Open Access Rewards Passionate Curiosity: 2016 in Review; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 12/24/16

Elliot Harmon, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); 

Open Access Rewards Passionate Curiosity: 2016 in Review:

"In February 2016, a team of scientists published one of the most important pieces of scientific research so far this century. For the first time, researchers had directly observed gravitational waves, ripples in the fabric of spacetime whose discovery Albert Einstein first predicted a century ago. The team effectively placed the last piece in the puzzle confirming Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity—in doing so, they took a giant leap forward in humans’ understanding of how the universe works.

Something else was confirmed that day, too: open access publishing is no inferior sibling to closed publishing. The paper—Observational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger (PDF)—was published in an open access journal under a Creative Commons license that ensures anyone can copy, adapt, and reuse it as long as they give the authors credit.

Put simply, open access is the practice of making research and other materials freely available online, ideally under licenses that allow anyone to share and adapt them. For years, open access publishing has been at the center of a struggle over the future of research: will cutting-edge scholarship be published in the open for anyone to see, use, and build upon? Or will it stay trapped in a labyrinth of closed publications only to be read by those who can afford expensive journal subscriptions and academic databases?

In many ways, 2015 was academic publishing’s Napster moment. As publishing giant Elsevier fought to keep Sci-Hub off the Internet, it accomplished just the opposite. While the legal battle between Elsevier and Sci-Hub has trudged through 2016, more people than ever have begun using the unauthorized academic research repository.

Maybe 2016 was the year publishers realized they had to change course. Elsevier agreed to compromise with the Dutch academic community, allowing researchers covered by the publisher’s blanket agreement with Dutch universities to publish their research openly. That’s a small step, but an indicator that Elsevier recognizes the significance of the demand for open access."

Trademarks - New Year, Clean Start; National Law Review, 12/28/16

Sterne Kessler, National Law Review; Trademarks - New Year, Clean Start:

"As 2016 draws to a close, now is the perfect time to slow down (or at least try), wrap up loose ends, and plan for the promise and possibility of a new year.

For businesses, the holidays are a particularly good time to take stock of assets and consider opportunities on the horizon.  And, because brand assets are among a business's most valuable properties, taking a year-end look at trademarks is a great way to ensure the portfolio is primed to work for the business in the coming year.   

Following are some tips to help kick-start an annual year-end trademark audit..."

Dark Skies for International Copyright: 2016 in Review; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 12/28/16

Jeremy Malcolm, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF);

Dark Skies for International Copyright: 2016 in Review:

"It's hard to imagine that a year ago we were celebrating "positive movement" towards reforms to European copyright law, expecting that the European Commission would be soon proposing new copyright exceptions and other measures to modernize Europe's aging copyright regime. Instead, what we got was a proposal to force user-generated content websites to do deals with copyright holders to scan and filter users' uploads, along with a proposal to give news publishers the power to impose a link tax on third-party websites such as news aggregators."

Facebook Developing Copyright ID System to Stem Music Rights Infringement; Billboard, 12/28/16

Dan Rys, Billboard; Facebook Developing Copyright ID System to Stem Music Rights Infringement:

"As Facebook continues to grapple with its role in proliferating "fake news" amidst the heated U.S. election this year, it has another showdown looming on the horizon -- this one with the music industry. In the wake of NMPA president/CEO David Israelite's op-ed in Billboard in October, in which he called out the social media giant for hosting videos with copyrighted music without securing licensing deals or paying creators, Facebook is working to develop a copyright identification system -- similar to YouTube's Content ID -- that would find and remove videos containing copyrighted music, a source tells Billboard. The story was first reported by the Financial Times."

When are trade secrets not so secret? When Florida’s governor says so; Miami Herald, 12/16/16

Mary Ellen Klas, Miami Herald; When are trade secrets not so secret? When Florida’s governor says so:

"“A contract with a public agency paid for with taxpayer money is not a trade secret,” he said. He noted that Pitbull’s lawyers argued that, but they were wrong.

“Just because somebody claims it’s a trade secret, doesn’t mean it is a trade secret.”"

These three 2016 cases gave new life to software patents; Ars Technica, 12/27/16

Joe Mullin, Ars Technica; These three 2016 cases gave new life to software patents:

"In 2014, the US Supreme Court dealt a major blow to software patents. In their 9-0 ruling in Alice Corp v. CLS Bank, the justices made it clear that just adding fancy-sounding computer language to otherwise ordinary aspects of business and technology isn't enough to deserve a patent.

Since then, district court judges have invalidated hundreds of patents under Section 101 of the US patent laws, finding they're nothing more than abstract ideas that didn't deserve a patent in the first place. The great majority of software patents were unable to pass the basic test outlined by the Supreme Court. At the beginning of 2016, the nation's top patent court had heard dozens of appeals on computer-related patents that were challenged under the Alice precedent. DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com was the only case in which a Federal Circuit panel ruled in favor of a software patent-holder. The Alice ruling certainly didn't mean all software patents were dead on arrival—but it was unclear what a software patent would need to survive. Even DDR Holdings left a teeny-tiny target for patent owners to shoot at.

That all changed in 2016. Judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found three more cases in which they believe that software patents were wrongly invalidated. What once looked like a small exception to the rule now looks like three big ones. The results of those cases could portend a coming year that will be friendlier to patent owners than the past few have been. As 2016 winds down, let's take a closer look at the details of these three software patent battles and how patent-holders kept their patents alive through the appeals court."

Apple and Nokia Battle Over Cellphone Patents; New York Times, 12/22/16

Vindu Goel and Mark Scott, New York Times; Apple and Nokia Battle Over Cellphone Patents:

"Central to the latest dispute between Apple and Nokia is what is a fair and reasonable fee to use Nokia technology that is now part of every smartphone. Patent lawyers say there has been a tradition of charging a modest royalty for patents on standard technologies. Previously, Nokia fought bitter legal battles with other smartphone makers, including Samsung and LG, over how they used its patents.

As Nokia seeks to require Apple to pay to license more of its patents, some of its recent claims may be hard to justify. In one of its lawsuits filed on Wednesday, it says Apple is violating a patent Nokia received two months ago for an electronic device case that includes a hole for a camera lens in the back and room for a battery beneath the display, features that have been common to smartphones for many years.

Still, Mr. Roberts said American courts have been skeptical of patent-related antitrust claims like those by Apple. “The whole point of the government granting these patents is that it was giving the inventor a monopoly over that invention,” he said.

But Apple and Nokia are fighters, and too much is at stake for either to give up easily.

“What is a fair return on technology that has been shared with everyone?” Mr. Brismark of Ericsson said. “You have to create the right incentives for tech pioneers.”"