NPR, Morning Edition; Can A Monkey Hold A Copyright?
"A court is deciding if the rights for photos belong to a monkey that took selfie photos. A photographer published the photos in a book, but an animal rights group sued for copyright infringement."
Thursday, July 13, 2017
Wednesday, July 12, 2017
If You Buy It, You Own It!; HuffPost, July 12, 2017
Darryl S. Weiman, MD, JD, HuffPost; If You Buy It, You Own It!
"The lesson learned from this decision was “the sale transfers the right to use, sell, or import because those are the rights that come along with ownership, and the buyer is free and clear of an infringement lawsuit because there is no exclusionary right left to enforce.” (Impression v. Lexmark) The buyer will not be sued for enfringement. In fact, all patent rights will “exhaust” after the sale. The next in line of a sale, in this case Impression, is still a buyer and the protection applies to them, also.
A patent owner must take into consideration the monopoly rights to his “invention” when he sets the price to purchase the item. He will not get another bite of the apple—the apple being the right to bring an infringement lawsuit—once that sale has been made. In other words, the only thing that matters is the patentee’s decision to make a sale. Any post sale restrictions that the patent owner wants to impose can only be enforced through some other action, such as breach of contract if a contract has been signed. If we buy it, we own it! This is a good decision."
"The lesson learned from this decision was “the sale transfers the right to use, sell, or import because those are the rights that come along with ownership, and the buyer is free and clear of an infringement lawsuit because there is no exclusionary right left to enforce.” (Impression v. Lexmark) The buyer will not be sued for enfringement. In fact, all patent rights will “exhaust” after the sale. The next in line of a sale, in this case Impression, is still a buyer and the protection applies to them, also.
A patent owner must take into consideration the monopoly rights to his “invention” when he sets the price to purchase the item. He will not get another bite of the apple—the apple being the right to bring an infringement lawsuit—once that sale has been made. In other words, the only thing that matters is the patentee’s decision to make a sale. Any post sale restrictions that the patent owner wants to impose can only be enforced through some other action, such as breach of contract if a contract has been signed. If we buy it, we own it! This is a good decision."
The Supreme Court Explains Trademark Registration, And It's The Best Ever; Forbes, July 10, 2017
Jess Collen, Forbes; The Supreme Court Explains Trademark Registration, And It's The Best Ever
"Much has been said and written in recent weeks about the Supreme Court’s defense of the First Amendment in the Slants case (Did The Supreme Court Slants Case Just Approve A Big FU To Trademark Owners?), by striking down provisions of federal trademark law. The court has also provided us with perhaps the most authoritative explanation of the history of United States trademark registration ever written.
Whether you run a startup, small business or a company on Forbes World’s Biggest Companies list, this should be required reading. Here below, an abridged discussion of trademark registration in this country, courtesy of Justice Samuel Alito of the Supreme Court of the United States (in own his words, and citing prior Court decisions and trademark law experts):"
"Much has been said and written in recent weeks about the Supreme Court’s defense of the First Amendment in the Slants case (Did The Supreme Court Slants Case Just Approve A Big FU To Trademark Owners?), by striking down provisions of federal trademark law. The court has also provided us with perhaps the most authoritative explanation of the history of United States trademark registration ever written.
Whether you run a startup, small business or a company on Forbes World’s Biggest Companies list, this should be required reading. Here below, an abridged discussion of trademark registration in this country, courtesy of Justice Samuel Alito of the Supreme Court of the United States (in own his words, and citing prior Court decisions and trademark law experts):"
Is the threat of a copyright lawsuit stifling music?; BBC News, July 12, 2017
Chi Chi Izundu, BBC News; Is the threat of a copyright lawsuit stifling music?
"You would be hard-pushed to find a musician in the charts whose work hasn't taken inspiration from their idols and contemporaries.
"You would be hard-pushed to find a musician in the charts whose work hasn't taken inspiration from their idols and contemporaries.
Now though, music experts have told the Victoria Derbyshire programme that artists are being advised not to mention publicly who has inspired them.
This is because of a high-profile copyright infringement case in which US jurors ruled that Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams, on their song Blurred Lines, had copied Marvin Gaye's Got To Give It Up."
Tuesday, July 11, 2017
Getting Your Grooves Back: Understanding Copyright Termination (Guest Column); Variety, July 10, 2017
Evan S. Cohen, Esq., Variety, Getting Your Grooves Back: Understanding Copyright Termination (Guest Column)
"There is a powerful law causing quiet yet uneasy waves in the music industry, and it’s something the record companies would rather recording artists not know about.
For recordings released after 1977, the law is a section of the Copyright Act that allows recording artists to terminate their record contracts after 35 years. It also allows songwriters to terminate their music publishing deals after 35 years. It’s usually called copyright termination, but it’s not the copyrights that are being terminated, it’s the grant of rights to the record company that is being terminated. That old, awful record contract from 1980? Gone — at least as the contract applies to the United States. On the first day of the 36th year, the band owns the recording, free and clear. That is a very powerful position, to say the least."
"There is a powerful law causing quiet yet uneasy waves in the music industry, and it’s something the record companies would rather recording artists not know about.
For recordings released after 1977, the law is a section of the Copyright Act that allows recording artists to terminate their record contracts after 35 years. It also allows songwriters to terminate their music publishing deals after 35 years. It’s usually called copyright termination, but it’s not the copyrights that are being terminated, it’s the grant of rights to the record company that is being terminated. That old, awful record contract from 1980? Gone — at least as the contract applies to the United States. On the first day of the 36th year, the band owns the recording, free and clear. That is a very powerful position, to say the least."
Major CRISPR Patent-Holders Agree to Patent Pool; The Scientist, July 10, 2017
Aggie Mika, The Scientist; Major CRISPR Patent-Holders Agree to Patent Pool
"The Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Rockefeller University, Harvard University, and MIT have turned over 22 of their CRISPR-Cas9 patents for consideration to be part of a shared, global licensing platform. The Wall Street Journal reports that “the move comes amid growing concerns that the logjam over rights to the technology may hinder breakthroughs in disease treatment.”
"The Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Rockefeller University, Harvard University, and MIT have turned over 22 of their CRISPR-Cas9 patents for consideration to be part of a shared, global licensing platform. The Wall Street Journal reports that “the move comes amid growing concerns that the logjam over rights to the technology may hinder breakthroughs in disease treatment.”
“We look forward to working with others to ensure the widest possible access to all key CRISPR intellectual property,” says Chief Business Officer of the Broad Institute Issi Rozen in a news release issued today (July 10).
Groups seeking to commercialize CRISPR technology are often required to go to more than one institution for licensing, according to the Broad’s statement, given that there are 18 different organizations in the U.S. that hold more than 60 CRISPR-Cas9 patents. A pool would simplify this process by creating “a one-stop shop for commercial users.”"
Why drugmakers aren’t sweating the next wave of patent losses; Bloomberg News via News Chief, July 10, 2017
Bloomberg News via News Chief; Why drugmakers aren’t sweating the next wave of patent losses
"Drugmakers plunged off a patent cliff earlier this decade, losing billions in sales as lucrative branded drugs lost exclusivity. An expensive lobbying effort aimed at preventing a repeat is paying off.
"Drugmakers plunged off a patent cliff earlier this decade, losing billions in sales as lucrative branded drugs lost exclusivity. An expensive lobbying effort aimed at preventing a repeat is paying off.
The loss of a series of key patents for cholesterol fighters and other widely used medicines cost big-name drug companies about $82 billion in sales between 2011 and 2013, according to life-sciences data company Evaluate Ltd., forcing large-scale job cuts and a wave of deals to make up for lost revenue...
By the time lawmakers passed a path to market for biosimilars as part of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the industry had assured that competition would come much more slowly, making the resulting sales decline look less like a precipice and more like a gentle hill."
55 Years Ago Today, Volvo Received a Patent that Saved Countless Lives; CNet, July 10, 2017
Andrew Krok, CNet; 55 Years Ago Today, Volvo Received a Patent that Saved Countless Lives
"Instead of sitting on the patent and licensing it out to other automakers for a big ol' chunk of change, Volvo opened up the patent so that any automaker could incorporate it into vehicles. The automotive industry took the idea and ran with it, and it proved so safe and popular that derivatives of Bohlin's original design are still in use today.
Back in 2009, Volvo estimated that more than 1 million people have been saved by the three-point seatbelt. That number has obviously risen since then, and they all have Volvo and Nils Bohlin to thank for it."
"Instead of sitting on the patent and licensing it out to other automakers for a big ol' chunk of change, Volvo opened up the patent so that any automaker could incorporate it into vehicles. The automotive industry took the idea and ran with it, and it proved so safe and popular that derivatives of Bohlin's original design are still in use today.
Back in 2009, Volvo estimated that more than 1 million people have been saved by the three-point seatbelt. That number has obviously risen since then, and they all have Volvo and Nils Bohlin to thank for it."
Monday, July 10, 2017
MIT convenes ad hoc task force on open access to Institute’s research; MIT News, July 7, 2017
MIT Libraries, MIT News; MIT convenes ad hoc task force on open access to Institute’s research
"MIT’s provost, in consultation with the vice president for research, the chair of the faculty, and the director of the libraries, has appointed an ad hoc task force on open access to MIT’s research. Convening the task force was one of the 10 recommendations presented in the preliminary report of the Future of Libraries Task Force.
The open access task force, chaired by Class of 1922 Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Hal Abelson and Director of Libraries Chris Bourg, will lead an Institute-wide discussion of ways in which current MIT open access policies and practices might be updated or revised to further the Institute’s mission of disseminating the fruits of its research and scholarship as widely as possible.
“To solve the world’s toughest challenges, we must lower the barriers to knowledge,” says Maria Zuber, vice president for research. “We want to share MIT’s research as widely and openly as we can, not only because it’s in line with our values but because it will accelerate the science and the scholarship that can lead us to a better world. I look forward to seeing the Institute strengthen its leadership position in open access through this task force’s work.”"
"MIT’s provost, in consultation with the vice president for research, the chair of the faculty, and the director of the libraries, has appointed an ad hoc task force on open access to MIT’s research. Convening the task force was one of the 10 recommendations presented in the preliminary report of the Future of Libraries Task Force.
The open access task force, chaired by Class of 1922 Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Hal Abelson and Director of Libraries Chris Bourg, will lead an Institute-wide discussion of ways in which current MIT open access policies and practices might be updated or revised to further the Institute’s mission of disseminating the fruits of its research and scholarship as widely as possible.
“To solve the world’s toughest challenges, we must lower the barriers to knowledge,” says Maria Zuber, vice president for research. “We want to share MIT’s research as widely and openly as we can, not only because it’s in line with our values but because it will accelerate the science and the scholarship that can lead us to a better world. I look forward to seeing the Institute strengthen its leadership position in open access through this task force’s work.”"
Sunday, July 9, 2017
Waymo Drops Most Patent Claims in Car Tech Fight With Uber; Bloomberg, July 7, 2017
Eric Newcomer, Bloomberg; Waymo Drops Most Patent Claims in Car Tech Fight With Uber
"Waymo, Alphabet Inc.’s self-driving car division, dropped three of four patent-infringement claims in its lawsuit against Uber Technologies Inc. over the startup’s autonomous vehicle program.
Waymo’s decision to include patent claims in its complaint against Uber was a surprise move for Google parent Alphabet, which normally prides itself on limiting patent fights. The bulk of Waymo’s case is not over patents, but trade secrets."
"Waymo, Alphabet Inc.’s self-driving car division, dropped three of four patent-infringement claims in its lawsuit against Uber Technologies Inc. over the startup’s autonomous vehicle program.
Waymo’s decision to include patent claims in its complaint against Uber was a surprise move for Google parent Alphabet, which normally prides itself on limiting patent fights. The bulk of Waymo’s case is not over patents, but trade secrets."
COPYRIGHT OFFICE RECOMMENDS PERMANENT EXEMPTIONS TO SOFTWARE LOCKS; Repair Association via KTIC, July 7, 2017
Joe Gangwish, Repair Association via KTIC; COPYRIGHT OFFICE RECOMMENDS PERMANENT EXEMPTIONS TO SOFTWARE LOCKS
"A U.S. Copyright Office report says it no longer wants to review exemptions to Section 1201 of the Digital Millenium Copyrights Act every three years. The office wants Congress to pass laws that give consumers a permanent “right-to-repair.”"
"A U.S. Copyright Office report says it no longer wants to review exemptions to Section 1201 of the Digital Millenium Copyrights Act every three years. The office wants Congress to pass laws that give consumers a permanent “right-to-repair.”"
Texas Judge Sets Patent Venue Test for a Post-TC Heartland World; Inside Counsel, July 6, 2017
Scott Graham, Inside Counsel; Texas Judge Sets Patent Venue Test for a Post-TC Heartland World
"The first big post-TC Heartland shoe has dropped on the patent world.
U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas set down ground rules last week for maintaining cases in the district following the Supreme Court's decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods resetting venue rules.
Gilstrap laid out four factors he will consider when deciding whether a company has a “regular and established place of business” that gives rise to venue. While a fixed physical presence such as a store or office will tend to be persuasive, “that is not a prerequisite to proper venue,” Gilstrap wrote. His rules appear to open the door for internet companies to continue being sued in the Eastern District in some circumstances."
"The first big post-TC Heartland shoe has dropped on the patent world.
U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas set down ground rules last week for maintaining cases in the district following the Supreme Court's decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods resetting venue rules.
Gilstrap laid out four factors he will consider when deciding whether a company has a “regular and established place of business” that gives rise to venue. While a fixed physical presence such as a store or office will tend to be persuasive, “that is not a prerequisite to proper venue,” Gilstrap wrote. His rules appear to open the door for internet companies to continue being sued in the Eastern District in some circumstances."
Friday, July 7, 2017
Right to use HHGregg’s name and other intellectual property fetches just $400,000; Indianapolis Business Journal, July 7, 2017
Scott Olson, Indianapolis Business Journal; Right to use HHGregg’s name and other intellectual property fetches just $400,000
"Failed retailer HHGregg Inc., which racked up more than $2 billion in annual revenue prior to landing in bankruptcy this March, has sold its name and other intellectual property rights for a mere $400,000.
Court records show that at an auction late last month, an entity called Valor LLC scooped up the rights to the Indianapolis-based company’s trademarks, domain names, customer files and other data.
Buyers of a defunct retailers' intellectual property sometimes do so with the intention of resurrecting the brand, either as an online-only business or with brick-and-mortar locations. It's not clear what Valor's intentions are. Company principal Michael Eisner did not respond to phone calls or an email.
HHGregg’s intellectual property became available after the electronics and appliance retailer failed to find a buyer and closed all 220 its stores this spring."
"Failed retailer HHGregg Inc., which racked up more than $2 billion in annual revenue prior to landing in bankruptcy this March, has sold its name and other intellectual property rights for a mere $400,000.
Court records show that at an auction late last month, an entity called Valor LLC scooped up the rights to the Indianapolis-based company’s trademarks, domain names, customer files and other data.
Buyers of a defunct retailers' intellectual property sometimes do so with the intention of resurrecting the brand, either as an online-only business or with brick-and-mortar locations. It's not clear what Valor's intentions are. Company principal Michael Eisner did not respond to phone calls or an email.
HHGregg’s intellectual property became available after the electronics and appliance retailer failed to find a buyer and closed all 220 its stores this spring."
Protecting Your Business: When To Consult An Intellectual Property Lawyer; CBS Los Angeles, July 6, 2017
Christopher Millard, CBS Los Angeles; Protecting Your Business: When To Consult An Intellectual Property Lawyer
"To many a small business owner, legalese can inspire fear in the heart. Intellectual property law is no exception, but this critical legal concept is tantamount to the health and well-being of your business. As Darren Dahl of the New York Times points out, “They see images of expensive lawyers and use that as an excuse to ignore the topic, reasoning that it is a problem for big companies to worry about.” He goes on to point out that through the rise of the internet, protecting your intellectual property has become a necessity. Small businesses are threatened more so, due to the lack of personnel to police intellectual property infringement.
So, let’s decode exactly what intellectual property means, and when you need to call in a lawyer to help your organization...
This article was written by Christopher Millard for CBS Small Business Pulse"
"To many a small business owner, legalese can inspire fear in the heart. Intellectual property law is no exception, but this critical legal concept is tantamount to the health and well-being of your business. As Darren Dahl of the New York Times points out, “They see images of expensive lawyers and use that as an excuse to ignore the topic, reasoning that it is a problem for big companies to worry about.” He goes on to point out that through the rise of the internet, protecting your intellectual property has become a necessity. Small businesses are threatened more so, due to the lack of personnel to police intellectual property infringement.
So, let’s decode exactly what intellectual property means, and when you need to call in a lawyer to help your organization...
This article was written by Christopher Millard for CBS Small Business Pulse"
Thursday, July 6, 2017
Saved by Alice: How a Key Supreme Court Decision Protects Businesses from Bad Patents; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), June 22, 2017
Daniel Nazer and Elliot Harmon, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Saved by Alice: How a Key Supreme Court Decision Protects Businesses from Bad Patents
"In 2014’s Alice v. CLS Bank, the Supreme Court ruled that an abstract idea does not become eligible for a patent simply by being implemented on a generic computer. Since then, Alice has provided a lifeline for real businesses threatened or sued with bogus patents.
This week, on the third anniversary of Alice, EFF is launching a new series called Saved by Alice where we’ll collect these stories of times when Alice came to the rescue. Over the next few weeks, we’ll be sharing stories of business owners large and small. You’ll meet an app developer who was sued over a bogus patent on computerized treasure hunts, a software company whose customers were targeted by a patent troll, and a photographer sued for practices that had been common in the field for years. These stories all have one thing in common: someone with a patent on an abstract idea sued a small business, and that business could have lost everything. But Alice came to the rescue.
Why are we telling these stories? Because Alice is under attack. A few loud voices in the patent lobby want to amend the law to bring back these stupid patents. It’s time to tell the stories of the individuals and businesses that have been sued or threatened with patents that shouldn’t have been issued in the first place."
"In 2014’s Alice v. CLS Bank, the Supreme Court ruled that an abstract idea does not become eligible for a patent simply by being implemented on a generic computer. Since then, Alice has provided a lifeline for real businesses threatened or sued with bogus patents.
This week, on the third anniversary of Alice, EFF is launching a new series called Saved by Alice where we’ll collect these stories of times when Alice came to the rescue. Over the next few weeks, we’ll be sharing stories of business owners large and small. You’ll meet an app developer who was sued over a bogus patent on computerized treasure hunts, a software company whose customers were targeted by a patent troll, and a photographer sued for practices that had been common in the field for years. These stories all have one thing in common: someone with a patent on an abstract idea sued a small business, and that business could have lost everything. But Alice came to the rescue.
Why are we telling these stories? Because Alice is under attack. A few loud voices in the patent lobby want to amend the law to bring back these stupid patents. It’s time to tell the stories of the individuals and businesses that have been sued or threatened with patents that shouldn’t have been issued in the first place."
Wednesday, July 5, 2017
Swedish Neo-Nazis Frozen Out In Trademark Fight; NPR, July 5, 2017
Scott Neuman, NPR: Swedish Neo-Nazis Frozen Out In Trademark Fight
"A German manufacturer of deep freezers has won a trademark battle with Swedish neo-Nazis over the group's name — which the company says is too easily confused with its own.
The extremist group, known as the Nordic Resistance Movement (NRM), or "Nordfront" for short, is too similar to Nordfrost, the firm that claims to be the world's sixth-largest maker of deep freezers."
"A German manufacturer of deep freezers has won a trademark battle with Swedish neo-Nazis over the group's name — which the company says is too easily confused with its own.
The extremist group, known as the Nordic Resistance Movement (NRM), or "Nordfront" for short, is too similar to Nordfrost, the firm that claims to be the world's sixth-largest maker of deep freezers."
Intellectual Freedom and Open Access: Working Toward a Common Goal?; American Libraries, June 25, 2017
Jennifer Putnam Davis, American Libraries; Intellectual Freedom and Open Access: Working Toward a Common Goal?
"How do the principles of intellectual freedom and open access intersect? That was the topic of the “Intellectual Freedom and Open Access: Working Toward a Common Goal?” panel discussion, sponsored by the Intellectual Freedom Round Table, which addressed the relationship from several different perspectives."
"How do the principles of intellectual freedom and open access intersect? That was the topic of the “Intellectual Freedom and Open Access: Working Toward a Common Goal?” panel discussion, sponsored by the Intellectual Freedom Round Table, which addressed the relationship from several different perspectives."
Tuesday, July 4, 2017
Louisiana considers radical step to counter high drug prices: Federal intervention; Washington Post, July 3, 2017
Carolyn Y. Johnson, Washington Post; Louisiana considers radical step to counter high drug prices: Federal intervention
"At [Louisiana’s health secretary Rebekah] Gee’s urging, Joshua Sharfstein, a professor of public health at Johns Hopkins University and a former Food and Drug Administration deputy commissioner, convened a meeting of health-policy specialists and economists. They advised that the state ask the federal government to intervene in a two-pronged approach: Gee should first ask the government to negotiate with a drug company and license a medication, in line with a recent recommendation by a committee from the National Academies.
At the same time, they advised Gee to pursue a harder-edged tactic, in case the voluntary approach did not work: Gee should ask the secretary of health and human services to invoke a century-old law that allows the government to use patents at a reasonable cost. The panel recommended a price as low as $1,000 per patient.
The law was used routinely in the 1950s and 1960s to make medicines available at lower prices. It was considered but not used during the anthrax attacks in 2001. It has been used by more than 10 government agencies or departments to lower the prices for patented inventions, including night-vision goggles for the Defense Department.
“The drug has been out for years, and we’re failing to provide it to the majority of people who have this infection,” Gee said. “We’re failing at our mission to improve the public health, and so just doing what we’re doing is not an option and we have to do better.”"
"At [Louisiana’s health secretary Rebekah] Gee’s urging, Joshua Sharfstein, a professor of public health at Johns Hopkins University and a former Food and Drug Administration deputy commissioner, convened a meeting of health-policy specialists and economists. They advised that the state ask the federal government to intervene in a two-pronged approach: Gee should first ask the government to negotiate with a drug company and license a medication, in line with a recent recommendation by a committee from the National Academies.
At the same time, they advised Gee to pursue a harder-edged tactic, in case the voluntary approach did not work: Gee should ask the secretary of health and human services to invoke a century-old law that allows the government to use patents at a reasonable cost. The panel recommended a price as low as $1,000 per patient.
The law was used routinely in the 1950s and 1960s to make medicines available at lower prices. It was considered but not used during the anthrax attacks in 2001. It has been used by more than 10 government agencies or departments to lower the prices for patented inventions, including night-vision goggles for the Defense Department.
“The drug has been out for years, and we’re failing to provide it to the majority of people who have this infection,” Gee said. “We’re failing at our mission to improve the public health, and so just doing what we’re doing is not an option and we have to do better.”"
Monday, July 3, 2017
Chocolate Aplenty, but Nary a Wonka Bar to Be Found; New York Times, July 3, 2017
Michael Paulson and David Gelles, New York Times; Chocolate Aplenty, but Nary a Wonka Bar to Be Found
"The Wonka brand passed from company to company in a wave of late-20th-century corporate mergers and acquisitions, and along the way came a real-world Wonka Bar, Peanut Butter Oompas, Everlasting Gobstoppers and other candies. In 1993 Nestlé, a Swiss conglomerate, acquired the Wonka name from a British candymaker, Rowntree Mackintosh Confectionery, and, for a time, nurtured the Wonka brand, which eventually encompassed candies including SweeTarts, Nerds and Laffy Taffy, followed by Wonka Exceptionals. But the entire Wonka line has since been discontinued.
Nestlé has been hoping “to refocus the magic of Wonka toward future product offerings around the world,” according to Roz O’Hearn, a company spokeswoman. “We’re considering a variety of options, but for now, our innovation plans remain confidential, so I cannot share more info.”
"The Wonka brand passed from company to company in a wave of late-20th-century corporate mergers and acquisitions, and along the way came a real-world Wonka Bar, Peanut Butter Oompas, Everlasting Gobstoppers and other candies. In 1993 Nestlé, a Swiss conglomerate, acquired the Wonka name from a British candymaker, Rowntree Mackintosh Confectionery, and, for a time, nurtured the Wonka brand, which eventually encompassed candies including SweeTarts, Nerds and Laffy Taffy, followed by Wonka Exceptionals. But the entire Wonka line has since been discontinued.
Nestlé has been hoping “to refocus the magic of Wonka toward future product offerings around the world,” according to Roz O’Hearn, a company spokeswoman. “We’re considering a variety of options, but for now, our innovation plans remain confidential, so I cannot share more info.”
‘Bombshell’ Canadian Patent Ruling Seen Favoring Foreign Companies; Bloomberg, June 30, 2017
Josh Wingrove, Bloomberg; ‘Bombshell’ Canadian Patent Ruling Seen Favoring Foreign Companies
"“It’s a bombshell of a decision,” said Richard Gold, a law professor at Montreal’s McGill University who studies intellectual property. He’s a member of the university’s Centre For Intellectual Property Policy, which intervened in the case. “We’re now the only country in the developed world that when an inventor says, ‘my invention does X,’ it doesn’t actually have to do X.”
"“It’s a bombshell of a decision,” said Richard Gold, a law professor at Montreal’s McGill University who studies intellectual property. He’s a member of the university’s Centre For Intellectual Property Policy, which intervened in the case. “We’re now the only country in the developed world that when an inventor says, ‘my invention does X,’ it doesn’t actually have to do X.”
The Supreme Court ruled that a current standard, known as the “promise doctrine,” goes too far, because it allows for patents to be invalidated if an invention doesn’t do any of the things it promised."
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?; Guardian, June 27, 2017
Stephen Buranyi, Guardian; Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
"The idea that scientific research should be freely available for anyone to use is a sharp departure, even a threat, to the current system – which relies on publishers’ ability to restrict access to the scientific literature in order to maintain its immense profitability. In recent years, the most radical opposition to the status quo has coalesced around a controversial website called Sci-Hub – a sort of Napster for science that allows anyone to download scientific papers for free. Its creator, Alexandra Elbakyan, a Kazhakstani, is in hiding, facing charges of hacking and copyright infringement in the US. Elsevier recently obtained a $15m injunction (the maximum allowable amount) against her.
Elbakyan is an unabashed utopian. “Science should belong to scientists and not the publishers,” she told me in an email. In a letter to the court, she cited Article 27 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, asserting the right “to share in scientific advancement and its benefits”.
Whatever the fate of Sci-Hub, it seems that frustration with the current system is growing. But history shows that betting against science publishers is a risky move. After all, back in 1988, Maxwell predicted that in the future there would only be a handful of immensely powerful publishing companies left, and that they would ply their trade in an electronic age with no printing costs, leading to almost “pure profit”. That sounds a lot like the world we live in now."
"The idea that scientific research should be freely available for anyone to use is a sharp departure, even a threat, to the current system – which relies on publishers’ ability to restrict access to the scientific literature in order to maintain its immense profitability. In recent years, the most radical opposition to the status quo has coalesced around a controversial website called Sci-Hub – a sort of Napster for science that allows anyone to download scientific papers for free. Its creator, Alexandra Elbakyan, a Kazhakstani, is in hiding, facing charges of hacking and copyright infringement in the US. Elsevier recently obtained a $15m injunction (the maximum allowable amount) against her.
Elbakyan is an unabashed utopian. “Science should belong to scientists and not the publishers,” she told me in an email. In a letter to the court, she cited Article 27 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, asserting the right “to share in scientific advancement and its benefits”.
Whatever the fate of Sci-Hub, it seems that frustration with the current system is growing. But history shows that betting against science publishers is a risky move. After all, back in 1988, Maxwell predicted that in the future there would only be a handful of immensely powerful publishing companies left, and that they would ply their trade in an electronic age with no printing costs, leading to almost “pure profit”. That sounds a lot like the world we live in now."
Sunday, July 2, 2017
Intellectual Property 101: What Your Business Needs To Know About Trademark Law; Forbes, June 26, 2017
Art Neill, Forbes; Intellectual Property 101: What Your Business Needs To Know About Trademark Law
"Co-author Teri Karobonik contributed to this post*
When you think of a “trademark” you may think of a logo (Apple’s apple logo) or a product or service name (Forbes). You may even assume that trademarks are only a concern for internationally famous brands like fashion companies (Prada) and fast food (Pizza Hut).
In reality, trademark protection extends further than logos and can cover everything from sounds (the 20th Century Fox Fanfare before the opening movie credits), to colors (the “green” on a John Deere tractor), to the design of a taco shop.
Although many of the common examples you hear about are large corporate brands, understanding trademark protection is just as important for startups, independent creators, and small business. So what do trademarks do? They protect consumers from confusion regarding the source of products or services. As your business grows, trademarks become a significant asset because they are the way consumers identify and relate with your company. You also need to know how and when your business can use the trademarks of other companies.
In this second part of this four part series (see Part 1 on Copyright here), we’ll break down one of the 4 main types of intellectual property (Trademark) and explain..."
"Co-author Teri Karobonik contributed to this post*
When you think of a “trademark” you may think of a logo (Apple’s apple logo) or a product or service name (Forbes). You may even assume that trademarks are only a concern for internationally famous brands like fashion companies (Prada) and fast food (Pizza Hut).
In reality, trademark protection extends further than logos and can cover everything from sounds (the 20th Century Fox Fanfare before the opening movie credits), to colors (the “green” on a John Deere tractor), to the design of a taco shop.
Although many of the common examples you hear about are large corporate brands, understanding trademark protection is just as important for startups, independent creators, and small business. So what do trademarks do? They protect consumers from confusion regarding the source of products or services. As your business grows, trademarks become a significant asset because they are the way consumers identify and relate with your company. You also need to know how and when your business can use the trademarks of other companies.
In this second part of this four part series (see Part 1 on Copyright here), we’ll break down one of the 4 main types of intellectual property (Trademark) and explain..."
Friday, June 30, 2017
Coraopolis man accused of taking trade secrets from Harsco; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 30, 2017
Len Boselovic, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; Coraopolis man accused of taking trade secrets from Harsco
"A Camp Hill company that recycles mill waste is accusing a former employee from Coraopolis of taking thousands of pages of documents containing trade secrets to a competitor that planned to use them to develop products of its own.
"A Camp Hill company that recycles mill waste is accusing a former employee from Coraopolis of taking thousands of pages of documents containing trade secrets to a competitor that planned to use them to develop products of its own.
A federal judge based in Pittsburgh this week ordered Stephen Miranda, a former employee in Harsco Corp.’s Sarver office, to remain on administrative leave from Phoenix Services, the Chester County company Mr. Miranda went to work for after leaving Harsco in April."
Thursday, June 29, 2017
One Year On: Developments in the Protection of Trade Secrets; U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Director's Forum Blog, June 29, 2017
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
|
Tuesday, June 27, 2017
Should robot artists be given copyright protection?; Phys.org, June 26, 2017
Andres Guadamuz, Phys.org; Should robot artists be given copyright protection?
"But who owns creative works generated by artificial intelligence? This isn't just an academic question. AI is already being used to generate works in music, journalism and gaming, and these works could in theory be deemed free of copyright because they are not created by a human author.
This would mean they could be freely used and reused by anyone and that would be bad news for the companies selling them. Imagine you invest millions in a system that generates music for video games, only to find that music isn't protected by law and can be used without payment by anyone in the world."
"But who owns creative works generated by artificial intelligence? This isn't just an academic question. AI is already being used to generate works in music, journalism and gaming, and these works could in theory be deemed free of copyright because they are not created by a human author.
This would mean they could be freely used and reused by anyone and that would be bad news for the companies selling them. Imagine you invest millions in a system that generates music for video games, only to find that music isn't protected by law and can be used without payment by anyone in the world."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)