M·CAM | All Post
22144
blog,paged,paged-49,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,select-theme-ver-4.1,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-7.9,vc_responsive
June 4, 2004 In News Archive

M·CAM speaks at Carnegie Institutions in Washington D.C.

Date:  Fri, 2004-06-04

June 4, 2004 M·CAM CEO David Martin joined a panel of national experts on intellectual property and legislative policy to discuss “Information Patents: The Public Interest Agenda”. Among the distinguished participants were James Love (Consumer Project on Technology); Brian Kahin (University of Michigan), Philippe Aigrain (Society for Public Information Spaces); Rita Heimes (University of Maine); Jim Bessen (Boston University); Dan Ravicher (Public Patent Foundation); Josh Sarnoff (American University); and, Jason Shultz (Electronic Frontier Foundation).

June 1, 2004 In News Archive

Intangibles are no longer undetectable, the taxman says

Date:  Tue, 2004-06-01

Excerpted from: Adrian Preston. June/July 2004 “Intangibles are no longer undetectable, the taxman says.” Intellectual Asset Management pp 27-28 One of the major problems associated with the donation of patents is valuation. Valuing IP is, of course, a difficult and complex business. This perhaps explains why in the past the sheer complexity of the issues at stake has deterred IRS staff from asking too many questions and treating the patent donations scheme with what has been described as benign neglect. That attitude is changing fast. In an address to the Senate Finance Committee’s Roundtable on Patent Donations, David Martin, CEO of M·CAM, a leading IP verification business that has been working with the IRS to review patent donations cases said: “The IRS has struggled to make critical advances in an effort to enforce the quite adequate laws that are currently on the books. Though intimidated by those who have their self interests to protect in the accounting and legal communities, the IRS is attempting to educate its professionals on what questions to ask when reviewing patent-related transactions. Considering the revenue requirements of our government, it is imperative that revenue collection be facilitated immediately. The era when intangible was synonymous with undetectable is over.” Those words promise an IRS stance that is only likely to get tougher. Increased scrutiny of donations is not simply likely, it is inevitable, and businesses that are considering or have in the past made donations for which they received a tax benefit need to consider their compliance obligations urgently. The IRS has indicated that it is not simply the corporate donors themselves that could be liable to penalties if, on investigation, the value placed on a patent and the tax deduction claimed turns out to be inflated. The advisers and appraisers who have helped put the donation together could also find themselves facing punitive action.

April 25, 2004 In News Archive

M·CAM sponsors 14™ International Zeolite Conference in South Africa

Date:  Sun, 2004-04-25

April 25, 2004 M·CAM is pleased to sponsor the week-long 14th International Zeolite Conference in Cape Town South Africa. This conference brings together the world’s leading scientific and business experts in the field. M·CAM will be introducing its international patent risk management solutions to several of the R&D and business attendees.

April 19, 2004 In News Archive

Patenting Seen Loose Of Constitutional Moorings

Date:  Mon, 2004-04-19

Excerpted from “Patents Seen Loose Of Constitutional Moorings”, New Technology Week. April 19, 2004 pp3-5 by David Martin Since the time of Abraham Lincoln the patent office has not been funded in a manner that would allow it to fulfill its constitutional charter. The Constitutions says that in exchange for a disclosure that advances science and the useful arts you may get a limited monopoly. Fair enough. Now, here comes the problem: Since 1980, since the infamous Bayh-Dole Act, which was going to unleash the brain trust of America – one word has been added to “patent” that is unconstitutional yet it characterizes over 90% of the patents in circulation, not only in the United States but also in Japan and Europe. That word is “defensive”. A “defensive patent”. I would submit to you that anybody who actually uses those two words in conjunction is advocating something that is in stark violation of the Constitutional (intent). Why? Because the grant of a monopoly was not for your protectionist self-interest. The grant of a monopoly was in exchange for your disclosure of something that promoted science and technology and industry. In 1980 to 1983, the decision was made that quantity was more important than quality and the Patent Office became a customer service organization. Who’s the customer? As I read the patent statute and the Constitution, I don’t see the customer as the applicant. I see the customer as the public – for whom, in that exchange of sovereign grant of monopoly rights, there has been an advancement of the public interest.