China defends its Trump trademark approvals as in line with law; Reuters, March 10, 2017

Reuters/Jason Lee; 

China defends its Trump trademark approvals as in line with law

"China's trademark office in recent weeks green-lighted 38 trademark applications linked to Trump, giving the U.S. president and his family protection were they to develop the "Trump" brand in the market.

The ties between politics and business have, however, prompted concern from politicians and rights groups who say the president could face potential conflicts of interest related to the extensive business affairs of his family...

Trump and his family, like many business owners, hold trademarks around the world, from business sectors such as apparel in the Philippines to golf clubs in Australia and property in Japan and South Korea."

Relax About Trump's China Trademarks; Bloomberg, March 9, 2017

Adam Minter, Bloomberg; 

Relax About Trump's China Trademarks

"China also knows that Trump's recent trademark applications (including one for escort businesses) likely aren't intended to precede new products. Rather, as Trump's lawyer explained to the Washington Post, they're defensive in nature, and designed to keep someone else from trademarking, and launching, Trump Escorts. That may sound convoluted, but it's actually a common strategy for foreign companies hoping to protect their brands in China.  

Moreover, China's interest in protecting intellectual property is at least as strong as Trump's in this case. In the coming months, the Trump administration is likely to roll out aggressive new policies in opposition to China's trade practices, including its lax IP enforcement. The last thing China wants is fake but licensed Trump products in Chinese stores making Trump's case for him.

For now, at least, giving Trump his trademarks probably won't put money into the president's pocket. But it's a crucial step for Chinese officials hoping to manage their relationship with an unpredictable new marketer-in-chief.

(Corrects headline to indicate trademarks instead of patents.)"

Should an artificial intelligence be allowed to get a patent?; Robohub, March 9, 2017

Ronald Yu, Robohub; 

Should an artificial intelligence be allowed to get a patent?

"Returning to the original question about patent rights for an A.I., perhaps the question we should ask is not whether an A.I. should be able to get a patent, but whether an A.I., given current technology, can create a patentable invention in the first place and if the answer to that question is ‘no’, then the question of granting patent rights to an A.I. is moot."

Trump’s actions raise fears about access to government data; The Spokesman-Review, March 8, 2017

Stuart Leavenworth and Adam Ashton, The Spokesman-Review; Trump’s actions raise fears about access to government data

"Wondering who is visiting the White House? The web-based search has gone dark. Curious about climate change? Some government sites have been softened or taken down. Worried about racial discrimination in housing? Laws have been introduced to bar federal mapping of such disparities. Federal rules protecting whistleblowers? At least one has been put on hold.

Since taking office, the Trump administration has made a series of moves that have alarmed groups with a stake in public access to information – historians, librarians, journalists, climate scientists, internet activists, to name a few. Some are so concerned they have thrown themselves into “data rescue” sessions nationwide, where they spend their weekends downloading and archiving federal databases they fear could soon be taken down or obscured...

“What is unprecedented is the scale of networking and connectivity of groups working on this, and the degree it is being driven by librarians and scientists and professors,” said Alex Howard, deputy director of the Sunlight Foundation, a group that tracks transparency in government."

Open-data contest unearths scientific gems — and controversy; Nature, March 8, 2017

Heidi Ledford, Nature; 

Open-data contest unearths scientific gems — and controversy

"Now one-third of the 60 papers that Wright's team had planned to publish are in jeopardy of being scooped. “I think the incentives to do these trials will be dramatically lessened if this is going to be the expectation going forward,” he says. “It's a huge time commitment.”

But others favour making data from trials publicly available as soon as possible. Doing so, they argue, opens up the possibility of a wide range of additional analysis, and speeds up analyses that can yield important clinical insights. “Clinical trial data are quite valuable, but usually they're kept locked away,” says Sandosh Padmanabhan, a participant in the competition who researches cardiovascular genomics at the University of Glasgow, UK. “Everybody who does clinical trials needs to open up their data for everybody to use.”"

The US government grants cannabis patents even though weed is illegal; Quartz, March 8, 2017

Ephrat Livni, Quartz; 

The US government grants cannabis patents even though weed is illegal

"If you look closely, the US government doesn’t seem as intent on thwarting marijuana development as the rhetoric espoused by some politicians would have you believe. In fact, cannabis seems to be slowly but surely gaining legitimacy, even in federal government circles, despite its Drug Enforcement Administration classification as a schedule 1 substance with no medical use.

Acceptance is signaled in small but significant ways. For example, the Patent and Trademark Office grants intellectual property rights to companies developing both marijuana plant strains and synthetic weed for industry...

[...S]ome industry insiders, like patent lawyer Erich Veitenheimer, who represented the holders of No. 9095554, believe this is just the beginning, and told Vice that intellectual property wars over marijuana are inevitable. Certainly, players appear to be preparing for these future cannabis battles, lining up ownership rights despite current federal law, as if widespread legalization is a pretty sure thing."

Plotting a patent; Nursery Management, February 6, 2017

Karen E. Varga, Nursery Management; 

Plotting a patent

"There have been 28,191 plant patent applications filed through the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) since 1963. From those applications, 24,021 plant patents were granted. While, comparatively speaking, plant patents make up a very small portion of the overall number of patents granted in the U.S. (there were 25,986 design patents granted in 2015 alone), their importance within the horticulture industry has grown, especially with the proliferation of brands...

When the America Invents Act was signed into law in 2011 and fully implemented in 2013, the U.S. went from being a “first to invent” to a “first inventor to file” country, putting it in line with most of the rest of the world. Under the new system, whomever files the patent application first can become the patent owner. That means that if you publicly disclose your plant before filing, you risk losing patentability. In addition, the new system considers any public disclosure outside of the U.S. the same as one made within our borders.

“The most important thing I tell people is, don’t show it to anybody, particularly anybody from outside of your operation,” McCoy says. “Don’t disclose it, don’t show it to anyone, and then get with a practitioner. Under this ‘first inventor to file’ system, you need to file before you disclose in any way.”

For 10 more patent questions and their answers, read the full article in our February issue."