Intellectual Property: How Protected Are We?

**This original article appears in the Culture Is Free publication HERE**

     It is an actual fact that the United States is the most "litigious society" in the world. Litigious means 'prone to engage in legal maneuvers or lawsuits.' Our disagreement with that statement does not change that actual fact nor does it prepare us to do something about it. This actual fact is especially important to understand in this digital age of content harvesting, online marketplace expansion, blockchain technology, cryptocurrency, and a 552.17% increase in NFT trademark submissions between August 2021 and January 2022. In my article The Content Era: 2022 is the Year of Creatives and Entrepreneurs I explained, "we are now in a Content Era. Streaming services are in global competition over it, Podcasters and Bloggers need it to survive every week and it's like that Frank Lucas [American Gangster] blue magic to Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, TikTok and YouTube users. For THAT Economy to sustain itself Content must be consistently harvested from Creatives and Entrepreneurs who are sometimes trafficked through digital internet rings..." Content is another name for intellectual property [IP] or legal assets; the basis of this article. 

     During the COVID-19 shutdown, many people took advantage of that time to learn new things and develop new skills. I've known folks who completed Herbology courses, Music Engineering programs, and apprenticeships in different industries. While I had already studied the subject, I invested my time in learning how to file provisional patents, utility patents, and trademarks. One of the things that I immediately learned is the small number of patent and trademark lawyers, especially black lawyers, in this specialized area and the increasing demand for their services. By learning this skill I became more proficient in this specialized field of law. Even more proficient than lawyers who worked in other areas of law. My reasoning for learning this skill was to ultimately provide this service to folks who had no knowledge and/or capital to file a trademark or patent; which costs about $400 to trademark something and about $18,000 to patent an idea. In addition to the various projects that I was already involved in, and my peripheral research, this investment began my direct experience with securing legal assets or intellectual property.  None of this article is based upon a casual Google search, a Wikipedia scan, or hearsay from folks on YouTube talking about what they have never done and do not own. 

     Before we go any further let me first define what a legal asset or intellectual property is. A legal asset is defined as “real or personal property that has value.” Intellectual property [IP] refers to “valuable assets that we legally own such as inventions; literary and artistic works; designs; symbols, names, and images.” The value or worth of a legal asset or intellectual property is inherent. Meaning, that it is essential or built in its creation. It is not an asset because someone acknowledges or likes it or not. It is an asset because its nature is valuable. It is sort of like when we say the Black folks are divine. Our value is not because someone acknowledges or likes it or not. We are divine, or an asset, because our nature is valuable. When we create inventions; literary and artistic works; designs; symbols, names, and images they are also valuable. 

     If you have been following the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, in response to the United States sanctions on Russia, Russia has stripped away legal asset/intellectual property rights from U.S. companies doing business in Russia, along with foreign companies from 23 other “unfriendly” territories. According to the high-profile trademark attorney Josh Gerben, “companies like McDonald's and Starbucks that have left Russia to protest its invasion of Ukraine can do little when Russian businesses steal their trademarks. In fact, trademark applications were filed in Russia this week that bore a striking resemblance to marks belonging to Ikea, Instagram (FB), McDonald's, and Starbucks. These companies can't immediately fight back because challenges for unauthorized use are largely limited to Russian courts.” For those of us who have carelessly looked at legal assets/intellectual property as insignificant and unimportant, this political power move by Russia to shift the global economic landscape should make us reconsider our stance on the value of legal assets/intellectual property. When we do recognize this value, the questions we need to ask ourselves are what can we do to legally protect ourselves and our assets in a litigious society? Do we have health and dental insurance? Do we own property? Do we have a Last Will and Testament? Do we own any patents or trademarks? Do we have any life insurance policies? Do we have a marriage license? These and various other legal protections are just some things to seriously think about, especially for our families and future generations. 

CONFIDENTIALITY

     With this knowledge of legal assets/intellectual property, I was able to successfully file a provisional and utility patent for a unique fuel cell technology. Before my business partner and I even discuss this patent with companies we ensure that a three-year NDA [Non-Disclosure Agreement] is signed and notarized first. Because of our invention's inherent value, an NDA is a standard legal document that is used to protect the value and confidentiality of legal assets/intellectual property before you discuss them. This is the reason why we should not openly discuss specific matters related to a trademark filing, a patent, or any legal assets/intellectual property in the public domain. It compromises the security of those legal assets/intellectual property.

     When the Washington [now "Commanders"] football organization sought to rename their team they never had public discussions about the potential name of the team. In fact, they went as far as filing the original trademark in a foreign country whose trademark databases are difficult to search online. Months later the organization then filed an application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office [USPTO]. Knowing that this trademark information would be publicly available and published with the USPTO, their filing was protected because the trademark application was based upon the earlier filing date in the foreign country. See, once a trademark is filed, there is a 30-day window to oppose/challenge its registration after the USPTO publishes the application for opposition. Following the above method of filing in a foreign jurisdiction is a workaround to limit the public's capacity to oppose a registration. If Lebron James has received legal guidance from a patent and trademark law firm then I am sure that he used this method before it was recently announced that he filed 4 new USPTO trademarks in the names of LEBRON JAMES, LEBRON, KING JAMES and CHOSEN1 related to the metaverse. Understanding this, when people openly discuss the specifics of a legal asset/intellectual property in a public forum it only informs the public of two more facts related to our litigious society: 

1.) Those people do not actually understand or own any digital assets/intellectual property. 

2.) Those people are legally vulnerable, and a liability to others, because of their ignorance of law and tech illiteracy. 

3.) Those people are actively promoting "IP Squatting" where someone other than the original owner(s) can acquire that legal asset/intellectual property and sell it back for a profit.

     I was once involved in confidential discussions regarding a unique legal asset/intellectual property that I personally secured in order to transfer ownership to a collective body of people. While I did not have those who participated in these confidential discussions sign an NDA, I did emphasize the importance of privacy and requested that they not share the specific details of those confidential discussions in the public domain. A short time after, I was disappointed to learn that some of the participants were sharing those specifics, and misinformation regarding this unique legal asset/intellectual property, in the public domain. While I did cover a great deal of legal territory using a power-point presentation that included an extensive FAQ segment, it was unfortunate to learn that some of those who participated in those discussions did not understand the importance of confidentiality or simply did not care. Either way, lacking that carelessness is a liability in an expanding litigious society. So I ask again, what can we do to legally protect ourselves and our assets in a litigious society? Do we have health and dental insurance? Do we own property? Do we have a Last Will and Testament? Do we own any patents or trademarks? Do we have any life insurance policies? Do we have a marriage license? These and various other legal protections are just some things to seriously think about, especially for our families and future generations. 

     This society is drastically changing with the exponential growth of technology. Those changes are not favorable for those of us who have little to no control over any legal assets/intellectual property. As black people, we cannot allow those changes to happen around us. As a Five Percenter, with our Allah Youth Center's 99-year lease quickly approaching, the gentrification of Harlem, the constant threat of our property being taken through eminent domain, no permanent location to hold our monthly gatherings, no legal control of our Universal Flag in the public domain, and no economic blueprint in an expanding litigious society, there are serious confidential discussions we need to have regarding protecting and preserving our cultural legacy. If we don't get it together we will be talking about these days, like our nation elders reminisce about the old days, with no visible evidence that these days ever even existed. Except for a street sign, of course, to mark what once was.

Peace,

Saladin 

What You Need To Know About The RZA Bloomberg Interview

What You Need To Know

About The RZA Bloomberg Interview

In a recent interview on the with-all-due-respect segment of Bloomberg Politics, Wu-Tang Clan frontman Prince Rakeem Allah, AKA The RZA, spoke on #blacklivesmatter, police brutality, the black male image, Donald Trump and the 2016 Presidential Election that some have praised and criticized him about. If you have not seen parts of this interview you can view it here: RZA Bloomberg Politics Interview.

With the growth and development of the Social Media Age, everyone now has a public figure platform. A platform where whatever we say or do can be held for or against us in a court of law and in the court of public opinion. I've seen people get arrested or fired from their jobs because of a Facebook status. I've seen companies loose money because of a video. I've watched celebrities get shunned because of a snapshotted tweet they tried to delete. Aside from net worth, there's a very thin line that separates celebrities from everyday people. At any given moment, you as an everyday person can end up going viral because of something and be catapulted into the national or even international spotlight. When this has happened, most are completely unprepared and this serves one lopsided purpose: the media's ratings, web traffic and analytics data that drives economic trends. One of the main concerns I've had and have worked to address is the lacking or non-existence of effective PR representation for black/brown people, and any group that's considered a minority, when we're engaging the mainstream media -especially celebrities. Whether it's LeBron James being asked about the Tamir Rice case and his response that he hasn't been on top of it, Young Thug's response to being asked about police brutality and even Dej Loaf saying she had no clue who Boss was when I interviewed her in Toronto, this unpreparedness coupled with a lack of PR representation is not working in our best interest. The idea of news reporters looking around for the black person in the shower cap to interview is over. Now the media has learned effective tactics to shower cap people they choose to interview.

In all of the responses I've seen about RZA's Interview, whether pro or con, it amazed me how so many people had an opinion without ever questioning the actual context and forum this interview was conducted in. First and foremost, that interview was conducted by Bloomberg L.P.; a global business, financial information and news company. Bloomberg has over a quarter of a million professional service subscribers and approximately one million business week subscribers in over 150 countries. Demographically speaking, their target audience are not Millennials, nor do they look like RZA, his 6ft 4in son, or any of us voicing our opinion. Over 85% are middle age white men with money. This is to say that many of us weren't invited to that Bloomberg conversation. RZA was speaking to a middle aged white journalist with money to other middle aged white men with money, and a lot of what he had to say was agreeable with them.

Now, here's the fundamental problem with many of us, such as RZA, who speak to audiences like this that don't reflect the minority group we're a part of, regardless how American we claim to be: we don't consider the audience and who we're talking to. As a Guest Columnist for my local paper I wrote an article in December of 2014 entitled "Of course 'All Lives Matter" in response to the blacklash the Black Lives Matter movement began to receive. Ironically, it's the same "of course all lives matter" quote RZA used in his interview yet we both took very different approaches in articulating it. Because the primary subscribers to the local paper where I live are also middle age whites, I know the audience I'm communicating to and commit myself to sharing a unique perspective that's usually not represented and/or respected in their mainstream media. In reading my article above and knowing their primary audience, ask yourself what purpose does that article serve them. In listening to RZA's interview and knowing Bloomberg's primary audience, ask yourself what purpose did that interview possibly serve them. Is that demographic more conscious of the legitimate challenges black/brown people and other minority groups deal with in regards to police brutality? Does that demographic know anything more about the valid criticisms black/brown people and other minority groups have about Donald Trump's or Hillary Clinton's policies? Do you think Bloomberg's audience received commentary that would help them become more aware and sensitive to the perspectives of black/brown people and other minority groups? 

Some of us that simply agreed with RZA's commentary are equivalent to janitors cleaning up an office, overhearing parts of a conversation about us in an executive boardroom by a black man with white executives around him and butting into the conversation to voice our opinion. Let me reiterate that this interview was by Bloomberg L.P for its share holders and subscribers, not for us -even though we were being discussed. After this interview was edited and shared with their primary share holders and subscribers, then it was shared with us; the outsiders. Many of our unsolicited opinions are only used to reinforce and quantify that conversation by a black man with white executives around him in that boardroom. Some of us who voiced our opinion have not even researched Bloomberg L.P. or their founders. As Five Percenters who pride ourselves on "doing the knowledge" first, I find this especially alarming and unscientific. While all of us Five Percenters are entitled to an opinion, this is precisely why many of us are completely unqualified to speak for us as a collective. At least know the medium you're speaking through first, who their primary audience is and then what purpose your commentary will serve. Bloomberg L.P. was founded in 1981 by four men who were all colleagues at Salomon Brothers, one of the biggest trading and investment houses on Wall Street until they transitioned into Morgan Stanley -one of the companies that was given $10 billion during the government bail out that helped spark the Occupy [Wall Street] Movement and concept of the 1% controlling the world's wealth. Both Salomon Brothers and Morgan Stanley have been in the midst of financial scandals since their inception.

Michael Bloomberg: former Mayor of New York who was first elected as a Democratic in 2001 yet changed party affiliations for the next 15 years to Republican and its minor party Independent. With a net worth of $39.3 billion, Bloomberg defines himself as a Fiscal Conservative and he was publically endorsed by Rupert Murdoch if he decided to run for President. Murdoch is the Republican face behind Fox News and its affiliates.

Thomas Secunda: a Jewish mathematician with a background in computer programming and fixed income trading. With a net worth of $1.91 billion, Secunda is also a philanthropist who funds various Environment, Arts & Culture, Education, Health organizations such as the American Israel Education Foundation, American Jewish Joint Distribution and the UJA Federation: all affiliates with the Pro-Israeli anti-Palestinian AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee].

Duncan MacMillan: also a mathematician and investment banker, MacMillan and his wife Nancy are endowed faculty chairs at Rutgers University which means they provide permanent funding to the University for "genomic" research; a branch of biotechnology that applies the techniques of genetics and molecular biology to the genetic mapping and DNA sequencing of sets of genes. While his net worth is unknown, it's speculated that he's worth at least $300 million.

Charles Zeger: also Jewish, Zeger has a masters degree in computer science and has a net worth of $1.46 billion and made his money by developing the software for Bloomberg. Founder of the Zeger Family Foundation, Zeger and his wife Merryl are the only trustees who keep their grant funding broad and donate to many things. While their foundation accepts unsolicited ideas, they do not accept unsolicited grant proposals.  

Geopolitically and socioeconomically, that says a lot. The criticism RZA has received is primarily coming from black/brown people and other minority group's whose issues were under represented or not represented in his commentary, including Wu-Tang fans. However, Conservatives, Animal Rights Activists, Vegans, Patriots [Americans], Taoists and Law Enforcement were. That is a legitimate criticism I find problematic anytime a member of a minority group doesn't utilize their public platform to include the legitimate concerns of that group, especially in a mainstream medium where that perspective is usually not represented and/or respected. Another thing that was problematic is how non-indictments and police brutality against children like Tamir Rice, women like Sandra Bland and others that don't fit the black man profile wasn't addressed. They weren't men and their deaths had nothing to do with attire, dressing more refined and cleaning themselves up. Their deaths also had nothing to do with invoked fear. Saying to black males they need to take more responsibility for cleaning up their image, how law enforcement stereotypes them and it can contribute to police brutality is one thing. Saying to middle age white men with money that black males need to take more responsibility for cleaning up their image, how law enforcement stereotypes them and it can contribute to police brutality is something different. Either RZA knows what I'm speaking about and chose to speak in the best interest of the Bloomberg L.P share holders and subscribers or he doesn't know what I'm speaking about which means he's not as politically sophisticated as he needs to be before conducting interviews like this. As a man of knowledge, I'm sure that he's learning something from the public and private response to his interview. I also will that we are learning something too.

Peace,
Saladin

Francophobia: The France Attacks and American Amnesia

Francophobia
The France Attacks and American Amnesia

On Friday November 13th in France over 120 people died from attacks carried out at six separate sites. The largest number of death tolls occurred at a concert hall during the set of American rock band the Eagles of Death Metal. Like the Kenyan school shooting this past April where 147 people lost their lives, the September Borno State Bombings in Nigeria that killed over 145 people, the over 500 people who died in South India from heat waves last May and approximately 1,000 citizens, about 3 people per day mostly people of color, who have already been killed by law enforcement this year in America, all of us should be aware of how precious all human life is. However, this is not always the case. Sometimes people simply view the lost of one life differently then the lost of another life, the deaths of one group of people more important than the deaths of another group of people.

Following the #FranceAttacks I saw many people immediately show their support and solidarity with the French people by sending out prayers and changing their Facebook Profile pictures to the France Flag via a social media option/initiative spearheaded by Facebook founder Mark Zukerberg and the encouragement of an American outcry for Americans to stand with France. Youtube even changed its logo to the French Flag and announced "We stand with Paris" on their home page. Some people just followed that script. For others it wasn't because an American battery was put in their back; they simply spoke out and showed their solidarity like they do wherever tragedy occurs on the planet. Whether these people were the former or later, it still shows that people have some sense of global consciousness simply because we're aware. We also need to be aware that things aren't always what they appear to be, especially when you look at the historical way America has interacted with France. Now that many of you are thinking globally and considering France and America, let me share a few things with you to give you.

Do you remember France opposed the invasion of Iraq and Congress changed their cafeteria menus to stop calling french fries "French" fries, started calling them "Freedom" fries? Then the American government started encouraging Americans to call them freedom fries too? Yeah, I know it's petty. It also shows how soon some of us forget such petty things. Does that sound like an ally? See, through the lens of colonialism, your allies or enemies is based upon your geopolitical agenda and socioeconomic interests. In other words, the ends justify the means. Some people are genuinely concerned about the tragedy that happened in France, other places around the world and the tragedies that happen in America. Some people just see tragedy as an opportunity. 

Speaking of allies and enemies, let me break something else down to you about the dysfunctional relationship between America and France most people don't talk about.

France was the first country to accept women into freemasonry. You know, "Freemasonry", the sausage party secret society many of America's Founding Fathers, signers of the Declaration of Independence, Presidents, Congressmen, Mayors, Senators, Councilmen, Soldiers, Businessmen, Police Chiefs, Sheriffs, School Principals, Union Leaders, Judges, Newspaper Editors, Lawyers and other 'men' in positions of power belong to in this society?

Maria Deraismes: The First Female Freemason

From the 1700s to this day, the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE), other mainstream Lodges and Prince Hall Lodges in North America still don't let women join. Any lodge, particularly French and Continental Lodges, who admit women are considered bogus by mainstream North American, Grand and Prince Hall Lodges who only have seperate associated [auxillary] bodies women can join. If you, male or female, have been initiated into a French Lodge or attend them you're generally marked as clandestine [bogus] and shunned by other freemasons. Keep in mind that these are the same marked/shunned French freemasons who are afiliated with the Grand Orient Temple who created and gifted an original Statue of Liberty to America that was initially rejected because she was black.

Now what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Well the same way you have influential people socially engineering events that were/are Freemasons here in America, you have the same influential people socially engineering events that were/are Freemasons in France. They historically haven't, and generally don't, rock with eachother. Behind the veil of so-called alliances there are fundamental masonic differences between America and France as it relates to their geopolitical agendas and socioeconomic interests. Some of the historical pettiness, jeering and criticism Americans have about France being weak and bogus is really based upon how American Freemasons have generally looked at and still look at the French for allowing women into the lodge. Because of that, and regardless what you see on the surface, America and France have irreconcilable masonic differences that historical tragedies, and tragedies like we just witnessed, have not been able to mend. What looks like solidarity today will be separation with a side of sarcasm, tomorrow.

This is at the root of some of America's "Francophobia": the historical stereotypes and hostility towards the French government, culture and people of France. And no, I didn't make that word up. Research it.

Francophobia

In closing, I think it's important to speak out against tragedies wherever and whenever they happen to human beings. All of us should. Yet we shouldn't allow ourselves to be used as a patriotic tool, especially in the midst of tragedies, to blindly support the political agendas of some people who obviously don't feel the same way about all human lives based upon their domestic and foreign policy record. Acknowledging and mourning the loss of human life, especially in great numbers such as the Native American and Armenian Genocide, the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade and the Holocaust, is likewise important. Yet we also must know whom we are mourning with. Like in the film American Gangster when Bumpy Johnson died, sometimes people show up at a family's funeral, speak empty condolences and even sit around and eat up the family's food at the repast [repass] knowing they didn't really like the person who died, or their family. In fact, they probably had a bunch of sh*t to say about them the day before that family's tragedy. This is how some Americans responded to the death of not only the French who lost their lives but also Kenyans, Nigerians, South Indians and even other American citizens who are people of color. I just want those of you who are riding the American solidarity with France wave to clearly understand that after the water subside, America will return to biting France's back out just like sports analysts and everyday talking heads do LeBron James. And I hope to see your solidarity against that petty hypocrisy, too. 

Peace,

Saladin