home » blog » A Virtual Trademark Office in Second Life?

Closer is Better >> Nearsoft Blog

Matt Perez

A Virtual Trademark Office in Second Life?

Posted by Matt Perez on 02/24/2010 in virtual worlds , trademarks , second life , patents , copyrights

I guess I should not be surprised, but I find it kind of creepy that there is such a thing as a virtual USPTO and even a Second Life Bar Association.  I guess that wherever the money goes, the law (and lawyers) follow.

Patent Plates caricatureIn an article by Sally Abel, an attorney at Fenwick & West and Adrienna Wong, a student at Yale Law School, they talk about Intellectual Property in the context of virtual spaces, particularly Second Life.

The first surprise, for me, was their mention of the Second Life Patent and Trademark Office (SLPTO), an independent user-created service that offers protection of intellectual property." These are not the real USPTO people, rather it is a service that time-stamps "evidence of creation."  The slpto.com site is rather sparse (i.e., it looks abandoned) but I found this interview with its creator, developer ‘FlipperPA Peregrine‘ (i.e., Tim Allen) which gives a pretty good background of it.

The other organization the authors describe is the Second Life Bar Association, "is an informal professional organization that helps members navigate the Second Life® legal landscape."  They even have annual conferences!

Virtual Infringement, Real Courts

The article talks about several real world legal cases related to trademarks and other IP issues in Second Life.  They mention other cases that though not directly related to Second Life may have an impact on how IP is treated in virtual space.  One particular case involved ESS Entertainment 2000, Inc and Rock Star Video, Inc.

altRock Star Video is the producer of the infamous Grand Theft Auto video game.  ESS Entertainment runs a strip club in Los Angeles called Play Pen Gentlemen’s Club and they claimed that a virtual strip club in Grand Theft called Pig Pen was too close for comfort and that it infringed its "trademark and trade dress."  Suffice to say that they lost.  You can read more about it here, including a funny quip by the judge.

Herman-Miller Aeron ChairHerman Miller took a more enlightened approach.  When they found out that models of their Aeron chairs were being sold in Second Life without their permission, they created one of their own and gave them for free to people who had bought the knock offs.  In one fell swoop, they managed to protect their rights and end up as the good guy in this little affair.  Their action certainly fit and enhanced their brand ("classy").

As I've been saying in several posts, I think it is obvious by now that more and more the future will be dominated by companies that can keep up a consistent stream of innovation.  Given the system today, patents are a necessary evil for some industries, but woe to those who focus solely on protecting their one (and only) brilliant idea.  Better to spend money and effort in creating and sustaining a culture (and processes and metrics) that makes innovation possible, even disruptive innovations

If your business requires you to do the patent thing, by all means go ahead and do that.  Then hand it over to the lawyers and get quickly back to work on the next innovation that 1) will delight your customers and 2) catch your competition unawares.

TweetBacks (Tweet this post)

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (6)


Show/hide comments
Excellent post!
0
This part:

"woe to those who focus solely on protecting their one (and only) brilliant idea. Better to spend money and effort in creating and sustaining a culture (and processes and metrics) that makes innovation possible, even disruptive innovations"

is just dead-on correct, and very well put.

I'm starting to think of this more and more as a stock and flow issue - when firms think of ideas in stock terms, then they run into trouble. And patenting is pure IP stock accumulation. Much better to think of idea flow - which leads to a focus on process. I agree with you that firms are much better off if they are able to do this.
Tim Kastelle , 02/24/2010 17:40:39 | url
...
Matt Perez
Tim,

I like the thought of looking at innovation as flow, instead of "inventory." More like the sales pipeline flow: what's the number and quality of ideas going into the funnel and how many come out ready to deploy (in whatever form it may take).

It should be a continuous flow, with many "ideas" going into the bit bucket and many coming out, big and small, disruptive and sustaining.

I could see how this can be become a well-defined process. And it would be great if it gave businesses a way to focus on innovation and to give up the obsession on patents.

Thanks!
Matt Perez , 02/25/2010 15:54:50
...
0
Hi,

I'm trying to find some information on the SLPTO? I pressed on the link you provided and it took me to some insurance site. I also did a search on SL and I could not find it. Does the SLPTO still exist?

Thank you for all your help
Cindy , 09/01/2010 10:27:04
Re: Cindy's comment
Matt Perez
Hi Cindy,

It looks like the site is gone. I found other references to it, but they all point to slpto.com. There's only one reference to it in Tim Allen's site.

It looks like it didn't get enough traction and it… went away :(
Matt Perez , 09/01/2010 15:46:19 | url
...
0
Hey Matt,

Thank you so much for your reply!

Oh and I checked out the SL Bar Association conference on “Practicing Law in the Virtual”. If any of your readers are interested in protecting their SL Intellectual Property this is a great resource to learn some tactics(http://metaverselaw.blogspot.com/).

All the best and thanks again!
Cindy
Cindy , 09/02/2010 05:11:27
Re: ...
Matt Perez
Cindy,

Thanks for the pointer to Metaverse Law, it does look like a good resource for people interested in the subject.

cheers -- matt
Matt Perez , 09/16/2010 15:19:15

Write comment

smaller | bigger

busy