Jump to content

Talk:Scams in intellectual property/Archives/2013

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Improvements to be Made

GD, Nice start. I think this will make an excellent article. Perhaps we should put a short note in the patent article about patent fraud in general.

I think it would be great to put in an example of one of the fraudulent notices. Any idea what the copyright situation is on these?--Nowa 11:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought about putting in one of the notices but, as you say, the copyright issue is difficult. I really don't have an answer to that one. WIPO has examples of several of them on their website which could be linked to rather than including one directly here.
As for mentioning fraud in other articles: I agree, and some links from the particular articles against which this scam is applied would be an idea. I just wanted to get a view as to whether the article was worth keeping before putting that sort of effort into it, though. GDallimore 12:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The USPTO has this to say about "invention promotion" firms. [1] This is a much grayer area than patent registration firms. --Nowa 13:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed that this would make a good article. Perhaps a different title would be more appropriate? Like Trademark registration service or Trademark registration organization? Looking forward to this article, I learn something new everyday. -Taco325i 13:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I've just realised that it covers almost the entire spectrum of IP. Patents, designs and trademarks. If we can find any examples of similar scams in the field of copyright, we could rightly rename the article "Intellectual property registration services" with redirects from each of Patent/Trademark/Design/Copyright registration services. Again, a plan for the future, though.
Other ideas I had, but hadn't bothered implementing yet were a discussion of the services that these people claim to offer (usually inclusion in some directory), a discussion of actions taken against these companies (see the OHIM link, although another source would be useful if we can find one) a list of effects on applicants (see if we can find anything by someone saying they actually paid the fee) and, important for NPOV, see if we can find anything positive about these companies. GDallimore 13:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Resources to aid in expansion of article

Interesting (and indeed cute!) as that report is, it is about invention promoters, who are a slightly different beast from these registration services. However maybe this is an article that can be expanded to cover several different types of scams relating to intellectual property - there is certainly a lot more information available on invention promoters, whereas registration services are a newer phenomenon. Not sure what the title of such an expanded article would be, though. GDallimore 15:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
GD, I think that invention promoters are a very different beast than the resistration services. The service (e.g. filing patents, promoting inventions) that invention promotion firms is clearly of value to inventors. I think the main criticism is that inventors feel that they are oversold on the probability of success, and many inventors don't get the services they think they are getting. Registration service firms, however, don't provide any extra value to listers.

Thus I think a separate invention promoters article would be good, but particular care must be taken to have NPOV.--Nowa 18:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Defining scope of article

We're limiting the scope of this article to fradulent registration organizations, right? -Taco325i 14:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, none of these organisations has yet been successfully stopped on the basis of fraudulent activities, although some appear to be under investigation. It would therefore be wrong of us to call any of these organisations fraudulent. The weaker word "scam" that I have used may not even be supported by the cited references. These organisations would no doubt argue that they are providing a bona fide service of entering details into a register on payment of a fee.
So I think the answer is that we should not limit to fraudulent activities (since that would reduce the article to nothing), but perhaps merely to activities about which notable IP sources have advised caution to applicants on the basis of any or all or the following features:
  • The organisations send notices promising entering details onto a register that provides not apparent benefit to the applicant
  • The wording of the notices includes a lot of lengthy small print explaining what the payment is actually for, which might not be properly read or understood (but which possibly prevents the notices being actively fraudulent)
  • The notices all require payment within very short terms, potentially causing the applicant to pay the fee without seeking professional advice.
I'm sure there are other prominent features about these organisations, but that's just a quick list of the major ones. GDallimore 15:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Doublespeak

"Registration services" sounds awfully like doublespeak to me. The article is about scams, right ("(...) attempt to take advantage of patent and trademark applicants or owners by requesting payment for an apparently official registration)? I have moved the article under WP:BOLD. --Edcolins 20:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer a title which included the words "registration service" in there somewhere. The reason being it will be easier to locate by searchers. Someone who gets one of these notices might run a search (either google or on WP) for "registration service" since this is what these people are advertising. I would want them to find this article relatively easily.
Most importantly, though, I do think that the word "scam" is NPOV and needs removing from the article. They haven't been proved as scams, and aren't called scams by the IPOs, even though they may look like it. GDallimore 21:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Could this article be expanded to cover sites/services such as http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk who aren't necessarily scamming, but do offer a registration service?

With this in mind, I think a nice NPOV title like "Intellectual property registration services" would be appropriate. GDallimore 21:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What about an article called Copyright registration service then? Non-official invention, patent and trademark registration services sound rather dodgy to me. --Edcolins 22:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Invention Promotion Firms

I tried rewriting the Invention promotion firm section. I'm still a bit uncomfortable with the POV. I think it's clear that there are fraudulent firms, but I think that there are also legitimate firms as well. (See Licensing Executive Society) At some point it might be good idea to break this out as a separate article covering the general field of licensing firms.--Nowa 02:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Title

I concur with GDallimore that the title is still not perfect. Maybe we need a title which is factual enough to describe and encompass the "schemes and services, in intellectual property, that have been qualified as scams or fraudulent activities". What about

?--Edcolins 23:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Split/Merge

I don't think there's enough to split the domain slamming section into a different article. As for merging the DRoA article into this one, it's a toss up. I think it's slightly better as is just because we don't want to include corporate info in this article, but DRoA don't appear to be notable except for their dodgy practices, so we don't really need any corporate info. GDallimore (Talk) 09:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I went for bold and split it into a new article before I read this comment. I hope to expand the article to justify the split. If not, it can always be merged back. I appreciate your help.--Hm2k (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
My comment was based on the existing sources. You appear to have added lots more, although it would be better with more which aren't The Register. GDallimore (Talk) 21:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
GDallimore erased in two actions the following section, with the remarks:
Perpetual motion is a load of rubbish, not a scam, and certainly not an IP scam.
Inventionland is not a scam. Will find a way to link from Invention promotion firm
Controversial inventors, inventions and invention promotion companies
And when erasing this section, he remarked:
Not related to IP Scams
See also
Lets see. How many vaporware companies are there that claimed they have developed inventions (and bogus patents) and wish to sell them. Need we list them?
Perpetual motion: Nothing to do with IP scams? Does everyone here agree with this? Need an example? It was erased in the first part: Stanley Meyers' water fuel cell. Conclusion: Meyer's claims about his "Water Fuel Cell" and the car that it powered were found to be fraudulent by an Ohio court in 1996. Next section: Throughout his patents[4][5][6] and marketing material,[7][8][9] Meyer uses the terms "fuel cell" or "water fuel cell" to refer to the portion of his device in which electricity is passed through water to produce hydrogen and oxygen. Meyer's use of the term in this sense is contrary to its usual meaning in science and engineering,... I hope your not claiming that Meyer's water cell had nothing to do with perpetual motion machines. If so I'll refer you to box on the top right: 'Perpetual motion machine: Stanley Meyer's Water fuel cell'. Your not going to argue with that, right?
Energine - was erased without explanation. I won't prove the point unless you ask. (hint, look up what the court case was)
RevoPower - is a bit different. There is no court case, at least not that I know of. Maybe nobody paid them. But the idea in writing was that they have patents and want investors. Or maybe it was just a test for the Fake Grape design company. In any case it is definitely closely related to IP scams. And if the list was left, I'm sure we'de have many additions, which would be important for the knowledgeable world.
Back to inventionland: Not a scam? This is what the USPTO calls the case: Court Halts Bogus Invention Promotion Claims Anybody care to explain the word 'bogus'? The judge said: defendants continued to engage in deceptive practices, albeit in slightly different forms. Based on this past pattern of conduct, there is a very real danger that defendants will alter their business again, yet continue to engage in wrongdoing...
The USPTO article says: To prevent those practices, he ordered the company and its principals to pay $26 million. On Brown and Michael's legal site they bring down the list of actions prohibited by Davison. These include: The order prohibited Davison from making any misrepresentation:... (e) that they have a vast network of corporations with whom they have ongoing relationships and regularly negotiate successful licensing agreements; A claim clearly seen on the website: (albeit perhaps deceiving because they now are claiming the ties with the companies for their own ideas, and they also give services to the inventors: Hundreds of new ideas come to life every month at Inventionland, where Davison's award-winning team sets an example of America's can-do spirit and ingenuity. The Davison team delivers a constant flow of innovative products and ideas to companies. These companies, in turn, are able to stay ahead of their competitors. Davison also offers individuals who have new ideas a variety of services to help them mold their idea into a reality. These services include product design, web design, photography, and more.
Another prohibition listed was (g) that they prepare objective and expert analyses of the marketability or patentability of consumers' invention ideas.
According to current clients complaints, in their phone discussions they clearly claim exactly that in their inventigration program. In a response to a 2009 complaint, a Davison representative wrote, explaining the 'inventigration' process they do and claiming that the complaints were wrong:
Step One: All potential clients must acknowledge that invention development is high risk.... clients must acknowledge that they received and read ...Thereby, we ensure that invention submitters understand that inventing is time-consuming, costly and rarely results in profit.... As a result, none of our clients should have the impression that inventing is easy and financially rewarding. Inventing can be educational, fun and exciting as long as everyone keeps in mind that profit is unlikely.
Step Two: Pre-development Service Offer: After receipt of an invention idea we often offer to perform preliminary design research ...researching prior patents of inventions... Any service offer made to a potential client is made in writing so that clients are assured of exactly what services they are purchasing.
Step Three: Invention Prototype Services Offer... a written contract so that clients are assured of exactly what services they are purchasing.
Step Four: Licensing Representation: Once projects are designed, built and packaged our team presents them to companies for licensing consideration.
We wish you the best of luck with your invention or idea. CCA.
So step two is breaching (g), and step four is breaching (e).
I wish you the best of luck in claiming I'm wrong. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


The judge then says: Judge Lancaster’s decision sends a strong signal to all those invention promotion and licensing firms that prey upon America’s independent inventor community that fraudulent and unscrupulous practices will not be tolerated. Notice: fraudulent and unscrupulous practices.

I'm not going to bother discussing this with you any more, but will just repeat ONE LAST TIME what I have been saying since the beginning. Find a WP:reliable source that specifically says Inventionland is a scam and it can go into the wikipedia article. If you don't, then it can't. Full stop. End of discussion. GDallimore (Talk) 12:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Found. Explicitly on the USPTO website, in the FTC essay.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Now will you be willing to discuss the other questions I asked.
I removed your latest edits. This is an overview article, and the invention promotion firm article contains details of the specific case you're fixated on already. There's no need to specifically mention Davison here out of the several other invention promotion firms discussed there. As for the other links you wanted to add. They're not IP related so don't belong in this article. It's just bad style to have loads of barely relevant see also links at the end of an article. GDallimore (Talk) 01:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scams_in_intellectual_property/Archives/2013&oldid=701789898"