Steve Lohr writes that trademarking is being steadily expanded to the web link here. "For the empirical proof, look at the filings with the government for new trademarks that, put simply, are brand names," he writes. "It lies beyond putting trademarks on new businesses, Web site addresses and online logos. Now, companies want to slap a brand on still vaguely defined products and services in the uncharted ephemera of cyberspace the computing cloud, as it has come to be known."

Lohr provides several examples. Dell tried to trademark Cloud Computing and now Microsoft is trying something with the phrase Live together with another word, like Mesh, as if Live somehow made the phrase unique.

This attempt to extend the reach of trademark has not gone unopposed, since it is clearly an attempt to extend monopoly into new areas.

Sam Diaz brings us news that Mac clone maker, Psystar, is suing Apple right back link here. He quotes the president of Psystar, "It's not that people don't want to use Mac OS X, but they're not open to spending an exorbitant amount of money for something that's essentially generic hardware."

Its case rests on the charge that the EULA (end user license agreement) the buyer of the software "agrees to" when he opens the package, requires that he use it on a Mac. That is obviously a restraint of trade, but courts have allowed it in the past.

So this is an important case and probably will be long fought by lots of companies which have a stake in the result.

The Harry Potter intellectual monopoly and its billionaires continue to try to extract more money from us consumers or its entertainment competitors, according to this story in the New York Times link here. An Indian film company has produced a film entitled "Hari Puttar: A Comedy of Terrors," about "a 10-year-old boy who moves to Britain and becomes involved in a series of adventures." It is now being sued by Warner Brothers for having a title "too similar to that of the Harry Potter series."

On the one hand, the movie title clearly capitalizes on the similarity to the Potter name, but taken as a whole, it is not likely to leave anybody in doubt about whether it is another in the Potter series. It should be laughed out of court.

The Washington Post gives front page coverage to the high cost of textbooks and what can be done about it link here. It notes that Congress passed a bill "forcing publishers to release more information about their prices. It also requires them to sell a textbook separately rather than packaged with a CD or workbook that makes for a more expensive purchase. However, the provisions do not take effect until 2010." Several states have passed similar laws as well.

The article goes on to note the thriving used textbook market but observes that prices are very close to those of a new text. Some teachers are also encouraging used texts by not changing them from year to year. Finally, the authors note the existence of a thriving exchange for scanned copies link here using a disclaimer that the site is not responsible for text illegally copied, since all users sign an agreement that are the original owner or abide by the copyright laws.

The article fails to mention the legal downloading of texts available on the internet where the author has put them under open license.

The United States thinks of itself as a free economy with lots of competition. But I am often struck by the number of petty monopolies that exist. Here is one in Montgomery County Maryland where a woman, certified to massage people, can't massage her favorite patients, horses link here. Why? Because to massage horses, you have to be a veterinarian. The case gets worse. She has also been informed that chiropractors are specifically forbidden from practicing on animals. She is suing to be allowed to massage animals but is being opposed in court by the state veterinary board and the state chiropractic board.

Doesn't survive the laugh test, does it? It would be of interest to add all these cases up and see what they cost the public.

From time to time, there have been stories about countries asserting ownership of pathogens for a variety of diseases. Indonesia's Minister of Health is the latest, and the story took a darker turn when the Indonesian government accused U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit Two (NAMRU-2) scientists of profiteering off its "sovereign" viruses and allegedly manufacturing the H5N1 bird flu in a biological warfare scheme link here. As a practical matter, the H5N1 strain is not limited to Indonesia and the fear is that the most deadly strain will cross national borders and kill millions before an effective vaccine can be developed. But it is also in Indonesia's interest to have the world working on cures for its own benefit.

This isn't the usual sort of intellectual property, but the monopoly that Indonesia wants to create is certainly akin to that of copyright and equally objectionable.

Robert Levine writes in the NYTimes today about Gregg Gillis, a D J who goes by the title Girl Talk and produces musical performances composed of snippets of other people's music link here. He is pushing the limits of copyright, claiming fair use, and is distributing some of his performances as free downloads, with a request for contributions, but is looking forward to a big album and might love the publicity of a suit.

Levine speculates that Gillis hasn't been prosecuted because the RIAA is afraid of losing a precedent setting case in which large snippets were found to constitute fair use. I would guess it may also have learned that prosecuting is pretty unpopular with their music buyers.

Although this case seems to constitute an example in which fair use is expanded and copyright restricted, it is only one small example of a possible win against the ever expanding limits imposed under copyright law. Fighting these cases in court against the well heeled doesn't see to be working, so I have come to agree with Larry Lessig that the IP monopolists will only be rolled back by political action.

From time to time word has leaked out about the negotiations on ACTA, the European, US, and Japanese joint proposal on an international copyright and patent agreement. If you think agreement is a great idea, that makes sense. The problem is that its terms will apparently extend the reach of restrictions in ways that reflect special interests and totally ignore the development of technology's effect on business models in ways which foster innovation--the whole point of patents and copyright.

Till now, our government has been cosy about the terms of its draft agreement. But somebody squealed and the terms are spelled out at Wikileaks link here. Go read. Fortunately, nothing is likely to happen till after the new administration has taken over.