The Guardian view on academic publishing: disastrous capitalism Editorial; March 4, 2019

The Guardian; The Guardian view on academic publishing: disastrous capitalism  

Editorial

"In California the state university system has been paying $11m (£8.3m) a year for access to Elsevier journals, but it has just announced that it won’t be renewing these subscriptions. In Britain and Europe the move towards open access publishing has been driven by funding bodies. In some ways it has been very successful. More than half of all British scientific research is now published under open access terms: either freely available from the moment of publication, or paywalled for a year or more so that the publishers can make a profit before being placed on general release.

Yet, somehow, the new system has not yet worked out any cheaper for the universities. Publishers have responded to the demand that they make their product free to readers by charging their writers fees to cover the costs of preparing an article. These range from around £500 to $5,000, and apparently the work gets more expensive the more that publishers do it. A report last year from Professor Adam Tickell pointed out that the costs both of subscriptions and of these “article preparation costs” has been steadily rising at a rate above inflation ever since the UK’s open access policy was adopted in 2012. In some ways the scientific publishing model resembles the economy of the social internet: labour is provided free in exchange for the hope of status, while huge profits are made by a few big firms who run the market places. In both cases, we need a rebalancing of power."
 

UC open access fight exposes publishing rip-off: Charging exorbitant fees for journal articles isn’t in the best interests of scientific research, Mercury News, March 6, 2019

MERCURY NEWS & EAST BAY TIMES EDITORIAL BOARDS; Editorial: UC open access fight exposes publishing rip-off

Charging exorbitant fees for journal articles isn’t in the best interests of scientific research

"The scholarly research publishing industry is a rip-off that hinders scientific advances and piles unnecessary costs onto taxpayers who already fund much of the academic work.

It’s ridiculous that, in this age of the internet, researchers are paying huge fees for access to academic papers and for publication of their own work. That made sense in the days when scholarly works were printed in bound volumes. Today, academic work, especially public- and foundation-funded research, should be open for all. It shouldn’t cost $35 to $40 for each article, effectively freezing out those without the means to pay...

The University of California’s mission statement reads: “The distinctive mission of the university is to serve society as a center of higher learning, providing long-term societal benefits through transmitting advanced knowledge, discovering new knowledge, and functioning as an active working repository of organized knowledge.”

UC’s commitment to open access helps fulfill that goal and advances scientific enterprise for the benefit of all."

Theranos: How a broken patent system sustained its decade-long deception Op-ed: The patent bargain is seriously busted.; Ars Technica, March 4, 2019

Daniel Nazer, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Theranos: How a broken patent system sustained its decade-long deception

Op-ed: The patent bargain is seriously busted.

"Early Theranos skeptics tended to be scientists who had heard the company’s extravagant claims and had asked the obvious question: does the tech really work? In 2014, a pathologist wrote that he was skeptical Theranos was using proprietary technology for many of its tests. Other scientists expressed frustration that Theranos had not shared its methods with the scientific community nor offered any evidence that the methods worked.

In April 2015, while Theranos was still enjoying mostly fawning press coverage, Business Insider published an article quoting some skeptical scientists. The article noted that “technical details about Theranos’ seemingly revolutionary tests are hard to come by.” Notably, Theranos had hundreds of patents by that point. Yet a scientist looking to understand how Theranos actually conducted its test wouldn’t learn anything useful from a typical Theranos patent. This is because companies can submit rough outlines of their processes, leaving out the key details, and still get patents. Recent legal reforms have only made this easier.

Business Insider wrote that if Theranos had come up with a “killer application” for microfluidics, “that may explain its reluctance to show the patented details that make its technology unique.” This sentence shouldn’t make sense, because patents are public by nature. So “patented details” should be public.

The sentence only makes sense when you realize that the patent bargain is utterly broken. The people who work within the patent system realize it. That’s why no one raised red flags when Theranos received hundreds of patents without telling the scientific community how its machines actually worked."

How the patent office's lax standards gave Elizabeth Holmes the BS patents she needed to defraud investors and patients; Boing Boing, March 4, 2019

Cory Doctorow, Boing Boing; How the patent office's lax standards gave Elizabeth Holmes the BS patents she needed to defraud investors and patients

"Patents are only supposed to be issued for devices with "utility" -- that is, they have to actually work before you can get a patent for them. But it's been decades since the USPTO has paid meningful [sic] attention to this criterion when evaluating applications, handing out patents for imaginary "inventions" to con artists, delusional hucksters, and other "inventors" who are willing to pay the filing fees that keep the lights on at the Patent Office. And since most people only have a vague idea of the rigor used in patent examination, these patents for design fiction can be used as impressive "proof" when crooks set out to deceive their marks.

(Another real problem with these fake patents: allowing con-artists to patent "inventions" that they have no idea how to make means that when someone really does invent that gadget, the con-man can use their bogus patent to threaten and extort real inventors)."

IP 101: Intellectual Property Management In The Digital Age; Forbes, March 4, 2019

Danae Vara Borrell, Forbes; IP 101: Intellectual Property Management In The Digital Age

"So, how do brands facing a high number of counterfeits leverage classic IP rights and technology to implement an effective online IP strategy and prevent brand erosion?

Many brands are streamlining processes by enforcing their IP rights, using technology-based solutions that rely on artificial intelligence (AI) and detect potential incidents on behalf of right owners. However, to be effective, the best AI-driven systems should take a holistic approach to brand protection by consolidating tools and actions on a single platform, providing full visibility on all the different types of infringements negatively impacting a company’s reputation such as black, grey and white market goods."

Supreme Court Clarifies That, Yes, You Have to Register Your Copyright, and No, You Cannot Recover Your Expert Witness Fees in Copyright Cases; Lexology, March 5, 2019

Squire Patton Boggs - Joseph A. Meckes and Theresa Rakocy, Lexology; Supreme Court Clarifies That, Yes, You Have to Register Your Copyright, and No, You Cannot Recover Your Expert Witness Fees in Copyright Cases 

"In a pair of unanimous rulings on March 4, 2019, the Supreme Court clarified (1) that the U.S. Copyright Office must issue a registration certificate before a plaintiff can commence suit and (2) that a prevailing plaintiff cannot recover fees for expert witnesses, jury consultants or other “costs” that are not specifically called for in the relevant statutes."

‘Mockingbird’ Producer Reconsiders, Letting Local Plays Go Forward; The New York Times, March 1, 2019

Michael Paulson and Alexandra Alter, The New York Times; ‘Mockingbird’ Producer Reconsiders, Letting Local Plays Go Forward

"Mr. Rudin defended his actions in a brief statement, saying, “As stewards of the performance rights of Aaron Sorkin’s play, it is our responsibility to enforce the agreement we made with the Harper Lee estate and to make sure that we protect the extraordinary collaborators who made this production.”

But he also blamed the situation on the Dramatic Publishing Company, which is run by Christopher Sergel III, Mr. Sergel’s grandson, saying it had erred in issuing licenses to present the play to theaters that should not have received them. Mr. Rudin has argued that a 1969 agreement between Ms. Lee, the author of the novel, and Dramatic Publishing bars productions by theaters within 25 miles of a city that in 1960 had a population of more than 150,000 people, as well as productions using professional actors, when a “first-class” production is running on Broadway or on tour.

“We have been hard at work creating what I hope might be a solution for those theater companies that have been affected by this unfortunate set of circumstances, in which rights that were not available to them were licensed to them by a third party who did not have the right to do so,” Mr. Rudin said. “In an effort to ameliorate the hurt caused here, we are offering each of these companies the right to perform our version of ‘To Kill a Mockingbird,’ Aaron Sorkin’s play currently running on Broadway.”...

“Unfortunately this issue has been the shot heard ’round the fine arts world over recent days,” said Davis Varner, the president of the board of the Theater of Gadsden, a community theater in Alabama that is planning to stage the Sergel version this month. The theater is not near a big city, so its rights appear to be unchallenged, but Mr. Varner issued a statement referring to Mr. Rudin as “the bully from Broadway” and said, “I am saddened and disappointed for those groups who have been forced to cancel their productions through no fault of their own.”

Others took to social media to vent their unhappiness.

As great as the new version on Broadway is, Scott Rudin's strongarming of local theater companies to shut down their versions of To Kill a Mockingbird seems repressive and anti-art.

— david maraniss (@davidmaraniss) March 1, 2019"

Mongols Biker Club Can Keep Its Logo, Judge Rules; The New York Times, February 28, 2019

Louis Keene and Serge F. Kovaleski, The New York Times; Mongols Biker Club Can Keep Its Logo, Judge Rules

"Nearly two months after a federal jury decided that a notorious motorcycle club must forfeit the rights to its trademarked emblem, a judge on Thursday nullified the verdict, finding that seizure of the intellectual property was unconstitutional. 

In a 51-page ruling, Federal District Judge David O. Carter said the government’s strategy of trying to devastate the Mongols motorcycle club by confiscating its treasured Genghis Khan-style logo would violate the group’s First Amendment right to free speech and the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment."

A professor is accused of stealing a student's invention to make millions; CNN, March 1, 2019

Neil Monahan and Saeed Ahmed, CNN; A professor is accused of stealing a student's invention to make millions

"The University of Missouri-Kansas City has filed a lawsuit against a former professor, alleging that he stole and sold his graduate student's research for $1.5 million."

University of California boycotts publishing giant Elsevier over journal costs and open access; Science, February 28, 2019

Alex Fox, Jeffrey Brainard, Science; University of California boycotts publishing giant Elsevier over journal costs and open access

"The mammoth University of California (UC) system announced today it will stop paying to subscribe to journals published by Elsevier, the world’s largest scientific publisher, headquartered in Amsterdam. Talks to renew a collective contract broke down, the university said, because Elsevier refused to strike a package deal that would provide a break on subscription fees and make all articles published by UC authors immediately free for readers worldwide.

The stand by UC, which followed 8 months of negotiations, could have significant impacts on scientific communication and the direction of the so-called open-access movement, in the United States and beyond. The 10-campus system accounts for nearly 10% of all U.S. publishing output and is among the first U.S. institutions, and by far the largest, to boycott Elsevier over costs. Many administrators and librarians at U.S. universities and elsewhere have complained about what they view as excessively high journal subscription fees charged by commercial publishers."

Community Theaters Kill 'Mockingbird' Productions After Lawsuit Threat; NPR, March 1, 2019

Matthew S. Schwartz, NPR; Community Theaters Kill 'Mockingbird' Productions After Lawsuit Threat

"From Massachusetts to Utah, small community theater productions of "To Kill a Mockingbird" are being shut down under threat of a lawsuit by the producer of the new Broadway production."

New Research Study Describes DNDi As A “Commons” For Public Health; Intellectual Property Watch, February 25, 2019

David Branigan, Intellectual Property Watch; New Research Study Describes DNDi As A “Commons” For Public Health

"Since 2003, Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (DNDi) has worked to meet the public health needs of neglected populations by filling gaps in drug development left by the for-profit pharmaceutical industry. A new research study by the French Development Agency analysed DNDi’s unique product development partnership (PDP) model, and found that it “illustrate[s] what can be presented as a ‘commons’ within the area of public health."

The research study, “DNDi, a Distinctive Illustration of Commons in the Area of Public Health,” was published earlier this month by the Agence Française de Développement (AFD), the French public development bank that “works in many sectors — energy, healthcare, biodiversity, water, digital technology, professional training, among others — to assist with transitions towards a safer, more equitable, and more sustainable world: a world in common,” according to its website."

Startup Law A to Z: Intellectual Property; TechCrunch, February 25, 2019

Daniel McKenzie, TechCrunch; Startup Law A to Z: Intellectual Property

"Whether protected through copyright, trade secret, trademark, or patents, software technology companies depend on IP more so than perhaps any other business type in history.

It is surprising, then, just how little founders think about protecting their own IP. Sure, “product-market fit” is an all-engrossing search for truth that tolerates no distraction, but that is at best an explanation, not an excuse.

The real pros will find product-market fit while documenting and protecting IP along the way — it’s the only way to ensure you own your work, after all.

This article provides an overview to help you think about where your IP sits, how to protect it, and how to avoid certain pitfalls that plague far too many startups."

A Century-Old Debate Over Science Patents Is Repeating Itself Today; Slate, February 25, 2019

Charles Duan, Slate; A Century-Old Debate Over Science Patents Is Repeating Itself Today

"What caused the demise of Ruffini’s idea? It turned out to be devils in the details: Deep thinkers on the subject, even those in favor of scientific property in principle, couldn’t figure out the implementation. Rogers, for example, wondered how scientific property would deal with multiple contributors to one discovery. Who, for example, “discovered” electricity—Benjamin Franklin? André-Marie Ampère? George Simon Ohm? The “chap that made the Leyden jar”? Industries worried about unexpected liability and demanded creation of a scientific property insurance scheme. The American Association for the Advancement of Science report found concerns that the expansive scope of some scientific discoveries could lead to unbounded, tortuous litigation. A U.S. Patent Office official wondered how scientific property patents could be written without being too vague and speculative."

Dentist’s failed suit demonstrates a copyright’s bite needs more than teeth; Lexology, February 18, 2019

Thompson Coburn LLP - Mark Sableman, Lexology; Dentist’s failed suit demonstrates a copyright’s bite needs more than teeth

 

"The court agreed in Pohl v. MH SUB I, LLC, finding that Dr. Pohl’s two “direct shots” of his patient’s teeth were purely utilitarian, like pictures of food plates on a Chinese restaurant’s menu. They lacked the minimal required “creative spark.”...

 

For more information, there’s a chapter in the Copyright Office Compendium on this subject. Or you can just remember: “No way” for teeth or triangles; a thin “OK” for tetrahedrons."

The worst possible version of the EU Copyright Directive has sparked a German uprising; BoingBoing, February 18, 2019

Cory Doctorow, BoingBoing; The worst possible version of the EU Copyright Directive has sparked a German uprising

"In the meantime, the petition to save Europe from the Directive—already the largest in EU history—keeps racking up more signatures, and is on track to be the largest petition in the history of the world."

Entrepreneurs Tell USPTO Director Iancu: Patent Trolls Aren’t Just “Monster Stories”; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), February 14, 2019

Joe Mullin, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Entrepreneurs Tell USPTO Director Iancu: Patent Trolls Aren’t Just “Monster Stories”

"Unfortunately, the new director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is in a serious state of denial about patent trolls and the hurt they cause to technologists everywhere. Today a number of small business owners and start-up founders have submitted a letter [PDF] to USPTO Director Andre Iancu telling him that patent trolls remain a real threat to U.S. businesses. Signatories range from mid-sized companies like Foursquare and Life360 to one-person software enterprises like Ken Cooper's. The letter explains the harm, cost, and stress that patent trolls cause businesses."

The Scouts Teach Us All a Lesson About Trademark Law; Forbes, February 12, 2019

Tony Marks, Forbes; The Scouts Teach Us All a Lesson About Trademark Law

"David Harford, an attorney with Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, contributed to this post."...

"Ultimately, the Girl Scout’s suit against the Boy Scouts demonstrates the caution that should be exercised regarding the use of intellectual property in connection with the alteration and expansion of services.  This is a message that all franchisors should take to heart as they rebrand or brand products and services.  The Boy Scouts likely devoted a lot of resources to determine how they should let everyone know that they were offering new services.  Instead of just reaping the benefits of that work, they are now fighting a lawsuit that may result in their inability to take advantage of their new marketing strategy."

Lack of women inventors could hurt innovation, US patent office says; CNet, February 12, 2019

Erin Carson, CNet; Lack of women inventors could hurt innovation, US patent office says

"More women are filing patents, but they still have a long way to go in terms of representation among inventors, according to a report out Monday from the US Patent and Trademark Office.

The report, titled Progress and Potential: A profile of women inventors on US patents, found that while the share of patents that include at least one woman listed as an inventor rose from 7 percent in the 1980s to 21 percent in 2016, women accounted for only 12 percent of inventors in 2016. 

"Harnessing underexploited talent in these groups would be valuable to spurring innovation and driving growth," reads the report, whose release coincided with the International Day of Women and Girls in Science. It refers to the idea of "lost Einsteins," or people who could have made valuable contributions had they been exposed to "innovation and inventor role models."" 

Colorado Open Scholars Summit to examine ‘Open Access in Tenure and Promotion’ March 1; Colorado State University, February 9, 2019

CSU External Relations Staff, Colorado State University; Colorado Open Scholars Summit to examine ‘Open Access in Tenure and Promotion’ March 1

"The second biennial Colorado Open Scholars Summit, a statewide event co-sponsored by nine Colorado universities, will be held on March 1 in the Morgan Library Event Hall at CSU.

The focus of this year’s event, being held from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., is “Open Access in Tenure and Promotion.” The summit will consist of two virtual panels featuring renowned scholars from the U.S. and Canada, followed by local discussions at the nine participating Colorado institutions, including CSU.

The first panel features CSU’s own Patrick Burns, dean of libraries and vice president of information technology, and will be a general discussion of challenges within the tenure and promotion process. This panel will focus on evaluation of scholarly and creative output, with particular attention paid to disincentives built into the T&P process and challenges in evaluating multidisciplinary and non-traditional scholarship.

The second panel will explore the topics of equity, prestige and quality of scholarship, with particular focus on the effect of open access on these areas of T&P evaluation."

Disney lobbies Congress to change copyright laws; The Highlander, University of California Riverside, February 12, 2019

Robert Gold, University of California Riverside; Disney lobbies Congress to change copyright laws

"Copyright law is a tedious topic but it affects people in their daily lives."

USPTO Releases 2018 Performance and Accountability Report; Guest Blog by Chief Financial Officer Tony Scardino, January 31, 2019

Director's Forum: A Blog from USPTO's Leadership

Blog homepage | A tribute to veteran... »

Thursday Jan 31, 2019 

 

USPTO Releases 2018 Performance and Accountability Report 

Guest Blog by Chief Financial Officer Tony Scardino

"I’m pleased to announce that the USPTO has published its Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) for fiscal year (FY) 2018. The PAR serves as the USPTO’s annual report, similar to what private sector companies prepare for their shareholders. Each year the USPTO publishes this report to update the public on our performance and financial health.

Our FY 2018 PAR charts the agency’s progress toward meeting goals outlined in our 2014-2018 Strategic Plan: optimizing patent quality and timeliness; optimizing trademark quality and timeliness; and providing domestic and global leadership to improve intellectual property policy, protection, and enforcement worldwide. In addition, the PAR provides information on the USPTO’s progress towards a broader management goal:  achieving organizational excellence.  These goals drive the quality and quantity of our service to intellectual property stakeholders over the last five years.

Quote by President Abraham Lincoln on the patent system, as displayed on the Herbert C. Hoover federal building in Washington D.C., headquarters of the U.S. Department of Commerce

While the PAR is a record of our achievements, it is also an honest discussion of the challenges we face as an agency moving forward under our new 2018-2022 Strategic Plan, which was published in November. We will continue efforts to issue predictable and reliable patents; continue implementation of the patent dispute resolution portions of the America Invents Act (AIA), including ensuring that procedures and standards are balanced and predictable; monitor and help address dynamic IP issues in Congress and the Courts; maintain the high and sustained trademark performance level in the face of significant trademark application growth rates; improve the customer experience and develop outreach at both headquarters and regional offices; expand on dissemination of data; maintain sustainable funding; and ensure our IT systems enable our nationwide workforce to serve our customers with a “24/7/365” operational capability.

Here at the USPTO, we take pride in producing a PAR that meets the highest standards of transparency, quality, and accountability. The PAR contains a wealth of data and historical information of interest to our stakeholders, including data on patent and trademark examining activities, application filings, and agency staffing levels. This information is conveniently presented in the workload tables section at the end of the PAR.

On the issue of financial performance, FY 2018 marks the 26th consecutive year that the USPTO’s financial statements have received an unmodified audit opinion. Our clean audit opinion gives the public independent assurance that the information presented in the agency’s financial statements is fairly presented and follows generally accepted accounting principles. The auditors did note a deficiency in our internal controls related to managing and configuring IT system access. We have already begun developing plans to address the auditor’s concerns. Despite this deficiency, the auditor found no material weaknesses in the USPTO’s internal controls, and no instances of non-compliance with laws and regulations affecting the financial statements.

The PAR is a faithful snapshot of the USPTO’s FY 2018 performance. I hope you find value in this document, and that it allows you to glean greater insights into the agency’s activities and achievements."

The Role Of The Centre For Data Ethics And Innovation - What It Means For The UK; Mondaq, January 22, 2019

Jocelyn S. Paulley and David Brennan, Gowling WLG, Mondaq; The Role Of The Centre For Data Ethics And Innovation - What It Means For The UK

"What is the CDEI's role?

The CDEI will operate as an independent advisor to the government and will be led by an independent board of expert members with three core functions³:

• analysing and anticipating risks and opportunities such as gaps in governance and regulation that could impede the ethical and innovative deployment of data and AI;
• agreeing and articulating best practice such as codes of conduct and standards that can guide ethical and innovative uses of AI; and
• advising government on the need for action including specific policy or regulatory actions required to address or prevent barriers to innovative and ethical uses of data.

As part of providing these functions, the CDEI will operate under the following principles;

• appropriately balance objectives for ethical and innovative uses of data and AI to ensure they deliver the greatest benefit for society and the economy;
• take into account the economic implications of its advice, including the UK's attractiveness as a place to invest in the development of data-driven technologies;
• provide advice that is independent, impartial, proportionate and evidence-based; and
• work closely with existing regulators and other institutions to ensure clarity and consistency of guidance

The CDEI's first project will be exploring the use of data in shaping people's online experiences and investigating the potential for bias in decisions made using algorithms. It will also publish its first strategy document by spring 2019 where it will set out how it proposes to operate with other organisations and other institutions recently announced by the government, namely the AI Council and the Office for AI."

So Much TV, Too Little IP Yields Writers Rich Rewards; Variety, January 31, 2019

Elaine Low, Variety; So Much TV, Too Little IP Yields Writers Rich Rewards

"The sheer volume of television out there is changing how precious intellectual property is foraged, acquired and ultimately used."

UN agency finds US, Asian companies seek most AI patents; Associated Press, January 31, 2019

Associated Press; UN agency finds US, Asian companies seek most AI patents

"The U.N.’s intellectual property organization says companies in Japan, South Korea and the U.S. are the top filers of patent applications involving artificial intelligence.

The World Intellectual Property Organization has issued a first report aiming to show trends in AI, seen as a growth area in coming years, although still a tiny fraction of all patent applications each year.

WIPO said Thursday that machine learning is the dominant AI technique disclosed in patents."

US Trademark Office Approves Application To Register The Shape Of A Burger; Mondaq, January 31, 2019

Donna A. Tobin, Mondaq; US Trademark Office Approves Application To Register The Shape Of A Burger

"The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO")  recently approved registration of the irregular shape of a hamburger patty as a trademark, meaning that the owner of the mark, Bubba Foods LLC (Bubba's) had made a sufficient showing to the USPTO that the below shape of its burger was not functional and that the shape itself serves to identify Bubba Burgers as the source of  burgers so shaped. 

Such marks, known as "product configuration marks" are less common than more typical trademarks, such as names, slogans or logos. However, while the process is not an easy one, such non- traditional trademarks, which can also protect aspects of a product such as smells, sounds and the appearance of a retail establishment, can confer powerful rights on an owner."

Game of Life Copyright Dispute Meets 'Day of Reckoning'; Law.com, January 30, 2019

Scott Graham, Law.com; Game of Life Copyright Dispute Meets 'Day of Reckoning'

"Markham died in 1993. His heirs sued in 2015, invoking a provision of the Copyright Act of 1976 that allows authors to terminate licenses after 56 years in certain circumstances.

But that provision excludes works for hire, and Smith concluded that the Game of Life is a work for hire that was commissioned by Klamer and produced by Markham’s company. “The weight of the evidence in this case is that the success that met the Game of Life was, in fact, nothing if not the result of collective effort,” Smith concluded. “And although the credit, in the colloquial sense, can be split pro rata, the law dictates that the copyrights cannot be.”"

Second China-Bound Apple Car Worker Charged With Data Theft; Bloomberg, January 30, 2019

Kartikay Mehrotra and Mark Gurman,

Bloomberg; Second China-Bound Apple Car Worker Charged With Data Theft

"An Apple Inc. hardware engineer was charged by the U.S. with stealing the iPhone maker’s driverless car secrets for a China-based company, the second such case since July amid an unprecedented crackdown by the Trump administration on Chinese corporate espionage...

As President Donald Trump ratcheted up his trade war with China, the Justice Department in November announced a “China Initiative” aimed at prioritizing trade-theft cases and litigating them as quickly as possible.

San Francisco prosecutors have brought trade-secret theft cases against Chinese nationals who worked for companies as diverse as Micron Technology Inc., a memory chipmaker, and drug maker Genentech Inc. This week, the U.S. charged Huawei Technologies Co., China’s largest telecommunications company, with stealing secrets from its American partner, T-Mobile US Inc."

US hammers Huawei with 23 indictments for alleged trade secret theft, fraud; CNet, January 29, 2019

Abrar Al-Heeti, CNet; US hammers Huawei with 23 indictments for alleged trade secret theft, fraud

"The US Department of Justice on Monday charged Huawei with theft of trade secrets, wire fraud and obstruction of justice.

A 10-count indictment alleges that China's Huawei stole trade secrets from US carrier T-Mobile beginning in 2012. Huawei also allegedly offered bonuses to employees who stole confidential information from companies. In addition, a 13-count indictment charged four defendants, including Huawei and Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou, with financial fraud. The indicted defendants also include affiliates Huawei USA and Skycom.

"The charges unsealed today clearly allege that Huawei intentionally conspired to steal the intellectual property of an American company in an attempt to undermine the free and fair global marketplace," said FBI Director Christopher Wray in a statement. "To the detriment of American ingenuity, Huawei continually disregarded the laws of the United States in the hopes of gaining an unfair economic advantage.""

Video and audio from my closing keynote at Friday's Grand Re-Opening of the Public Domain; BoingBoing, January 27, 2019

Cory Doctorow, BoingBoing; Video and audio from my closing keynote at Friday's Grand Re-Opening of the Public Domain

"On Friday, hundreds of us gathered at the Internet Archive, at the invitation of Creative Commons, to celebrate the Grand Re-Opening of the Public Domain, just weeks after the first works entered the American public domain in twenty years.
 
I had the honor of delivering the closing keynote, after a roster of astounding speakers. It was a big challenge and I was pretty nervous, but on reviewing the saved livestream, I'm pretty proud of how it turned out.

Proud enough that I've ripped the audio and posted it to my podcast feed; the video for the keynote is on the Archive and mirrored to Youtube.

The whole event's livestream is also online, and boy do I recommend it."

Copyright Office identifies visual arts copyright problems, solutions; Lexology, January 24, 2019

Thompson Coburn LLP - Mark Sableman, Lexology; Copyright Office identifies visual arts copyright problems, solutions

 

"Our forms are antiquated and difficult to use. Our definition of “publication” is important but hard to understand and apply. Our process for enforcing rights is tedious, costly, and time consuming.

 

Those are key takeaways from a report by the Copyright Office to Congress about visual works copyrights. And that’s not all of the bad news. In addition to deficiencies in its own processes, the Copyright Office reported the hardly surprising conclusion that people on the Internet often misuse copyrighted works and mislead users about copyright...

 

The report, titled “Copyright and Visual Works: The Legal Landscape of Opportunities and Challenges,” concerns a recent “holistic analysis of the copyright landscape in which visual artists must work.” Based on comments from industry and the public, the Copyright Office identified three major challenges for visual artist copyrights: the registration process, licensing, and enforcement."

Shazam! Vs. Captain Marvel: The Bizarre Battle Over a Name; Comic Book Resources, January 27, 2019

Brian Cronin, Comic Book Resources; Shazam! Vs. Captain Marvel: The Bizarre Battle Over a Name

"Eventually, most fans will only known [sic] the hero formerly known as Captain Marvel as Shazam. It's a bit of a shame, but that's how the intellectual property rights fell."

How the public domain offers new life to these poetry classics; PBS NewsHour, January 21, 2019

PBS NewsHour; How the public domain offers new life to these poetry classics

"Literary works in the public domain have inspired countless homages, spinoffs and reimaginings. Broadway hit musical “Wicked” was based on Frank L. Baum’s “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz,” which entered the public domain in 1956. New York Times bestseller “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” mixed 2009’s undead craze with Jane Austen’s 18th-century romantic comedy. Tony-award winner Lin Manuel Miranda used several public domain works in “Hamilton,” avoiding copyright infringement for his contemporary take on one of the Founding Fathers.

For more on the various ways the public domain serves today’s poets, writers and other literary fans, the PBS NewsHour interviewed Adam Green, editor-in-chief of The Public Domain Review, Robert Casper, head of the Library of Congress’ Poetry and Literature Center, and Karyn A. Temple, director of the library’s U.S. Copyright Office. 

These conversations have been combined and edited for length. A list of works entering the public domain in 2019 is available here."

Viral Is Still Copyrighted, Even to Learn Where Trump Is; Lexology, January 18, 2019

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP - Joseph Myles and Margaret A. Esquenet, Lexology; Viral Is Still Copyrighted, Even to Learn Where Trump Is

"While attending his friend’s wedding at the Trump National Golf Club in New Jersey in June 2017, Jonathan Otto took a photograph of a certain wedding crasher: the president himself...

The case continues towards trial, but with a number of the most important issues now decided in Otto’s favor."

Trademark Fight Over Vulgar Term’s ‘Phonetic Twin’ Heads to Supreme Court; The New York Times, January 21, 2019

Adam Liptak, The New York Times; Trademark Fight Over Vulgar Term’s ‘Phonetic Twin’ Heads to Supreme Court

"The Supreme Court apparently thinks the question is more complicated, as it agreed this month to hear the government’s appeal. If nothing else, the court can use Mr. Brunetti’s case to sort out just what it meant to say in the 2017 decision, which ruled for an Asian-American dance-rock band called the Slants. (The decision also effectively allowed the Washington Redskins football team to register its trademarks.)

The justices were unanimous in ruling that the prohibition on disparaging trademarks violated the First Amendment. But they managed to split 4 to 4 in most of their reasoning, making it hard to analyze how the decision applies in the context of the ban on scandalous terms."

Autocomplete suggestions: Did you mean 'copyright infringement'?; Lexology, January 10, 2019

MinterEllison - Nadia Braad and Ruby Ramachandran, Lexology; Autocomplete suggestions: Did you mean 'copyright infringement'?

"We won't be likely to see a Court consider this particular topic until the value of the copyright is sufficient for a copyright owner to challenge a search engine over the autocomplete suggestions. In the fast paced world of technology, this may not be far away."

Trump’s bizarre statement on China dishonors us all; The Washington Post, January 11, 2019

Dana Milbank, The Washington Post; Trump’s bizarre statement on China dishonors us all

"Asked an unrelated question on the White House South Lawn on Thursday, Trump volunteered a comparison between Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) — and the leaders of the People’s Republic of China.

“I find China, frankly, in many ways, to be far more honorable than Cryin’ Chuck and Nancy. I really do,” he said. “I think that China is actually much easier to deal with than the opposition party.”

China, honorable?

China, which is holding a million members of religious minorities in concentration camps for “reeducation” by force?

China, which, according to Trump’s own FBI director, is, by far, the leading perpetrator of technology theft and espionage against the United States and is “using illegal methods” to “replace the U.S. as the world’s leading superpower”?

China, whose state-sponsored hackers were indicted just three weeks ago and accused of a 12-year campaign of cyberattacks on this and other countries?

China, whose ruling Communist Party has caused the extermination of tens of millions of people since the end of World War II, through government-induced famine, the ideological purges of the Cultural Revolution, and in mowing down reformers in Tiananmen Square?

Trump has a strange sense of honor. In April, he bestowed the same adjective on the world’s most oppressive leader, North Korea’s nuclear-armed dictator: “Kim Jong Un, he really has been very open and I think very honorable from everything we’re seeing.”

Now, the president is declaring that China’s dictatorship, by far the world’s biggest international criminal and abuser of human rights and operator of its most extensive police state, is more honorable than his political opponents in the United States.

In Trump’s view, your opponents are your enemies — and your actual enemies are your friends. How can you negotiate with a man who thinks like this?"

A Grand Re-Opening of the Public Domain by Internet Archive and Creative Commons: January 25, 2019

A Grand Re-Opening of the Public Domain

by Internet Archive and Creative Commons

 

 

"Description 

Please join us on Friday, January 25, 2019 for a grand day celebrating the public domain!
Co-hosted by the Internet Archive and Creative Commons, this celebration will feature a keynote addresses by Lawrence Lessig and Cory Doctorow, lightning talks, demos, multimedia displays and more to mark the “re-opening” of the public domain in the United States. The event will take place at the Internet Archive in San Francisco.

Schedule of Events:

10am: Doors & Registration
10-11:45: Interactive public domain demos and project stations with organizations including Creative Commons, Internet Archive, Wikipedia, Authors Alliance, Electronic Frontier Foundation, California Digital Library, Center for the Study of the Public Domain, LightHouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired, the Cleveland Art Museum, and many more!
11:45-1pm: Lunch on your own in the Richmond District
1pm-6pm: Program of keynote speakers, lightning talks and panels highlighting the value and importance of the public domain
6pm-7:30pm: Reception

Speakers/Panelists Include:

Lawrence Lessig - Harvard Law Professor
Cory Doctorow - Author & Co-editor, Boing-Boing
Pam Samuelson - Berkeley Law Professor
Paul Soulellis - Artist & Rhode Island School of Design Professor
Jamie Boyle - Duke Law Professor & Founder, Center for the Study of the Public Domain
Brewster Kahle - Founder & Digital Librarian, Internet Archive
Corynne McSherry - Legal Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Ryan Merkley - CEO, Creative Commons
Jennifer Urban - Berkeley Law Professor
Joseph C. Gratz - Partner, Durie Tangri
Jane Park - Director of Product and Research, Creative Commons
Cheyenne Hohman - Director, Free Music Archive
Ben Vershbow - Director, Community Programs, Wikimedia
Jennifer Jenkins - Director, Center for the Study of the Public Domain
Rick Prelinger - Founder, Prelinger Archives
Amy Mason - LightHouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired
Paul Keller - Communia Association
Michael Wolfe - Duke Lecturing Fellow, Center for the Study of the Public Domain
Daniel Schacht - Co-chair of the Intellectual Property Practice Group, Donahue Fitzgerald LLP"

Will the world embrace Plan S, the radical proposal to mandate open access to science papers?; Science, January 3, 2019

Tania Rabesandratana, Science; Will the world embrace Plan S, the radical proposal to mandate open access to science papers?

""In the OA movement, it seems to a lot of people that you have to choose a road: green or gold or diamond," says Colleen Campbell, director of the OA2020 initiative at the Max Planck Digital Library in Munich, Germany, referring to various styles of OA. "Publishers are sitting back laughing at us while we argue about different shades" instead of focusing on a shared goal of complete, immediate OA. Because of its bold, stringent requirements, she and others think Plan S can galvanize advocates to align their efforts to shake up the publishing system...

"The combined weight of Europe and China is probably enough to move the system," says astrophysicist Luke Drury, of the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies and the lead author of a cautiously supportive response to Plan S by All European Academies, a federation of European academies of sciences and humanities.

If Plan S does succeed in bringing about a fairer publishing system, he says, a transition to worldwide OA is sure to follow. "Somebody has to take the lead, and I'm pleased that it looks like it's coming from Europe.""

January 1, 2019 is (finally) Public Domain Day: Works from 1923 are open to all!; Center for the Study of the Public Domain, January 2019

Center for the Study of the Public Domain;

January 1, 2019 is (finally) Public Domain Day: Works from 1923 are open to all!

"For the first time in over 20 years, on January 1, 2019, published works will enter the US public domain.1 Works from 1923 will be free for all to use and build upon, without permission or fee. They include dramatic films such as The Ten Commandments, and comedies featuring Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, and Harold Lloyd. There are literary works by Robert Frost, Aldous Huxley, and Edith Wharton, the “Charleston” song, and more. And remember, this has not happened for over 20 years. Why? Works from 1923 were set to go into the public domain in 1999, after a 75-year copyright term. But in 1998 Congress hit a two-decade pause button and extended their copyright term for 20 years, giving works published between 1923 and 1977 an expanded term of 95 years.2
But now the drought is over. How will people celebrate this trove of cultural material? Google Books will offer the full text of books from that year, instead of showing only snippet views or authorized previews. The Internet Archive will add books, movies, music, and more to its online library.

HathiTrust has made over 50,000 titles from 1923 available in its digital library. Community theaters are planning screenings of the films. Students will be free to adapt and publicly perform the music. Because these works are in the public domain, anyone can make them available, where you can rediscover and enjoy them. (Empirical studies have shown that public domain books are less expensive, available in more editions and formats, and more likely to be in print—see here, here, and here.) In addition, the expiration of copyright means that you’re free to use these materials, for education, for research, or for creative endeavors—whether it’s translating the books, making your own versions of the films, or building new music based on old classics.

Here are some of the works that will be entering the public domain in 2019. A fuller (but still partial) listing of over a thousand works that we have researched can be found here. (You can click on some of the titles below to get the newly public domain works.)"

Supreme Court to decide if trademark protection can be denied to ‘scandalous’ brands; The Washington Post, January 4, 2019

Robert Barnes, The Washington Post; Supreme Court to decide if trademark protection can be denied to ‘scandalous’ brands

"The Supreme Court agreed Friday to review a new front in the battle over free speech and will decide whether trademark protection can be refused to brands the federal government finds vulgar or lewd.

The case involves a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to deny trademark registration to a clothing line called FUCT.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit struck down the century-old ban on protecting “scandalous” and “immoral” trademarks as a First Amendment violation, and the Department of Justice wants the Supreme Court to reverse the decision...

The case,Iancu v. Brunetti , will probably be heard at the Supreme Court in April."