Famous (Legal) Battles of Ideas

In yesterday's post on the anniversary of the first flight, I commented on the patent infringement suits between the Wright brothers and Glenn Curtiss, which essentially ended in a "draw," so to speak, as the corporate legacies of both, merged to form the Curtiss-Wright Corporation.

But such arguments over "who's on first," is, unfortunately, common to the arena of ideas. As famous as the invention of the airplane is, the invention of the telephone as a form of mass communication has had an even greater impact on the world's social and political structure. Yet here too was a legal battle over who intellectualized first. Although Alexander Graham Bell, in 1876, patented his electronic speech transmitter first, Elisha Grey, patented his "new art of transmitting vocal sounds telegraphically" only hours later. The ensuing patent suit ended with Bell's victory, which explains why we receive monthly bills from Bell Canada and not Grey Telephone Co. 

The patent concept arose from the written granting of rights and privileges by the monarchy under royal seal. Thus, the Latin "litterae patentes" means "open letter." The Venetian glass-makers of Renaissance Italy informally made use of this patent system. Thus, the first recorded patent in 1449 England was a patent for a glass-making technique.

Although I could not find an estimate of the number of patent law suits to date, a new study suggests the financial costs, in the past four years in the USA, have risen to $83 billion per year. In August 2011 alone, there were 294 patent lawsuits in the USA. According to some critics, we are experiencing a "patent bubble," with most major intellectual corporations involved in multiple patent suits. For example, Apple is embroiled in 97 "open patent" cases alone.

These "battles of ideas" span time, place, and area of expertise. The obvious conflicts come from the inventors: Thomas Edison was involved in multiple patent suits. In the gaming arena, the legal battle over Tetris was as epic as the game. The Zuckerberg vs. Winkervoss and Winkervoss (or Winkervii) battle spawned a movie. The Newton and Leibniz argument over Calculus, still rages today. 

Such arguments have spilled over into the Arts as well. Jeff Koons has been both the initiator and defender of artistic copyright suits. Stephen Joyce, James Joyce's grandson, has scrupulously, some say miserly, restricted the use of his grandfather's writings. Although June 2012 sees the end of his copyright fiefdom, the repercussions of his aggressive stance has caused no end of intellectual difficulties.

Musically, legal accusations abound. In a recent U.S Supreme Court argument on the limits of copyright legislation, Chief Justice Roberts reminded the Court of Jimi Hendrix and his famous rendition of the "Star Spangled Banner." In response to the government's support of the new legislation, Roberts commented on Hendrix when he stated "assuming the national anthem is suddenly entitled to copyright protection that it wasn’t before, he can’t do that, right?" 

Finally, we must come full-circle, as I am wont to do, and mention the penultimate legal battle of ideas: the Scopes Monkey Trial, famously depicted in the play/movie Inherit The Wind and upon which I have blogged previously. The clash of beliefs as represented by the Scopes case and still on-going today, is a real testament to how dearly we as individuals, and as society, hold onto our ideals and ideas.

Which makes one wonder: Is there a patent for that?

Were The Wright Brothers Right? A Lesson In Patent Law

On December 17, 1903, 108 years ago, Orville and Wilbur Wright made aviation history when their powered airplane rose twenty feet above the North Carolina coastline.

Little did they know then that this event would also launch a lengthy and bitter patent suit against another aviation marvel, Glenn Curtiss.

According to the Wright brothers, Curtiss used their patented lateral control and aileron design in his fliers. The subsequent legal battle drained both parties' finances and health. When the final decision was rendered in 1913, granting success to the Wrights, only Orville was alive to accept the verdict.

This, however, was not the end as Henry Ford, also a victim of patent litigation in which he lost an action before the same judge, persuaded Curtiss to test the Wright patents even further. The resulting patent battle resulted in another protracted action which resulted in a temporary stay of the original patent suit. 

World War I intervened and all suits were suspended as the government permitted sharing of all airplane patents in support of the war effort. The end of the war saw an end to the dispute as Orville Wright sold his interest in his company and chose not to reinstate the patent proceedings.

Of course the irony is as they say, history, when the Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company merged with the Wright Aeronautical Corporation in 1929 to form the Curtiss-Wright Corporation, which still survives today.

This merger, however, did not end the Corporation's protection of their patents in Canada and the United States. Two such cases, suggest that Curtiss-Wright's successes in that area have been less than satisfactory.

Indeed, patent litigation today is a risky, yet financially necessary, step to protect intellectual property. The financial stakes are high and litigation on these highly technical issues are traditionally drawn out and complicated. The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision ordering Microsoft to pay $290 million for patent infringements of a small Canadian IT company serves as a costly example.

Although we have made huge (flight) strides from 1903 Kitty Hawk, our patent laws and subsequent litigation seem to be move at a snail's pace. Perhaps, the legacy of flight should also be a lesson in the vagaries of litigation. Either way, today was truly a world-changing day in history.

Testifying Behind The Veil: The Human Factor

Yesterday I discussed the background to the N. S. case, which has recently been argued, on appeal, before the Supreme Court of Canada. The case is significant for two reasons: it raises the issue of conflicting Charter rights and how this conflict should be approached by the courts and it raises the issue of whether or not a witness in a criminal case is permitted to wear a face covering veil during testimony.

The second issue has broader implications in the public arena as it highlights the clash between traditional religious practices and the modern world, where identity and privacy seem to shrink in the public spotlight. In the age of mass communication, with over 500 million users of Facebook, the idea of masking one's identity, for whatever reason, appears to be not only redundant but also unacceptable.

Legally, such a stance seems to be against precedent as seen in the 2009 Supreme Court of Canada Alberta v. Hutterian Brethran of Wilson Colony case, wherein the Court upheld provincial legislation which required photographic driver licence identification even though such requirement conflicted with the religious precepts of the Brethren. Such picture identification was rationally connected to the real and pressing concerns of safety and security.

Politically too, keeping one's identity private is not acceptable as in the recent decision by the Federal Government to require the removal of face covering veils when fulfilling citizenship requirements, particularly when taking the citizenship oath. This decision does not appear to be decided on the basis of security and safety but, according to Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, on the basis that the "public declaration that you are joining the Canadian family ...must be taken freely and openly." 

In that backdrop, we return to the N. S. case and the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal written by the Honourable Mr. Justice Doherty for the panel. In the decision, Justice Doherty perfectly sets out the issues at stake "in human terms": 

N.S. is facing a most difficult and intimidating task.  She must describe intimate, humiliating and painful details of her childhood.  She must do so, at least twice, in a public forum in which her credibility and reliability will be vigorously challenged and in which the person she says abused her is cloaked in the presumption of innocence.  The pressures and pain that complainants in a sexual assault case must feel when testifying will no doubt be compounded in these circumstances where N.S. is testifying against family members.  It should not surprise anyone that N.S., when faced with this daunting task, seeks the strength and solace of her religious beliefs and practices. 

M---d.S. is facing serious criminal charges.  If convicted, he may well go to jail for a considerable period of time.  He will also wear the stigma of the child molester for the rest of his life.  In all likelihood, the mere fact that charges have been laid has led many within his family and community who are aware of those charges to look at M---d.S. in a very different way. 

M---d.S. is presumed innocent.  His fate will depend on whether N.S. is believed.  In a very real sense, the rest of M---d.S.’s life depends on whether his counsel can show that N.S. is not a credible or reliable witness.  No one can begrudge M---d.S.’s insistence that his lawyer have available all of the means that could reasonably assist in getting at the truth of the allegations made against him.    

What is really being impacted by this case, which has now taken on national proportions, legally, politically, and socially, is the lives of two people. Certainly, the public's interest in the outcome of the case is valid. This is even more so considering the number and type of intervener's in the SCC case: the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Criminal Lawyer's Association, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, and the Muslim Canadian Congress, to name but a few. However, we must not forget the "human terms" or human factor, which requires us to contemplate the life-changing possibilities of this ruling.

The Sixty Day Review: Occupy Canada and Impaired Driving Alberta

Slightly more than sixty blog days have passed and it is time to review. I have chosen two of my most popular posting areas to review: the Occupy movement and the new Alberta impaired driving laws. 

As discussed previously, although the courts have recognized violations of freedom of expression resulting from the City's bylaws prohibiting the erecting of shelters in public spaces, these laws have been saved under s.1 of the Charter. This means the legislated restrictions on freedom of expression is justifiable in a free and democratic society. These decisions from across Canada have resulted in the removal of the various "Tent Cities," which were the outward manifestation of the movement's "occupy" philosophy. 

The media coverage of the court cases to remove the protesters seemed to overshadow the true nature and meaning of the protest. I recently read an excellent blog posting by the Dean of Osgoode Hall Law School, Lorne Sussin, who reminds us of the important "teachable moments" presented by the protest. In particular, Dean Sussin speaks of poverty and the inequalities arising from it, as the true issue to be resolved. 

This reminder lead me back to the letters written by the CCLA (Canadian Civil Liberties Association) to the various Canadian Mayors to remind the municipalities of their obligation to respect the protestors' human rights through "constitutionally-required tolerance towards peaceful, democratic activities."

As discussed in my previous posting, these reminders from the Dean and the CCLA provides the lessons we can learn from Charter values.

The second area of review is the contentious amendments to the Alberta Traffic Safety Act, which was passed late Tuesday, December 6 by the Tory dominated Alberta Legislature. After the Bill was passed, Premier Redford "softened the blow" by announcing the incremental implementation of the law.

The first phase, to begin in January 2012, will see the extraordinary penalties assessed against those whose BAC is over 80 and face criminal code charges as well. The second phase, involving increased penalties for those driving with BAC between 50 and 80, has no implementation date stamp as yet. According to Premier Redford, this second phase will be "accompanied by lengthy public education."

Already, there has been charts, graphs, and other such various multimedia presentations on what the new legislation "means." The difficulty is that these explanations are merely a general guideline and should not be used as a definitive guide to drinking and driving in Alberta. The calculations are estimates at best which rely on certain assumptions, which may or may not be the same for every person. As a result, the education may lead to more confusion.

In British Columbia, the harsh impaired driving laws, on which Alberta fashioned their new law, received a legal set back as discussed in my previous blog here. The BC government has still not announced their response, other than to recognize the need to change their legislation in order to make it constitutionally worthy. The growing issue is the response to all of the affected drivers, who were penalized under the old regime, and whether they will receive some recourse from the government.

The Alberta saw a real time example of impaired driving when Conservative MP Peter Goldring was stopped, after his constituency Christmas party, for drinking and driving. Goldring is now sitting outside of his caucus as a result of the charges: refuse to provide a breath sample contrary to the Criminal Code.

The only truly accurate educative message is: do not drink alcohol and drive. To that end, December, according to the Alberta Traffic Safety Plan Calendar, is Impaired Driving Awareness Month. As said in previous blogs, awareness education may be the best message to stop the dire consequences of drinking and driving. 

In the past sixty days we have discussed many interesting and important connections between ideas and the law. I invite you to read or even re-read these blogs, by visiting the "home" page, to make your own connections.

Follow Up Connections: Human Rights, Science, and Literature

As this blog is about connecting ideas, this follow up post will do just that: provide some interesting connections between human rights, science, and literature.

As discussed yesterday, International Human Rights Day, celebrated yearly on December 10, recognizes the anniversary of the most influential human rights document: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For more on this, read yesterday's posting here.

December 10, is also the day in which the Nobel Prize Laureates receive their Prize in a ceremony fraught with history and solemnity. This year, the Nobel Peace Prize recipients are three courageous women: Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee, Tawakkol Karmen. According to the Nobel Committee, these three women won "for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women’s rights to full participation in peace-building work". How apt these women received this prize on International Human Rights Day. Their inspiring lectures are a constant reminder that the struggle for human rights is ongoing, even though the Universal Decleration of Human Rights has been enacted for 63 years.

Yesterday was also exceptional for the lunar eclipse seen throughout many parts of the world. Historically, both solar and lunar eclipses, as an omen of fate, stopped wars, or, as in the case of the Peloponnesian War, changed the course of history. Thus, the lunar eclipse as a harbinger of peace, is a meaningful event on a day we celebrate human dignity.

Finally, December 10 was the birth date of a poet, who understood the power of words to express love and hate. Emily Dickinson was a shy and retiring poet, who wrote astoundingly simple yet breathtakingly beautiful poetry. In her 8 line poem from Part One: Life, Emily reminds us where our priorities lie:

I HAD no time to hate, because
The grave would hinder me,
And life was not so ample I
Could finish enmity.
Nor had I time to love; but since
Some industry must be,
The little toil of love, I thought,
Was large enough for me.