CityLand at Center for New York City Law - New York Law School
Community boards fight City Council on shortened sidewalk cafe review period. On May 7, 2013, the City Council’s Committee on Consumer Affairs held a joint hearing with the Land Use Zoning & Franchises Subcommittee to discuss proposed amendments to sidewalk cafe regulations. Introductions 875-2012, 876-A-2012, and 1039-2013 seek to expand sidewalk cafe hours and streamline the sidewalk cafe licensing and registration process.
Sidewalk cafes are licensed and monitored by the City’sDepartment of Consumer Affairs. In order to operate a sidewalk cafe, owners must first submit various documentation and fees to the DCA. Certain public safety regulations must be met and documented at this time, such as whether the proposed cafe will be on a sidewalk that is at least 12 feet wide. Applicants go through a multi-step approval and review process in order to be granted a revocable consent before a sidewalk cafe license will be issued. DCA controls and facilitates the process, sending the revocable consent petition to various City entities for discrete review periods. The petition is first sent to the City’s Department of City Planning, Department of Environmental Protection, and the Landmarks Preservation Commission (if applicable). From there, the petition is sent to the local community board, then back to DCA, and then on to the City Council. Each entity is entitled to hold its own public hearing on the petition and recommend approval, approval with modifications, or denial. Finally, the petition is sent to the Mayor’s Office of Contract Services for review and approval. When a revocable consent is granted, DCA will issue the sidewalk cafe a license to operate.
Read More Here:http://www.citylandnyc.org/sidewalk-cafe-legislation-calls-for-earlier-hours-efficient-application-process/
Welcome to the Manhattan Chamber of Commerce Manhattan Chamber of Commerce (MCC) is a vibrant business membership organization comprised of a cross section of 10,000 business members and subscribers ranging from sole proprietors to large corporations and multi-national firms. Connect with entrepreneurs, leaders and executives by becoming an MCC member today and help your business grow. Our mission is to advocate for, connect and educate the business community in Manhattan.
Showing posts with label Legislative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Legislative. Show all posts
Friday, June 7, 2013
Thursday, June 6, 2013
New York STOPFakes Op-ed
By
Mark Elliot and Nancy Ploeger
Creative
and innovative industries are the cornerstone to New York’s rich cultural and
economic history, and also offer opportunities for a prosperous future.
New
York’s creative spirit is its economic engine. According to a U.S. Chamber of
Commerce study, over one-third of the private sector employment in the state
depends on the products and economic activity generated by copyrights, patents,
and trademarks belonging to New Yorkers. Those 2.8 million jobs generate 40% of
New York’s gross state product.
New
York is known for giving creators and entrepreneurs a shot at their dreams.
This state attracts incredibly diverse, innovative and creation-friendly individuals,
including budding Broadway stars to accomplished scientists. Intellectual
property (IP) rights fuel the creative genius of New York’s homegrown talent,
and attract businesses from around the country and the world to invest in our
people.
New
York is home to a wide array of entrepreneurial businesses and innovators, like
health care, media, advertising, fashion designers, university researchers, gaming
and software firms, and filmmakers, just to name a few. All of these rely on the assurance of IP
rights to continue to research, create jobs, and develop breakthrough
technologies and products. Protecting and promoting IP rights is essential to
keeping our economic momentum going.
IP
theft is a major concern for businesses and industries of all sizes. Today,
stealing creative products can be measured by clicks of the mouse, as well as
patent and trademark infringement, like fake car parts, counterfeit sporting
goods, or phony plastics. And this occurrence is all too common. With $650
billion lost annually to counterfeited products and pirated goods worldwide, it
is imperative that we support the efforts of agencies like Customs and Border
Protection and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement to help fight this bleed on
our economy.
The
downside to fake goods is not limited to the negative impact on a company’s
bottom line. They also have the potential to hurt consumers. Overseas IP
thieves are slapping trusted brand names onto dangerously deceptive fakes, from
pirated music infected with computer malware, to counterfeit airbags that could
fail to deploy when your family needs them most.
It’s
not just practical, it’s good business sense to equip companies and industries
with the know-how to identify and stave off the drain of IP theft. IP
protections provide the incentive for innovators and creators to push the
limits of human ingenuity to develop new products that improve our lives,
whether they be a hit song, the newest tech gadget, or even a life-saving
medicine.
With
New York’s long history of creativity and innovation, defending IP rights and
empowering the people who hold those rights, like artists, is essential to our
economic vitality. After all, as Frank Sinatra famously crooned, “if you can
make it here, you can make it anywhere.”
Mark
Elliot is the Executive Vice President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global
Intellectual Property Center.
Nancy
Ploeger is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Manhattan Chamber
of Commerce
Thursday, May 2, 2013
An Alternative to Patent Troll Litigation: A Better Program for Challenging Troll Patents in the PTO
SCHUMER: ‘PATENT TROLLS’ PREYING ON NEW YORK’S TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY WITH UNWARRENTED LAWSUITS—COSTING LEGITIMATE COMPANIES BILLIONS OF DOLLARS; ANNOUNCES NEW LEGISLATION TO CRACKDOWN ON GROWING PROBLEM
Patent Troll Companies Make Money By Purchasing Broad Patents & Suing Legitimate Tech Companies With Similar Products
Schumer Introduces Legislation to Improve Patent Prosecution System; Bill Would Allow These Claims to Be Reviewed by Patent & Trademark Office—Will Avoid Costly Litigation Fees for Defending Businesses
U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer today announced he would be introducing legislation that would crack down on “patent trolls” - companies that prey on technology companies. Patent trolls are companies that don’t produce or manufacture products, but instead hold often low-quality patents solely for the purpose of suing legitimate businesses who use technologies similar to those in the patents. Patent trolls cost operating companies $29 billion in suits in 2011. Schumer today highlighted the growing problem and introduced legislation that will improve the patent system by allowing these claims to be reviewed administratively by experts at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).
“Patent trolls are bullying New York’s technology companies and dragging down growth. It’s time we address this growing problem,” said Schumer. “This legislation will provide small technology start-ups with the opportunity to address these claims outside of the legal system, saving billions of dollars in litigation fees. The Patent and Trademark Office is already reviewing twenty patent cases in a temporary patent review program and I am confident that extending this program will be beneficial to New York’s economy.”
Patent trolls are companies whose sole purpose is to take advantage of other companies by taking them to court. Patent trolls buy low-quality patents which often use broad language. Patent trolls do not produce the products in which they have a patent. Instead, they wait until another company develops a similar product and sues them in court.
In 2011 alone, patent trolls cost operating companies $29 billion. Under current law, a company hit with a patent suit only has two options – pay to defend the suit or pay a licensing fee or settlement agreement to make the suit go away. Both options are highly costly – the average troll settlement costs a small or medium company $1.33 million, while an in-court defense would cost the same company an average of $1.75 million per case.
Specifically, this has been an enormous problem among technology start-up companies: 62% of patents asserted by trolls from 1990-2010 were software patents; 75% were in computer and communications technology. And this is a particular problem for small businesses: 82% of companies targeted by trolls of annual revenues less than $100 million.
According to Patent Freedom, the number of companies sued by patent trolls in New York rose 75% to 288 between 2006 and 2012. Specifically, the New York based company, Etsy, has been sued for infringing on patents involving storing delivering and managing messages.
In September of 2011, the America Invents Act (AIA) updated the way patents are issued and prosecuted, and included the Schumer-Kyl program for business method patents related to financial products and services. The Schumer-Kyl provision is a temporary program that established a post grant review by experts at the PTO of covered business method patents and allows a petitioner to request that the PTO review a covered patent; if they find it more likely than not to be invalid, the PTO can take a second look and return a decision promptly. Since the provision began, approximately twenty patents have been challenged through the PTO.
Schumer today introduced legislation that would expand the Schumer-Kyl provision to include more businesses, specifically among technology start-up companies. The legislation would also remove the provision’s temporary status. Schumer explained that a PTO prosecution system will provide patent holders and accused infringers with an alternative to court, which can be extremely costly. This will not only help resolve existing suits in a low-cost way, it will also deter trolls from filing suits in the future because it provides a cost-effective option to knock out bad patents.
● A better program for challenging the validity of troll patents in the PTO is needed to serve as an alternative to expensive litigation, especially for small companies that cannot afford to fight in court and are otherwise forced to pay extortion settlements based on the prospect of huge litigation costs. Expanding the Covered Business Method (CBM) Program of the American Invents Act (AIA) would fill this need.
The Patent Troll Litigation Explosion
● Patent trolls place a real drag on innovation and job creation. These are entities that buy patents and launch lawsuits, but create nothing. Troll suits cost the U.S. economy $80 billion in 2011, and productive companies made $29 billion in direct payouts.
● The number of troll suits and the costs they impose are increasing at an alarming rate. Patent troll suits against productive companies have increased by 400% since 2005. A majority of patent litigation is now brought by patent trolls.
● Small and medium companies are the most frequent troll targets, and they cannot afford to fight back. Stories of nuisance suits against coffee shops that use wifi or local businesses that use scanners are becoming more common.
● 75% of troll patents relate to computer and communications technology. In general, internet and software patents are eight times more likely to be litigated.
● Many of the asserted patents are abstract and overbroad, claiming ownership of a general concept or method, like the interactive web or on-line shopping carts. When the targets fight back, they win over 75% of the time, but only at great cost.
● Patent litigation is notoriously expensive. The average cost of a single case is well over $5 million. Even for small and medium sized companies, the average cost of fighting through trial reaches $1.75 million.
An Alternative to Litigation
● We need a cheaper alternative to patent troll litigation, especially for those companies that cannot afford to litigate but who want to fight extortive settlement demands based on litigation costs and not merits.
● Existing programs for challenging patent validity in the PTO (such as the The Inter Partes Review program) have serious shortcomings for challenging troll patents. It is not possible to challenge the vagueness, overbreadth or abstractness (under sections 101 and 112 of the Patent Act) of patents under this program. But these are some of the biggest problems with the patents so frequently asserted by trolls.
● The AIA created a much more useful program for challenging troll patents in the PTO called the Covered Business Method (CBM) program. Challengers can bring all validity arguments to the PTO under this program, not just a select few.
● The CBM program also serves as a better alternative to litigation because the statute encourages courts to stay litigation while the PTO considers validity. This conserves judicial resources and spares the parties from unnecessary litigation.
● But the CBM program is limited to patents related to “financial products or services,” which represent but one portion of patent trolls’ patent arsenals.
● Expanding the CBM Program to allow challenges to all business method patents would provide a low cost alternative to litigation for weeding out invalid patents. Lessening the drain that patent trolls place on productive companies through the assertion of invalid patents would further the patent system’s goal of promoting innovation.
Patent Troll Companies Make Money By Purchasing Broad Patents & Suing Legitimate Tech Companies With Similar Products
Schumer Introduces Legislation to Improve Patent Prosecution System; Bill Would Allow These Claims to Be Reviewed by Patent & Trademark Office—Will Avoid Costly Litigation Fees for Defending Businesses
U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer today announced he would be introducing legislation that would crack down on “patent trolls” - companies that prey on technology companies. Patent trolls are companies that don’t produce or manufacture products, but instead hold often low-quality patents solely for the purpose of suing legitimate businesses who use technologies similar to those in the patents. Patent trolls cost operating companies $29 billion in suits in 2011. Schumer today highlighted the growing problem and introduced legislation that will improve the patent system by allowing these claims to be reviewed administratively by experts at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).
“Patent trolls are bullying New York’s technology companies and dragging down growth. It’s time we address this growing problem,” said Schumer. “This legislation will provide small technology start-ups with the opportunity to address these claims outside of the legal system, saving billions of dollars in litigation fees. The Patent and Trademark Office is already reviewing twenty patent cases in a temporary patent review program and I am confident that extending this program will be beneficial to New York’s economy.”
Patent trolls are companies whose sole purpose is to take advantage of other companies by taking them to court. Patent trolls buy low-quality patents which often use broad language. Patent trolls do not produce the products in which they have a patent. Instead, they wait until another company develops a similar product and sues them in court.
In 2011 alone, patent trolls cost operating companies $29 billion. Under current law, a company hit with a patent suit only has two options – pay to defend the suit or pay a licensing fee or settlement agreement to make the suit go away. Both options are highly costly – the average troll settlement costs a small or medium company $1.33 million, while an in-court defense would cost the same company an average of $1.75 million per case.
Specifically, this has been an enormous problem among technology start-up companies: 62% of patents asserted by trolls from 1990-2010 were software patents; 75% were in computer and communications technology. And this is a particular problem for small businesses: 82% of companies targeted by trolls of annual revenues less than $100 million.
According to Patent Freedom, the number of companies sued by patent trolls in New York rose 75% to 288 between 2006 and 2012. Specifically, the New York based company, Etsy, has been sued for infringing on patents involving storing delivering and managing messages.
In September of 2011, the America Invents Act (AIA) updated the way patents are issued and prosecuted, and included the Schumer-Kyl program for business method patents related to financial products and services. The Schumer-Kyl provision is a temporary program that established a post grant review by experts at the PTO of covered business method patents and allows a petitioner to request that the PTO review a covered patent; if they find it more likely than not to be invalid, the PTO can take a second look and return a decision promptly. Since the provision began, approximately twenty patents have been challenged through the PTO.
Schumer today introduced legislation that would expand the Schumer-Kyl provision to include more businesses, specifically among technology start-up companies. The legislation would also remove the provision’s temporary status. Schumer explained that a PTO prosecution system will provide patent holders and accused infringers with an alternative to court, which can be extremely costly. This will not only help resolve existing suits in a low-cost way, it will also deter trolls from filing suits in the future because it provides a cost-effective option to knock out bad patents.
● A better program for challenging the validity of troll patents in the PTO is needed to serve as an alternative to expensive litigation, especially for small companies that cannot afford to fight in court and are otherwise forced to pay extortion settlements based on the prospect of huge litigation costs. Expanding the Covered Business Method (CBM) Program of the American Invents Act (AIA) would fill this need.
The Patent Troll Litigation Explosion
● Patent trolls place a real drag on innovation and job creation. These are entities that buy patents and launch lawsuits, but create nothing. Troll suits cost the U.S. economy $80 billion in 2011, and productive companies made $29 billion in direct payouts.
● The number of troll suits and the costs they impose are increasing at an alarming rate. Patent troll suits against productive companies have increased by 400% since 2005. A majority of patent litigation is now brought by patent trolls.
● Small and medium companies are the most frequent troll targets, and they cannot afford to fight back. Stories of nuisance suits against coffee shops that use wifi or local businesses that use scanners are becoming more common.
● 75% of troll patents relate to computer and communications technology. In general, internet and software patents are eight times more likely to be litigated.
● Many of the asserted patents are abstract and overbroad, claiming ownership of a general concept or method, like the interactive web or on-line shopping carts. When the targets fight back, they win over 75% of the time, but only at great cost.
● Patent litigation is notoriously expensive. The average cost of a single case is well over $5 million. Even for small and medium sized companies, the average cost of fighting through trial reaches $1.75 million.
An Alternative to Litigation
● We need a cheaper alternative to patent troll litigation, especially for those companies that cannot afford to litigate but who want to fight extortive settlement demands based on litigation costs and not merits.
● Existing programs for challenging patent validity in the PTO (such as the The Inter Partes Review program) have serious shortcomings for challenging troll patents. It is not possible to challenge the vagueness, overbreadth or abstractness (under sections 101 and 112 of the Patent Act) of patents under this program. But these are some of the biggest problems with the patents so frequently asserted by trolls.
● The AIA created a much more useful program for challenging troll patents in the PTO called the Covered Business Method (CBM) program. Challengers can bring all validity arguments to the PTO under this program, not just a select few.
● The CBM program also serves as a better alternative to litigation because the statute encourages courts to stay litigation while the PTO considers validity. This conserves judicial resources and spares the parties from unnecessary litigation.
● But the CBM program is limited to patents related to “financial products or services,” which represent but one portion of patent trolls’ patent arsenals.
● Expanding the CBM Program to allow challenges to all business method patents would provide a low cost alternative to litigation for weeding out invalid patents. Lessening the drain that patent trolls place on productive companies through the assertion of invalid patents would further the patent system’s goal of promoting innovation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)