The response to the policytool that rTraction and I collaborated on has been overwhelming.  In its first week,  over 10,000 people have visited the sites and 1500 different companies have taken the first steps in creating a social media policy.  See rTraction’s post for more details of the response.

And the only thing we did to publicize it was a couple of blog posts and tweets, and a few emails to individuals we thought might be interested.

Sunday is March 14th, or 3.14, and thus Pi day.   Take a look at piday.org , or Wikipedia for more details.

There has been a lot of controversy and debate over whether too many things are patentable, especially in the software and business method areas. 

Many thought the Amazon 1-click patent, which was under review, should not be valid.  The USPTO has, however, confirmed the patent.

Mike Masnick of Techdirt sums it up nicely, with links to further detail.  Mike says:

US Patent Office Decides That One Click Really Is Patentable

from the wow dept

Ladies and gentlemen, we now have confirmation that the USPTO is a joke. After years of back and forth, it has decided, once again, that Amazon’s one-click patent is perfectly valid. This, despite tons of prior art, and basic common sense. We were just wondering what was taking so long for the USPTO to reject the patent. But, of course, it seemed like the USPTO was willing to go out of its way to help keep this patent around. Of course, as some are pointing out, the end result of this patent surviving is that it may be used as example number one for patent reform.

I’ve written before about how the three strikes law that is in force in France, and is being contemplated in other countries, is fundamentally wrong.

Take a look at this short video interview from author Cory Doctorow that puts it in perspective.

For the London Free Press – March 8, 2010

Read this on Canoe

U.S. courts may have to decide if a teen’s parody of a popular clothing line is an infringement

The North Face Apparel Co., more commonly known as The North Face, recently filed suit against Jimmy Winkelmann, a 19-year old high school student and his small Missouri clothing company called The South Butt.

North Face’s statement of claim alleges trademark infringement and dilution, among other claims.

North Face sells athletic apparel and gear for runners, rock climbers, snowboarders and others. South Butt sells jackets, T-shirts and other apparel “approved for relaxation purposes only.”

Winkelmann says his intent was not to rip off the North Face, but to offer consumers an alternative.

He came up with the South Butt idea to mock North Face fleece jackets worn by the popular crowd at his school.

In response to North Face’s tagline, “Never stop exploring”, South Butt adopted “Never stop relaxing.”

The North Face’s legal counsel sent Winkelmann a cease and desist letter in August 2009, requesting that he stop using the South Butt name and logo and halt all sales, production and promotion of South Butt products.

According to North Face, the two logos are so similar as to possibly cause “consumer confusion as to the source, sponsorship or affiliation of particular promotions and services that could dilute or tarnish the distinctive quality of the famous and distinctive marks.”

Winkelmann recently filed a trademark application for the South Butt, which the North Face legal counsel also asked him to withdraw.

In response, Winkelmann’s counsel — a friend of Winkelmann’s father, who apparently agreed to represent the teen in exchange for a good bottle of red wine — filed a somewhat irreverent defence.

Mr. Watson, Winkelmann’s legal counsel, stated “the sense of parody employed by Winkelmann within the context of his South Butt undertakings clearly demonstrate a respectful, if not faltering ‘anti-North Face’ posture designed in all respects to distinguish itself from any and all North Face products.”

The defence points out that, to emphasize its position that the marks are unlikely to confuse, the defendant added this to its website: “We are not in any fashion related to nor do we want to be confused with the North Face Apparel Corp. or its products sold under ‘the North Face’ brand. If you are unable to discern the difference between a face and a butt, we encourage you to buy North Face products.”

Unless it is settled, the case will ultimately be decided on the technicalities of U.S. trademark law.

Since one legal tests of trademark infringement is customer confusion, you be the judge: Are the marks confusing enough that customers might think products bearing them are from the same source?

PolicyTool.net generates custom corporate social media policies based on the answers to a few questions.   It’s free to use.

This tool is a collaboration between myself and rTraction - a web design, social media and marketing company.

So why are we doing this for free?   Two simple reasons.

First, we want to try this out, see how it works, and see what feedback we get.  Based on that, we may expand the tool into a paying business model.

Second, it’s a marketing tool to hopefully attract some business to rTraction and myself.

And while we will gather information on its use, we won’t bother users with future promotional material.

So try it out, and use the feedback tool to let us know what you think.

That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.  It reads as follows.

We’ve all heard the saying “there is no such thing as bad publicity” – but of course we don’t take that literally. 

Apparently, though, research has shown that when it comes to online reviews, negative reviews can result in more sales than positive reviews.

That was one of the points made by Mitch Joel during his keynote address on Monday at Fanshawe College’s eMarketing conference.  (I spoke at one of the breakout sessions on “Digital Law”.)

He says there are two reasons for that.   First, people tend to trust the business more as they feel the business is being open and candid.  Second, what is important in a negative review is what is actually said.  The reviewer’s reason may be irrelevant to other buyers.  

That’s not to say its a good thing if every review trashes the product – but a few negative reviews don’t seem to hurt.

Many of us have had clients complain about negative online comments about them that they don’t feel are justified, and reputation management is a growing field.

The message here is that when lawyers are asked to advise on these issues, we need to understand this in order to give the right advice, and to avoid the Streisand effect.

For the London Free Press – March 1, 2010

Read this on Canoe

Companies have been sent a clear message — deal with complaints because dispute resolution is too impractical to pursue.

A recent Ontario Court of Appeal ruling confirms an evolving trend to protecting consumers from enforcement of mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer agreements.

The plaintiff in Griffin v. Dell Canada alleged Dell had sold computers with latent defects that made them prone to overheating, power failure, inability to “boot up” and unexpected shutdowns.

Griffin sought certification of the case as a class action. In reply, Dell moved to stay the proceeding in favour of private individual arbitration under the mandatory arbitration clause in each consumer contract. The arbitration clause directed that complaints must be taken to the (now defunct) National Arbitration Forum in Minnesota.

Dell relied on sec. 7(1) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, which requires the court to stay a proceeding where there is a valid mandatory arbitration clause.

A lower court had dismissed Dell’s motion and conditionally certified the case as a class action. The appeal court dismissed Dell’s appeals and refused to stay the class proceeding.

The appeal court relied on provisions of the Consumer Protection Act that invalidate mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. These provisions took effect in 2005, after the consumer contracts with Dell were entered into. But the court chose to rely on them because damages did not arise until after the provisions took effect.

Interestingly, the court also ensured the rights of non-consumers within the class were protected. The Consumer Protection Act restricts the definition of a “consumer” to an individual who “acts for personal, family or household purposes and does not include a person who is acting for business purposes”. But the court found it unreasonable to separate the claims of consumers and non-consumers.

In applying the consumer protection law, the appeal court made a point of noting that Dell’s mandatory arbitration clauses were simply unfair to Canadian consumers.

Writing for the court, Justice Robert Sharpe said: “In my view, it is clear beyond any serious doubt on this record that staying any claims advanced in the action will not result in any of the stayed claims being arbitrated. I agree with the motion judge that there is a lack of reality to Dell’s argument that the claim should proceed by way of arbitration. There will be no arbitration. The choice is not between arbitration and class proceeding; the real choice is between clothing Dell with immunity from liability for defective goods sold to non-consumers and giving those purchasers the same day in court afforded to consumers by way of the class proceeding.”

The appeal court has sent a clear message that consumer rights must be taken seriously. Large corporations will now have more difficulty avoiding responsibility for addressing consumer complaints by making dispute resolution too impractical to pursue.