Innovate Don’t Litigate!

by

Blind Confidential (Weblog)
Friday, May 18, 2007

Innovate Don't Litigate!

By Chris Hofstader

Critics of my writing in Blind Confidential and elsewhere and various public
statements I've made over the years often complain that I treat Microsoft
too softly. Often, these people fall into those with religious obsessions
with either Apple Computer or the GNU/Linux platform and represent the views
of people who hate Microsoft no matter what the Redmond giant says or does.
This week, however, I find myself in a position in which I need to speak out
against MS, a company I do believe has led the pack in their commitment to
accessibility, over recent reports in Fortune magazine and, last night, on
NPR about threats of using patents against users of the GNU/Linux family of
operating environments.

In the Fortune article, repeated on NPR last night, Microsoft claimed that
various distributions of the GNU/Linux OS violated something on the order of
235 patents held by Microsoft. Of course, Windows probably does not violate
any patents held by developers of GNU/Linux software because these
developers oppose software patents and haven't filed for any. In a
traditional intellectual property battle between corporate giants, each
company will show up with its portfolio of patents, assert which ones they
feel the other company violates and they will trade licenses and a bit of
cash if one has more than the other.

When a huge corporation takes on a small player, the little guy probably
doesn't have a lot of patents with which to defend itself and the bully
effect can force a small innovative company into bankruptcy just trying to
defend itself against legal action – frivolous or not. In the inverse
situation, when a small but highly innovative company tries to protect its
intellectual property against an industry leader, the large player can often
keep the case in court long enough to force the smaller player to fold its
hand due to outrageous legal bills.

In the big company versus small company battles, the big company might use
patents and other intellectual property laws to "drop boulders in the path
of the smaller company's road map" in order not to actually protect the
innovation of the big company but, rather, to minimize competition from
smaller, more nimble organizations who may actually offer more interesting
products.

Microsoft can sue GNU/Linux developers for violating their patents;
Microsoft can also sue users of GNU/Linux systems as, under US IP law, using
a product that violates a patent is an actionable behavior. Thus, Microsoft
can sue companies who have switched to GNU/Linux systems in order to slow
down the spread of the free alternative to Windows.

Benjamin Franklin, founder of the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
certainly rolls over in his grave when he hears that patents and trademarks
are being used not to "promote invention" but, rather, to block innovative
competitors. Microsoft should promise not to prosecute its pile of patents
against free software developed mostly by volunteers who do not file patents
which could probably cause question on many aspects of software in the
Microsoft catalogue. At the same time, people who agree that such use of
patents and trademarks should look at patents held by Microsoft and try to
find published prior art to challenge the patents if MS does, indeed, choose
to litigate rather than innovate.

Afterward

Blind Access Journal and Desert Skies (links above) both reported on a new
IP lawsuit filed by Freedom Scientific against Serotek, makers of System
Access, RIM, RAM and the Freedom Box line of products. I haven't read the
complaint and, as this case regards trademark, a topic I've never really
spent much time thinking about, I probably can't provide much intelligent
commentary on the case. We'll see what happens as it unfolds and I expect
that Shandro, Bishop and others will probably follow the story as it
progresses.

Objectivity versus Opinion, or the Difference Between Journalism and Evangelism

by

When I was in high school, I had a teacher’s aid named Gloria. Gloria came to the United States a long time ago from Burma. She’s a Karen, a member of an ethnic group that has been fighting for independence for more than 58 years. The Karen are officially represented by an organization known as the Karen National Union. Unfortunately, according to the news reported on the Karen’s web site, it would seem their struggle is not currently meeting with much success.

So, by now, I’m sure you are all asking yourselves, “why in the world is Darrell prattling on about some obscure ethnic struggle for independence”? Don’t worry. I’m just setting up the stage for the rest of the discussion. It will become more relevant in very short order.

The Karens are not impartial when it comes to their independence. They believe it should be granted, that it is their right to fight for it, and some are willing to give their very lives for the cause. Others believe it is better to cooperate with existing governments in the region. They are branded by the independence fighters as traitors who have sold out their people. One part of the Karen National Union’s operations involves their web site, where news relating to their struggle is distributed for all to read. When you visit their web site, it quickly becomes obvious that they have a clear agenda. There are no statements of balance or impartiality.

The Blind Access Journal is a similar web site, though the struggle is obviously quite different. In our case, the struggle is for the blind community to be granted equal accessibility, alternative transportation options and all opportunities otherwise granted the sighted on the basis of their being physically able to see. Similar to the Karens, we also have an agenda. Though not stated as a political platform or similar document, any reasonable reader could be expected to understand that the Blind Access Journal, and, thus, its publisher, Darrell Shandrow, is an advocate or evangelist for accessibility. This means, by nature, that I am not objective. I am not going to act as though discrimination, inaccessibility or lapses of accountability in the products and services provided to us are at all acceptable by any stretch of the imagination. I am not only going to report such issues, but also work strenuously to have them rectified in a manner that benefits the blind community. My very close friend and colleague, Jeff Bishop, states the differences between opinion and balanced journalism quite clearly with respect to blogging about issues in the blindness assistive technology field.

As part of my evangelism, the most recent assistive technology issue about which I have been writing is the trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Freedom Scientific against Serotek. It should be quite clear to everyone that I have strong feelings concerning what was done and the potential ramifications not only for a small player in the field, but for the entire blind community. Being the undisputed leader in the market, Freedom Scientific has the ability to significantly benefit or severely harm the ability of all blind and visually impaired people to use technology as a vehicle to equally participate in society. By taking this action, I unequivocally believe that Freedom Scientific may set into motion a series of events that could result in the loss of innovative new technologies we need to develop and grow in the blind community right now. The company holds sway over the entire blind community, be it individuals, organizations or dealers of assistive technology products. This is unavoidable, given Freedom Scientific’s overwhelming market share. Unfortunately, when that influence is put to negative ends, the results can be absolutely disastrous not only for companies, but also for real people and their families. For example, the RAM and RIM products now offered by Serotek represent a huge potential to push open many doors to employment previously closed by the need for remote access to computers owned by sighted people. If Freedom Scientific does end up litterally suing Serotek out of business, the results could mean real consequences for real people in the blind community up to and including the inability to acquire new jobs or even the loss of existing employment!

Earlier today I asked someone, who must currently remaine nameless, a simple question about the reasons for the Freedom Scientific versus Serotek lawsuit. The resulting conversation involved their expressing concerns about the quality of my “journalism” and the possibility of that person contacting people who might decide to curtail my participation in certain activities I currently enjoy and which, I hope, benefit the blind community. It is for this reason that I must make one thing extremely clear: I am NOT a balanced, impartial “journalist”. I am, instead, an accessibility ADVOCATE or EVANGELIST who is promoting equal participation on the part of the blind and visually impaired in the world around us. Though I have not and never will intentionally mislead anyone, I do not feel obligated nor possess the necessary resources to fully research everything I write on this blog. I am also not required to present everything in a “balanced” or “objective” manner. For that matter, even the paid “journalists” don’t always get this right, and that is their job. Just read and compare mainstream media sources like the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal or the Weekly Standard, or watch CNN and Fox News for an hour each to understand my point. This is not the “fair and balanced” Fox News Channel!

I hope this post has helped all of you clearly understand the fact that I am not a professional “journalist”, I am not always going to be objective and that I do most certainly have an agenda to look out for all of you, my brothers and sisters in the blind community! Your e-mails and comments are quite welcome and encouraged!

Today’s KDD: Jaws Attacks; Take the Byte out of Crime

by

Thanks to Karen for this wonderfully creative, poetic contribution.

On Thursday May 17, we received some disturbing News,
Freedom Scientific, they did choose,
To Sue Serotek, they want to devour,
Found out this at a late hour,
This made me angry, yes indeed,
If you have not already, do read,
The lawsuit that was filed, and the accusations made, more to this than
meets the eye,
Not sure why?
Suing for Trademark infringement,
Much time and resources spent,
One can only speculate and hypothesize,
That they feel threatened by a company of smaller size,
Whom is making tremendous progress in the field of blindness,
And Freedom Scientific, this, they could not digest ,
Could not stand the heat,
Worried , they can not stand on their own two feet,
So, Brutaly attacked their competition pushing them under,
Rather, then learn from their own mistakes and blunders,
Makes one wonder,
What their reasons are for filing this Suit?,
For giving Serotek the boot?
Why, does FS Byte?
This is not right,
Why are they drawing blood?
Slinging them through the mudd?
Eleminating them as a valuable player , wanting them to sink,
Not sure why, what do you think?
What is your take on this story ?, I was shocked,
The blind Community, this should rock,
Hits Matt and Mike to the core,
After being bitten by Jaws, they struggle to swim to shore,
Serotek,is missing a paddle,
Now, they are fighting a battle,
Swimming upstream,
Together, will stay the team,
And continue to give Freedom for all
Through Freedom Box and Ram and Rim,
Things, now, look grim,
However, with these products as well as System Access, as a third
screenreader tool,
They will continue to stay in the school ,
And despite, taking a dive,
Back On the surface , they will arrive,
And hang in there, with GW Micro, , the Guys Aaron and Doug,
They wil not pull the plug,
Hang in there, do have hope,
Some of us in the community, will throw you a rope,
Do not want to see you sink, capsize,
Yet, to continue to develop products along with Window eyes,
Hope the sharks die,
Fail does, Jaws for Windows ,
Freedom Scientific, stay on your Toes,
You may not be as stable,
Not as able,
Watch out, Broken my be your fin,
This, you may not win,
And though, you play with the Whales,
The other fish,may not bail,
And, all of us, in the community ,need to read our mail,
read blogs and listen to podcasts,
Freedom Scientific, you may be a thing of the past,
And, though, Serotek right now, you may not be in the leed,
FS, bate, we are not going to feed,
To enable you to stay strong,
What, your doing is very wrong.
Nothing wrong with healthy competition, Yet, another,just don't sue,
Hoping your opponent will toss in the towel, and say, they are
through,
Assuming, they will have enough?
They are tough,
And will give you a runfor your money,
What, your doing it is not at all funny!
Those of us,whom are blind, need to be united and work together,
Help Serotek through this stormy weather,
Ahead, there will be rough seas,
Look out, they could bring you to your knees,
There will be strong wind, rain and Thunder,
You could go under,
You never know,
How this lawsuit will go
You could regret, the Lawsuit you did file,
Some of us will go the extra mile,
On your feet, you may not land,
I know, what I say, holds no wait, does not mean a thing,
And noone may care,
this KDD I do bring,
Yet my view on this, wanted it to be known.
My thoughts I do share,
Concerned about the state of Affairs,
In this industry ,
All who cannot see,
Do all that you can,
If you are a Fan,
And Believe in Serotek,
Don't allow them to stick out their necks,
See what you can do,
To assist them through,
Support we do need to send,
A hand, lend,
Get the word out, maybe Flyers?
They are under the wire,
Serotek will be fine,
And, we do need to take the byte out of crime,
Your help we do need,
Go reed,
Get more information, at Blind access journal and the Desert Skies,
They show the size of this issue, so, go to their site,
Both shine the light,
They forward a link, it, they did save,
After reading the Lawsuit, rant and Rave,
Let's do what we can, what do you say?
Let the smaller fish play.

Freedom Scientific V. Serotek Case Not Just About a Trademark

by
We have received a comment from a reader stating essentially that we shouldn’t make a big deal about this case, as Freedom Scientific is only asking that Serotek stop using the word FreedomBox as a product name.  Unfortunately, this assertion just does not match with the facts of the complaint as spelled out in paragraphs 17, 22 and 27.
 
Ceasing use of “FreedomBox” is just one aspect of this lawsuit.  Freedom Scientific is also suing for damages.  That’s right, my friends.  They’re suing Serotek for money!  Let’s review the relevant paragraphs:
 
17. The Defendant threatens to continue to do the actions complained of herein, and unless restrained and enjoined, will continue to do so, all to the Plaintiffs
irreparable damage. It would be difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation which could afford the Plaintiff adequate relief for such continuing
acts, and a multiplicity of judicial proceedings would be required. The Plaintiffs remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for the injuries threatened.
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff prays:
 
(a) That this Court grant a permanent injunction pursuant to the powers granted it under 15 U.S.C. Section 1116, enjoining and restraining the Defendant
and its agents, servants, and employees from directly or indirectly using the name “Freedom Box” or any other mark, word, or name similar to the Plaintiffs
mark which is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive;
 
(b) That this Court, pursuant to the powers granted it under 15 U.S.C. Section 1118, order that all labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles,
and advertisements and other materials in the possession of the Defendant bearing the mark “Freedom Box” and all plates, molds, matrices, and other means
of making the same, shall be delivered up and destroyed;
 
(c) That this Court award the Plaintiff treble the amount of actual damages suffered by the Plaintiff;
 
(d) That the costs of this action be awarded to the Plaintiff;
 
(e) That this is an exceptional case and that the Plaintiff be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
 
(f) That this Court grant such other and further relief as it shall deem just.
 
22. The infringing acts of Defendant, as heretofore alleged, have been without the consent of Plaintiff. 
 
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff prays:
 
(a) That this Court grant an injunction enjoining and restraining the Defendant and its agents, servants, and employees from directly or indirectly using
the name “Freedom Box” or any other mark, word, or name similar to the Plaintiffs mark which is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive;
 
(b) That this Court order that all labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, and advertisements and other materials in the possession of the
Defendant bearing the mark “Freedom Box” and all plates, molds, matrices, and other means of making the same, shall be delivered up and destroyed;
 
(c) That the costs of this action be awarded to the Plaintiff;
 
(d) That Plaintiff be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
 
(e) That this Court grant such other and further relief as it shall deem just.
 
27. The Defendant threatens to continue to do the actions complained of herein, and unless restrained and enjoined, will continue to do so, all to the Plaintiffs
irreparable damage. It would be difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation which could afford the Plaintiff adequate relief for such continuing
acts, and a multiplicity of judicial proceedings would be required. The Plaintiffs remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for the injuries threatened.
 
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff prays:
 
(a) That this Court grant an injunction enjoining and restraining the Defendant and its agents, servants, and employees from (1) directly or indirectly
using the word “Freedom Box” or any other mark, word, or name similar to the Plaintiffs mark which is likely to cause confusion and (2) continuing any
and all acts of unfair competition as herein alleged;
 
(b) That the Defendant be required to account to the Plaintiff for any and all profits derived by the Defendant from the sale of its goods and for all damages
sustained by the Plaintiff by reason of said acts of unfair competition complained of herein;
 
(c) That this Court award punitive and exemplary damages against the Defendant and in favor of the Plaintiff by reason of the Defendant’s fraud and palming
off;
 
(d) That the costs of this action be awarded to the Plaintiff; and
 
(e) That this Court grant such other and further relief as it shall deem just.
There are some rather disturbing elements of this complaint.  First, Freedom Scientific is asking for unspecified damages resulting from the supposed trademark infringement.  In this context, the word “treble” is defined as “a claim for treble (or triple) damages”!  That’s right, my friends!  Freedom Scientific wants the court to determine the amount of damages they suffered, then triple that figure!  Read this again; that’s triple!  Second, Freedom Scientific claims that this case is “exceptional” enough to also justify forcing Serotek to pay their legal fees!  Third, Freedom Scientific wants to put Serotek through all the costs involved with totally remarketing and renaming their “FreedomBox” product when the trademark infringement claim seems rather dubious at best.
 
So, given these and probably many other factors I may have overlooked, should we be concerned about this case as a blind community?  You bet!  We should always be very worried when the largest player in the blindness technology market chooses to sue its competition out of business rather than to compete fairly, create the products we need to insure continued access to technology, innovate and properly support their existing product lines!

Mike, Matt and all the hard working folks at Serotek have been innovating, going boldly where no other assistive technology company has gone before.  Their Remote Incident Manager product promises to absolutely revolutionize current and new employment opportunities for blind people all over the world, and System Access is getting better and better all the time!  If this lawsuit puts them out of business, this technology could be lost and not rediscovered for a very long time.  In the First Century A.D., everyone forgot that the Earth is round with the loss of scientific curiosity and discovery that resulted from the destruction of the Roman Empire and the insuing Dark Ages.  Do we really want to allow Freedom Scientific to do the same thing to the blindness assistive technology industry and to us as a community now?

HomerKit 2.0 for JAWS users and script developers

by

Executable installer
http://www.EmpowermentZone.com/kitsetup.exe

Zip archive
http://www.EmpowermentZone.com/kitsetup.zip

HomerKit 2.0
Released May 18, 2007

HomerKit is (1) a set of tools to help build JAWS scripts and (2) the
application of those tools in script sets for several programs. The
unifying intent of these script sets is a powerful, consistent keyboard
interface for tasks related to editing, navigating, and managing
documents. Currently, programs with this scripted interface are JAWS
Script Manager, NoteTab, WordPad, Notepad, Internet
Explorer, Microsoft Outlook, and Outlook Express.

The word "Homer" reflects multiple associations: an odyssey by a blind
person, a home row-oriented keyboard interface, and a home base for
various tasks. If you regularly use any of the programs mentioned, then
the standardization and enhancements of the script sets provided may be of
benefit. Any parts of the Homer script library or related tools may also
be used in developing your own script sets. JAWS versions 6.2 and above
are supported.

There is a symbiotic relationship between the Homer tools and script sets:
the tools have been developed to create the script enabled features, and
the script sets serve as real world examples of the tools in use. Since
HomerKit is a free, open source project, JAWS script developers are
encouraged to contribute improvements that benefit the blind community.

This 2.0 version of HomerKit incorporates many fixes and enhancements
since the original release. The Homer editor guide explains the
convenient, powerful interface that is consistently available in a text
editor, word processor, web browser, and email program. Each application
also includes special features enabled by particular scripts for that
context. Hot key summaries are readily available, as is an alternate menu
by which you can pick a script to execute.

Comments from various testers, and ideas from the JAWS scripting list of
BlindProgramming.com, have aided the development of Homer. I hope it
benefits many users.

Jamal

Freedom Scientific Suing Serotek, Claim Trademark Infringement

by

We have just learned that Freedom Scientific filed suit against Serotek on May 14 claiming trademark infringement for use of the term “FreedomBox”. This development raises several potentially interesting, if speculative, questions:

  • FreedomBox has existed as a product of Serotek Corporation for seven years. Why is Freedom Scientific making this move after all that time has passed?

  • This lawsuit was filed one day before the Wafra acquisition was made public. Is there any relationship between the two events?

  • Serotek’s products are evolving in some rather innovative ways, covering some of the same territory as products manufactured by Freedom Scientific. Now that Serotek’s recognition and standing is rapidly increasing within the assistive technology industry and the blind community, does this lawsuit represent an anti-competitive move on Freedom Scientific’s part to attempt to delete a player from the field?

  • The name “FreedomBox” and the name “Freedom Scientific” have only the word “freedom” in common. There are many other company’s with names including the word “freedom” including Freedom Communications, Inc. and Freedom Technologies Corporation. Given these and probably many other facts, how does Freedom Scientific have a case? The movie Jaws was made in 1975, long before either Henter-Joyce or Freedom Scientific existed. Should Steven Spielberg sue Freedom Scientific for trademark infringement over the name “Jaws”?

  • Why has Freedom Scientific demanded a jury instead of simply allowing a judge to handle this matter expeditiously?

We at the Blind Access Journal are deeply concerned about the possible ramifications of this development, even if Freedom Scientific does not win their case. We are continuing to research this story with our sources in the assistive technology and legal fields and will report frequently as new details become known. Please feel free to post a comment or e-mail us at any time about this or any other item.

Visual Verification: CAPTCHA Prevents Blind People from Signing Up at CGISpy.com

by

I wrote the following note to Mike with CGISpy.com after learning that they are now using a visual only CAPTCHA (visual verification) that prevents blind people from signing up for their services.

Dear Mike,
 
I am a blind user who is trying to create an account on CGISpy.com.  Unfortunately, your visual only CAPTCHA prevents me from completing the process.  Please consider removing the CAPTCHA, replacing the CAPTCHA with another form of protection such as e-mail confirmation or implementing an audio CAPTCHA that will play back the characters so that blind people may listen to the code to be entered.
 
I anticipate your prompt response on this important issue that currently locks out blind people simply on the basis that they are unable to see.
 
Best regards,
 
Darrell Shandrow
Accessibility Evangelist

Serotek Announces Remote Incident Manager (RIM) Pricing

by

This is fantastic news! Serotek’s CEO, Mike Calvo, has just announced the pricing for Remote Incident Manager. This technology promises to totally revolutionize the business, employment and educational opportunities for any blind person requiring anytime, anywhere mobile and remote access to computers running modern Windows operating systems. Pricing for Remote Incident Manager will be $99 per month. This requires a Key to Freedom equipped with System Access Mobile at a price of $499 and an annual $60 update plan. The pricing plan, scheduled for official public release on May 18, easily competes with similar offerings in the mainstream market and will place this technology into the hands of assistive technology specialists, consultants, help desk technicians and others who require the ability to remotely administer computers owned by sighted people who do not already have assistive technology installed. For answers to your questions, or to place an order, please contact Serotek. Let’s all get behind Serotek as a blind community and support this critical technology.