaches to intellectual property rights enforcement. Without some way for Hollywood and Bollywood film producers to compromise and reach a mutual understanding regarding sampling each other’s productions, the creativity that could be fostered by increased communication is hindered. Furthermore, without some sort of reprimand for producers who abuse their “sampling” privileges and effectively steal whole works of others, relations between these two film industry giants will be frayed.

For further reading on this topic, check out this, this, & this.

The people have spoken—and the people want their digital freedom! As the 112^th Congress found out just last week, the prospect of the federal government infringing on the open and free Internet has been both politically tumultuous as well as philosophically unpopular in the eyes of the American Public.

Currently, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act governs copyright infringement activities which take place on the Internet. Yet, there was a growing sense among some in the entertainment industry–and in Congress–that this Act was not doing enough to protect IP rights. So, lawmakers responding to pressures from the entertainment industry devised a new bill to combat online piracy, developed two broadly worded anti-piracy bills–the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA). The move pitted Hollywood and its woes over unauthorized downloading, against Silicon Valley techies who claim that “the legislation would hand the government Orwellian powers over the Internet.” However, just recently certain lawmakers–including the bill’s co-sponsor Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida–withdrew their support. Even the White House came out publicly against SOPA.

A key impetus to the sudden turn in popularity for the bills came from a staged anti-SOPA protest on January 18th from Internet sites such as Google, Wikipedia, and Craigslist.com. Wikipedia, for example, “went dark” and shut down completely. The site’s co-founder, Jimmy Wales explained his concern in a recent CNN interview over the broad language in the bill, citing apprehension over the unprecedented amount of power the bill would give the government to take over the Internet and its content–Wikipedia and similar sites would struggle to function under the effects of SOPA due to the sheer number of links they would be required to check when posting content. Wales also affirmed his belief that “when it comes to First Amendment concerns, censoring the Internet is never going to be the right answer.”

For now, Congress has put further debate on these bills on-hold, although it is clear that the fight is far from over. On January 21st the FBI shut down the file-sharing website Megaupload as part of what seems to be the federal government’s theme for 2012: taking a hard anti-piracy stance. The debate also touches upon the existential question of whether Internet access is a basic human right or whether it is simply a vital tool which our society has obligations to guard against potential abuse in the face of an increasingly interconnected world.

For now, we can just remain thankful that the government has backed down and we are still able to catch up on missed episodes of Glee on various Megaupload-like sites–even if they have Japanese subtitles.

On January 19, US authorities shut down Megaupload.com, a Hong Kong-based digital storage and file sharing company.  Megaupload provided a cloud service that enabled users to easily share content, including hosting video and entire music libraries.  The site is accused of illegally profiting from the distribution and reproduction of copyrighted work, including movies online before their theatrical release, as well as music, TV shows, e-books, and software.  Seven people, including the Megaupload founder, were indicted and charged with engaging in a racketeering conspiracy, conspiring to commit copyright infringement, conspiring to commit money laundering, and two counts of criminal copyright infringement.  The Justice Department alleged that the accused generated more than $175 million and caused over $1 billion of harm.

The indictment alleges that Megaupload is different than other file sharing sites, and lists a number of points indicating criminal activity.  Though Megaupload calls itself a file storage site, most users do not have long term storage capability, as continued storage is dependent upon regular downloads – files that are not quickly downloaded are removed, while popular downloads remain on the site.  Megaupload used a rewards program providing financial incentives for uploading popular content that would drive more traffic to the site.  Further, though the business is dependent on advertising for most of its revenue, advertisements are primarily viewed only when files are downloaded.  Finally, Megaupload users commonly discuss how to find links to infringing content and many have indicated that they use the site primarily for that purpose.  Though the Digital Millenium Copyright Act provides a safe harbor for sites that promptly take down infringing material, Megaupload had a procedure of only removing some links rather than the content itself, meaning its activity will unlikely be protected by the safe harbor provision.

After the seizure of the site, many users wondered what would happen to the data they had stored.  Federal officials have finished reviewing the data they wanted to look at, and the fate of the stored files is now in the hands of two hosting companies in Virginia. Users, even those who stored legitimate files, are in danger of losing all their information (though Megaupload is currently in negotiations to preserve the data). This raises questions about users’ rights to data they have stored in the cloud and undermines the security many feel in having their files backed up online.

The takedown of Megupload has affected not only its users, but the internet community as a whole. The Megaupload takedown occurred immediately following the online protest of SOPA and PIPA, and internet activists retaliated once again.  “Hacktivist” group Anonymous took credit for taking the Department of Justice’s website and others offline through denial of service attacks.  The takedown has also shaken some members of the cyberlocker community, as similar sites began acting on their own in fear of being the next company under scrutiny by US authorities.   Uploaded.to now refuses to accept traffic from the United States, while FileSonic, a popular file sharing website has suspended all file sharing on its site.  However, other file-sharing services such as MediaFire and Dropbox have expressed confidence they won’t be targeted by law enforcement, despite the fact that those sites can also be used to download copyrighted material.  As the Megaupload case plays out, we will see where the balance falls between harm to copyright holders and harm to society from the impact on the structure of the internet as we know it.

Back in September last year, Facebook was sued by Timelines.com for allegedly infringing the latter’s trademark right over the word “Timeline” in introducing the Facebook Timeline feature. Timelines.com is a website that allows users to record and share events, personal, public or historical. Timelines.com claimed that such infringement would eliminate its business due to consumer confusion. Today, the two companies laid out a schedule of due dates for preliminary legal proceedings, signaling the forthcoming trial or settlement in the near future.

Following the filing of the suit, Facebook fought back by claiming that not only is Facebook not infringing on any trademark, but that the Timeline trademark owned by Timeline.com is invalid because it’s too generic. Facebook argued that “Timeline” is a commonly used work, and granting trademark rights to the use of such word is unreasonable. Timelines.com requested a temporary restraining order stopping Facebook from incorporating its Timeline feature. The court denied the motion partly because the trademark is “descriptive”, the lowest level of distinctiveness aside from “generic”, which warrants very little or no protection.

Descriptive terms ordinarily are not protectable as trademarks under the Lanham Act.  They may, however, become valid marks by acquiring a secondary meaning in the minds of the consuming public. To succeed in maintaining the validity of the trademark, Timelines.com would have to demonstrate such secondary meaning.  However, it is highly unlikely that Timelines.com will be able to produce enough evidence to show that when consumers think of timelines on the internet, they think of Timelines.com. Although Timelines.com has significant number of monthly visits, for those millions of people out there who are not Timelines.com users, the word “Timeline” simply means timeline that is not associated with any particular commercial entity. Timelines.com is most certainly aware of the weakness of their claims, and is very likely to settle with Facebook prior to the trial.

On October 29^th, Apple filed two lawsuits against Motorola, alleging Motorola infringed several of Apple’s multi-touch technology patents. Multi-touch technology is a vital part of Apple’s products; it is integrated into the hugely popular iPhone, iPad and iPod touch.

This is just the latest in a flurry of recent legal actions between the two companies. In early October of this year, Motorola filed three separate patent infringement lawsuits (copies of the complaints are available at the following links:  Lawsuit 1, Lawsuit 2 and Lawsuit 3) against Apple, alleging Apple infringed on a variety of its technology patents. A week later, Motorola filed a Declaratory Judgment against Apple, inspiring speculation that because licensing negotiations between the two technology giants had failed, Motorola was filing as a purely offensive strategy.

Motorola released a statement addressing the lawsuits, which reads in part that “[a]fter Apple’s late entry into the telecommunications market, [Motorola] engaged in lengthy negotiations but Apple has refused to take a license. [Motorola] had no choice but to file these complaints to halt Apple’s continued infringement.” Though Apple may have entered the telecommunications industry long after Motorola, worldwide it has a larger volume of phone production than Motorola. This is in large part to the surge in popularity of smartphones, such as the hugely popular iPhone.

Many other lawsuits are currently active in the mobile device industry. Apple currently is also in lawsuits with Nokia, HTC, Kodak and Elan. Motorola is engaged in a patent infringement lawsuit with Microsoft. This trend is likely to continue as smartphone manufacturers capture a bigger part of the market and traditional cell phone manufacturers must keep up with new technology to remain relevant. As one commentator succinctly characterizes the situation, “[t]echnology companies like this often push the envelope when it comes to using technologies that might be patented by competitors, but since it happens so often, a sort of mutually assured destruction prevents things from flaring up. Unfortunately, the nuclear holocaust of lawsuits seems to have begun.”

Will the Motorola-Apple lawsuit upset the status quo of mobile device innovation? Whether it is really “the nuclear holocaust of lawsuits” or just another skirmish that will quickly end in settlement or a renegotiated licensing agreement remains to be seen.

A patentee’s rights to recovery in an infringement action are substantially enhanced if their patented article is properly marked.  The relevant statutory language, found in 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), states: “Patentees . . . may give notice to the public that the same is patented, either by fixing thereon the word ‘patent’ . . . together with the number of the patent, or . . . by fixing . . . to the package . . . a label containing a like notice.”  The corollary to that principle is that an unpatented product must not be marked in that fashion.  To that end, 35 U.S.C. § 292(a) states: “Whoever marks upon . . . any unpatented article the word ‘patent’ or any word or number importing the same is patented . . . [s]hall be fined not more than $500 for every such offense.”  The intent here is to prevent manufacturers from gaining an unfair competitive advantage by falsely claiming their products are protected by patents.

The prohibition on marking unpatented articles presents a potential trap to patentees.  As a practical matter, many patentees are prone to forget to remove the marking when their patent expires.  Further, a measly $500 fine does not add much incentive to remember.  But that situation changed recently.  In The Forest Grp. Inc. v. Bon Tool Co., decided December 28, 2009, the Federal Circuit Court held that false marking penalties under 35 U.S.C. § 292 are $500 per article sold rather than $500 per product line as had been followed for many years.  As you can imagine, at $500 per article sold, the total penalties for mass produced products can reach the millions of dollars very quickly.

One example of the dramatic effect of the court’s new interpretation regarding false marking penalties was recently reported in the Detroit Free Press.  Curiously, plaintiffs in false marking lawsuits do not need to prove damages in order to prevail.  That fact, coupled with the potential for huge monetary windfalls as described above, has resulted in a rush to the courthouse.

In response to this situation, a bill was introduced in congress last month.  The bill seeks to return to the good old days when the fine for false marking was capped at $500 per product line.  The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.  But for now, patentees best be on alert to promptly remove patent markings just as soon at their patent expires.

A premise of our patent system lies in striking a bargain with the public. A monopoly of limited duration is granted in return for an invention’s disclosure. The hope is that patent publication will “promote the progress of science and the useful arts” by publicizing new and innovative ideas.

Underlying the bargain is an assumption that issued patents and published applications are available to the public, and the public upon conducting a search can find relevant information. However, patents and legal documents in general are unique compared to other knowledge. In the realm of patents, relevant search results need to identify whether a patent contains relevant or related knowledge as opposed to an exact match of search terms. While this is the same type of problem that plagues searches for legal material in general, challenges facing patent searchers are increasingly acute. Patents are increasingly global in scope and require searching across diverse classification schemes and languages.

The problem of accurate and precise patent searches has the potential to undermine the goals of the patent system by impeding progress and wasting investment dollars. For example, in May 2010, Rolls-Royce sued United Technologies Corp.’s Pratt & Whitney unit claiming infringement of a method of manufacturing quieter and more efficient jet engines. Pratt & Whitney invested more than $1 billion to independently develop a more-efficient design. (See Rolls-Royce PLC v. United Technologies Corp., 10cv457, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127214 (Alexandria)); see also interesting counter-suit as reported by Bloomberg.com).

You can be sure that a sophisticated party such as Pratt & Whitney performed a freedom to operate search and analysis. Yet such searches are inherently difficult and time consuming. I would like to highlight a foreign approach that has been around since 2006, but has recently received an important improvement that will improve patent searching. The article is forthcoming in a technical journal, but may pass below the radar of mainstream legal publications.

In 2006, at the first international conference on Semantics and Digital Media Technology in Athens, researchers presented an article titled, PATExpert: Semantic Processing of Patent Documentation outlining the technical details of their algorithm. PATExpert is an EU funded consortium, and includes the European Patent Office as a partner. (For a competing and different approach to patent searching used in the Korean Patent Office, see Segev, A.; Kantola, J. Patent Search Decision Support Service, 2010 Seventh International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations (ITNG), Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/ITNG.2010.99.)

In distilled form, the PATExpert software relies on an ontology to create relationships between data common to different patents. In addition to traditional linguistic matching, the software attempts to return results based on how a particular patent is related to others. In its current state PATExpert uses the following search methodologies: full text search, metadata search, image similarity search, semantic search, and document similarity search. Few or non-existent connections indicates that there is no relationship between two patents. However, a large number of connections between two patents signifies a strong relationship, and despite linguistic differences may indicate two patents have a lot of substance in common.

For example, images such as photographs, diagrams, flow charts, and drawings are important factors in the representation of a patent’s disclosure and are modeled by an ontology. Additional data such as the patent holder, inventor affiliation, and assignee are also captured in an ontology. An additional ontology captures linguistic similarities. By looking at each ontology independently or as a combination, a representation of related patents may be obtained. The hope is that more relevant results, independent of linguistics, can be returned in performing a patent search.

The forthcoming article Iterative Integration of Visual Insights during Scalable Patent Search and Analysis by Koch, S; Bosch, H; Giereth, M; Ertl, T (IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, Volume: PP , Issue: 99 Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/TVCG.2010.85) outlines development of a visual interface for the PATExpert algorithm. The interface called “PatViz” makes PATExpert user friendly and potentially more powerful. Using PatViz, users can now graphically construct patent queries, similar to constructing a flow chart using Microsoft Visio. Furthermore, and perhaps more important than query construction, each step or node in a query can be enlarged to show the patents that comprise the results returned at the particular node.

Take a simple example as described in the article. In searching for patent that contains the word “disk recorder” and not the terms “CD” or “DVD,” a user can enlarge each of the nodes containing intermediate results without the term “CD” or “DVD” or enlarge the node containing the term “disk recorder” without any other restrictions.

Data at a particular node, or at a final node, may be represented in 11 different visualizations. For example, one can view a graph of how results relate to different subject matter classification schemes or which results are U.S. patents. Another helpful representation is a “Term Cloud.” A page of text is displayed containing all search terms used. PatViz highlights the most frequently found terms by enlarging the font of the term, the largeness of the font corresponding to the frequency of the term in search results. This gives much more of a “feel” for the content and scope of a patent search.

The article is full of technical details, but important for patent lawyers is the possibility of easier and less time consuming freedom to operate analysis. How these more efficient patent searchers will affect patent prosecution and litigation remains to be seen.