Art Neill, Los Angeles Times; How a rigid fair-use standard would harm free speech and fundamentally undermine the Internet
"In a recent Times op-ed article, Jonathan Taplin of the USC Annenberg Innovation Lab claimed that an “ambiguous“ fair use definition is emboldening users of new technologies to challenge copyright infringement allegations, including takedown notices. He proposes rewriting fair use to limit reuses of audio or video clips to 30 seconds or less, a standard he mysteriously claims is “widely accepted.”
In fact, this is not a widely accepted standard, and weakening fair use in this way will not address copyright infringement concerns on the Internet. It would hurt the music, film and TV industries as much as it would hurt individual creators...
Fair use is inextricably linked to our 1st Amendment right to free speech. We are careful with fair use because it’s the primary way consumers, creators and innovators share new ideas. It’s a good thing, and it is worth protecting."
Monday, June 5, 2017
Ivanka Trump's firm seeks new trademarks in China, reviving ethical concerns; CNN Money, June 5, 2017
Jackie Wattles and Jill Disis, CNN Money; Ivanka Trump's firm seeks new trademarks in China, reviving ethical concerns
"Ivanka Trump's business, which mostly makes clothing and accessories, says the latest trademark applications were filed to block others from profiting off of her name, not because she wants to sell the products in China.
But that's still a problem, says Larry Noble, the general counsel for the nonprofit, nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, a watchdog group.
He said the family's continued ties to their businesses raise questions about whether their profit motives could influence U.S. relations with other countries.
"China knows that to deny these applications would get a negative reaction from the president, and to expedite their approval would get a positive reaction from the president," Noble said."
"Ivanka Trump's business, which mostly makes clothing and accessories, says the latest trademark applications were filed to block others from profiting off of her name, not because she wants to sell the products in China.
But that's still a problem, says Larry Noble, the general counsel for the nonprofit, nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, a watchdog group.
He said the family's continued ties to their businesses raise questions about whether their profit motives could influence U.S. relations with other countries.
"China knows that to deny these applications would get a negative reaction from the president, and to expedite their approval would get a positive reaction from the president," Noble said."
The U.S. Supreme Court Is Reining in Patent Trolls, Which Is a Win for Innovation; Harvard Business Review, June 2, 2017
Larry Downes, Harvard Business Review; The U.S. Supreme Court Is Reining in Patent Trolls, Which Is a Win for Innovation
"In the last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two important rulings limiting patent rights. The decisions, which were both unanimous, significantly scaled back the ability of patent holders to slow innovation by competitors, tipping scales that many legal scholars believe have become badly imbalanced."
"In the last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two important rulings limiting patent rights. The decisions, which were both unanimous, significantly scaled back the ability of patent holders to slow innovation by competitors, tipping scales that many legal scholars believe have become badly imbalanced."
Thursday, June 1, 2017
Five questions about open science answered; Phys.org, May 30, 2017
Elizabeth Gilbert, Katie Corker,
Phys.org; Five questions about open science answered"What is "open science"?
Open science is a set of practices designed to make scientific processes and results more transparent and accessible to people outside the research team. It includes making complete research materials, data and lab procedures freely available online to anyone. Many scientists are also proponents of open access, a parallel movement involving making research articles available to read without a subscription or access fee."
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
As Computer Coding Classes Swell, So Does Cheating; New York Times, May 29, 2017
Jess Bidgood and Jeremy B. Merrill, New York Times;
As Computer Coding Classes Swell, So Does Cheating
"In interviews, professors and students said the causes were not hard to pin down.
To some students drawn to the classes, coding does not come easily. The coursework can be time-consuming. Troves of code online, on sites like GitHub, may have answers to the very assignment the student is wrestling with, posted by someone who previously took the course.
“You’ve got kids who were struggling with spending a third of their time on their problem sets with the option to copy from the internet,” said Jackson Wagner, who took the Harvard course in 2015 and was not accused of copying. “That’s the reason why people cheat.”
Complicating matters is the collaborative ethos among programmers, which encourages code-sharing in ways that might not be acceptable in a class. Professors also frequently allow students to discuss problems among themselves, but not to share actual code, a policy that some students say creates confusion about what constitutes cheating."
The Coat of Arms Said ‘Integrity.’ Now It Says ‘Trump.’; New York Times, May 28, 2017
Danny Hakim, New York Times;
“Britain’s trademark office would not initially acknowledge the earlier application by Mr. Trump. It provided a copy last month only after The New York Times made a Freedom of Information request, and would not say why the application was rejected, citing a law restricting its ability to release information.
The College of Arms, which oversees coats of arms in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, provided more detail. The emblem originally submitted in 2007 by Mr. Trump to Britain’s trademark office matched one that had been granted to Mr. Davies, an American of Welsh descent who once served as ambassador to the Soviet Union.
“It couldn’t be a clearer-cut case, actually,” said Clive Cheesman, one of the college’s heralds, who oversee coats of arms, their design and their use.
“A coat of arms that was originally granted to Joseph Edward Davies in 1939 by the English heraldic authority ended up being used 10 or 15 years ago by the Trump Organization as part of its branding for its golf clubs,” said Mr. Cheesman, a lawyer by training. “This got them into difficulty.”"
The Coat of Arms Said ‘Integrity.’ Now It Says ‘Trump.’
“Britain’s trademark office would not initially acknowledge the earlier application by Mr. Trump. It provided a copy last month only after The New York Times made a Freedom of Information request, and would not say why the application was rejected, citing a law restricting its ability to release information.
The College of Arms, which oversees coats of arms in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, provided more detail. The emblem originally submitted in 2007 by Mr. Trump to Britain’s trademark office matched one that had been granted to Mr. Davies, an American of Welsh descent who once served as ambassador to the Soviet Union.
“It couldn’t be a clearer-cut case, actually,” said Clive Cheesman, one of the college’s heralds, who oversee coats of arms, their design and their use.
“A coat of arms that was originally granted to Joseph Edward Davies in 1939 by the English heraldic authority ended up being used 10 or 15 years ago by the Trump Organization as part of its branding for its golf clubs,” said Mr. Cheesman, a lawyer by training. “This got them into difficulty.”"
Supreme Court decision allows resale of used ink cartridges despite patent holder restriction; ABA Journal, May 30, 2017
Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal; Supreme Court decision allows resale of used ink cartridges despite patent holder restriction
"A patent holder that restricts the reuse or resale of its printer ink cartridges can’t invoke patent law against a remanufacturing company that violates the restriction, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.
The court ruled that Lexmark International’s patent rights are exhausted with its first sale of the cartridges, despite restrictions it tried to impose."
"A patent holder that restricts the reuse or resale of its printer ink cartridges can’t invoke patent law against a remanufacturing company that violates the restriction, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.
The court ruled that Lexmark International’s patent rights are exhausted with its first sale of the cartridges, despite restrictions it tried to impose."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)