Openness by Default; Inside Higher Ed, 1/16/17

Carl Straumsheim, Inside Higher Ed; 

Openness by Default

"The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation now requires all its grant recipients to make their published, peer-reviewed work immediately available to the public, the latest development in a larger push to make research more accessible.

The foundation rolled out the new policy in 2015, but allowed for a two-year transition period during which grant recipients could embargo their work for 12 months. That option went away on Jan. 1 -- from now on, anyone who receives some funding from the foundation must make their research and underlying data available, for example by publishing it in an open-access journal or depositing it in a public repository.

The full impact of the policy has yet to be felt, but Richard Wilder, associate general counsel in the foundation’s global health program, said in an interview that the open-access requirement is changing how the foundation interacts with grant recipients, publishers and others."

Paul McCartney Sues Sony to Regain Rights to Beatles Songs; Hollywood Reporter, 1/18/17

Eriq Gardner, Hollywood Reporter; Paul McCartney Sues Sony to Regain Rights to Beatles Songs

"Paul McCartney has filed suit in New York against Sony/ATV and is looking to get a declaratory judgment that states he will soon regain his copyright ownership share to a treasured catalog of songs created as a member of The Beatles.

In what could become one of the most important legal battles in the music industry this decade, the iconic songwriter is looking to leverage the termination provisions of the Copyright Act.

In 1976, Congress increased the period that works are under copyright protection, and, in recognition of authors who had signed over their rights to publishers and studios without much bargaining power, allowed such authors 35 years hence to reclaim rights in the latter stages of a copyright term."

Why Patent Protection In The Drug Industry Is Out Of Control; Forbes, 1/19/17

Robert Pearl, M.D., Forbes; 

Why Patent Protection In The Drug Industry Is Out Of Control

"Patents originated in ancient Greece. This legal protection assumed greater importance in 15th-century Venice as a means to protect the nation-state's glass-blowing industry. The first patent granted in the United States was in 1790.

Across history, governments created patents for two important purposes. The first was to stimulate interest in research and find solutions to problems that vexed the nation and the world. The second was to promote the broader good of the country. The duration of time designated for exclusive use of the new technology or approach was intended to be relatively short, with the public gaining the resulting benefits in perpetuity. As such, the granting of a patent was designed to advance not only the interests of its creator, but also, equally, the economy and well-being of the nation.

The intent of the patent process and the balance between the dual objectives have been warped over the past decade. "

Retro Patents turns famous inventions into art you can buy; TechCrunch, 1/19/17

Steve O'Hear, TechCrunch; 

Retro Patents turns famous inventions into art you can buy

"A fun little side project-cum-startup from two of the founders of Soundwave, the social music company acquired by Spotify, wants to turn patents into art. Launching today, Retro Patents lets you buy prints of famous patents to hang on your office wall, or at home, if that’s your thing.

The patent prints for sale include games consoles, such as the original Nintendo Gameboy and Sony PlayStation, mobile devices, including the Apple iPhone and original BlackBerry, and more ubiquitous inventions like the humble calculator or computer mouse. Each patent has been designed and printed using HDR ink-jet technology on Ultra Premium Luster Photo Paper with a basis weight of 180 gsm."

Amazon patent hints at self-driving car plans; Guardian, 1/18/17

Alex Hern, Guardian; 

Amazon patent hints at self-driving car plans

"Amazon is working on self-driving cars, according to a new patent that deals with the complex task of navigating reversible lanes.

The patent, filed in November 2015 and granted on Tuesday, covers the problem of how to deal with reversible lanes, which change direction depending on the bulk of the traffic flow. This type of lane is typically used to manage commuter traffic into and out of cities, particularly in the US.

Autonomous vehicles, the patent warns, “may not have information about reversible lanes when approaching a portion of a roadway that has reversible lane”, leading to a worst-case scenario of them driving headfirst into oncoming traffic."

University of Pittsburgh Innovation Institute's "First Gear Program", 2017

[Kip Currier: Last week I highlighted a few from-invention-to-market initiatives offered through the University of Pittsburgh Innovation Institute. First Gear is another of these Pitt initiatives:]

"The First Gear program helps shape Pitt inventions originating from University research from early-stage discovery to products and services that can be taken to market. The program offers hands-on guidance and mentorship that takes an inventor through the necessary steps in creating a go-to-market plan that can result in the creation of a new enterprise or licensing agreement for the technology. As a designated NSF I-Corps site [sic; this is the correct link re NSF I-Corps sites], First Gear participants also receive $3,000 in funding to help validate the market-readiness of the innovation, and qualify for additional NSF funding of larger amounts. Want to learn more, watch the Pitt Ventures & NSF I-Corps webinar.

To request an application or more information on the program, fill out the form on this page."

U.S. Supreme Court justices fret over offensive trademarks; Reuters, 1/18/17

Andrew Chung, Reuters; 

U.S. Supreme Court justices fret over offensive trademarks

"The justices during the arguments seemed to agree with the band that the government was favoring some trademarks while disapproving others, a kind of discrimination based on viewpoint traditionally forbidden by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees free speech.

But the justices appeared to struggle over whether banning offensive slurs is reasonable in the trademark system, which is used to promote commerce.

Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy asked the band's attorney, John Connell, whether a group of non-Asians using the name The Slants to mock Asians could be denied a trademark. Connell said they could not.

Kennedy questioned whether the trademark system should be considered like a public park "where you can say anything you want.

In rejecting The Slants' trademark, government officials relied on a provision of the 1946 Lanham Act that prevents the registration of marks that may disparage certain people."