A World Without Patents; Forbes, 5/12/16

David Pridham, Forbes; A World Without Patents:

"On the surface, Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee is about whether the Patent Office (PTO) can use a different standard in hearing challenges to a patent’s validity after it’s been granted than the standard used by the federal courts. It’s also about whether the taking of a legal property right (a patent) ought to happen via an administrative hearing, without judicial review.

During oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts seemed shocked by the PTO’s system for challenging patents, known as Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs), calling it a “bizarre way … to decide a legal question” and a “very extraordinary animal in legal culture to have two different proceedings addressing the same question that lead to different results.” He was referring to the fact that a patent upheld as valid and infringed by the federal courts can then be taken by the infringing defendant to the PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and declared invalid!...

Even if you stipulate that there are bad patents that shouldn’t have been issued, is it really believable that 90% of all patents granted are invalid — despite being issued only after careful review by PTO examiners in a process that takes over two years and results in the rejection of half of all patent applications?

If we really believe that 90% of Patent Office output is garbage, then we should just shut the agency down and save everyone all the trouble.

There would be consequences, of course. Without patents and the competitive protections they afford, individuals and companies will not invest the money it takes to develop new cures for disease or create new technological wonders. That’s because they know others will simply copy their inventions with impunity and then sell them at a much lower cost, since it didn’t cost them a dime to develop these in the first place. This is a terrific way to drive the innovators out of any industry."

California's Legislature Wants to Copyright All Government Works; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 5/13/16

Ernesto Falcon, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); California's Legislature Wants to Copyright All Government Works:

"AB 2880 will give state and local governments dramatic powers to chill speech, stifle open government, and harm the public domain.

The California Assembly Committee on Judiciary recently approved a bill (AB 2880) to grant local and state governments' copyright authority along with other intellectual property rights. At its core, the bill grants state and local government the authority to create, hold, and exert copyrights, including in materials created by the government. For background, the federal Copyright Act prohibits the federal government from claiming copyright in the materials it creates, but is silent on state governments. As a result, states have taken various approaches to copyright law with some granting themselves vast powers and others (such as California) forgoing virtually all copyright authority at least until now.

EFF strongly opposes the bill. Such a broad grant of copyright authority to state and local governments will chill speech, stifle open government, and harm the public domain. It is our hope that the state legislature will scuttle this approach and refrain from covering all taxpayer funded works under a government copyright."

PA DCNR's open data portal

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources' open data portal:

"Welcome to PA DCNR's open data portal. This site provides access to all of our published GIS data, which includes over 130 datasets relative to state parks, state forests, geology, recreational opportunities and more! Select a category below by clicking on an icon, or use the search tool above to discover our data, which you can map, style and chart right on the site. You can also connect directly to the data, download it or share it!"

Pennsylvania DCNR Offering Open Data Website; Affords Users Detailed, Easily Accessible Information; PR Newswire, 5/13/16

PR Newswire, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources; Pennsylvania DCNR Offering Open Data Website; Affords Users Detailed, Easily Accessible Information:

"Speaking Thursday night before an annual, statewide gathering of environmental professionals, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Secretary Cindy Adams Dunn unveiled her department's innovative move to offer detailed, easily accessible information to all.

"In line with Gov. Tom Wolf's call for transparent, easily accessible government, DCNR is offering an Open Data site that should prove invaluable to this audience of science-based, data-driven environmental professionals," Dunn told more than 100 members of the Pa. Association of Environmental Professionals. "I urge you all to take advantage of this new service."

"Governor Wolf's recent announcement that Pennsylvania is joining the open data movement -- and that DCNR is at the forefront -- will lead to exciting opportunities -- not only for environmental professionals, but for the media, students, academia, taxpayers, businesses. The list is endless.""

Gene Kelly's Widow Claims Copyright In Interviews Done By Gene Kelly, Sues Over Academic Book; TechDirt, 5/12/16

Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Gene Kelly's Widow Claims Copyright In Interviews Done By Gene Kelly, Sues Over Academic Book:

"Another day, another story of copyright being used for censorship, rather than as an incentive to create. Here's the headline: Gene Kelly's widow is suing to stop an academic book exploring various interviews that were done over the decades with the famed actor/dancer. And here's the lawsuit, in which Kelly's widow, Patricia Ward Kelly, who was married to Gene Kelly for the last seven years of his life, claims that she holds the copyright on every interview that Kelly ever did...

Now, the legal issues here are at least somewhat nuanced. The question of who actually holds the copyright in an interview is actually a hotly debated topic in some copyright circles, and the answer is not as clear or as simple as you might think (or as it probably ought to be). Remember, of course, that the law is pretty explicit that copyright is given to whoever fixes the interview into a tangible medium. So, in most cases, it would seem that whoever is recording/transcribing/publishing the interview likely holds the copyright in it."