Beijing Says Apple's iPhone 6 Violates Chinese Design Patent; NPR, 6/17/16

Alina Selyukh, NPR; Beijing Says Apple's iPhone 6 Violates Chinese Design Patent:

"Apple has hit a new snag in China: Beijing's intellectual property agency has ruled that the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus violate a design patent by one of China's own smartphone-makers.

Authorities found that this older generation of iPhones looks too similar to a phone, the 100C, made by a company called Shenzhen Baili. As a result, Apple was ordered to stop selling the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus in Beijing.

However, Apple says it appealed the order and the ruling has been stayed for the duration of the appeal — meaning that for now, the sales will continue.

Curiously, the order did not apply to the latest generation of iPhones, the 6s and 6s Plus, even though they closely resemble the older phones."

Appeals Court Gives Internet Service Providers Big Relief in Copyright Disputes; Hollywood Reporter, 6/18/16

Eriq Gardner, Hollywood Reporter; Appeals Court Gives Internet Service Providers Big Relief in Copyright Disputes:

"On Thursday, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals issued a long- and eagerly-awaited opinion in a case brought by major record labels against the video-sharing site Vimeo. The decision will be cheered by those in the tech community by providing some immunization from copyright liability.

Capitol Records and others sued the Barry Diller-owned Vimeo in 2009 — a virtual generation ago in the digital world. At the time, Viacom was fighting with YouTube over how to interpret the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which allows ISPs to escape copyright claims so long as they remove infringements expeditiously and not have actual knowledge of infringements on their networks. The since-settled YouTube controversy slowed the Vimeo case, which dealt with videos posted of the "lip dub" variety, showing users who choreographed elaborate lip-synching spectacles to popular music. Ultimately, Capitol Records et. al. v. Vimeo figures to be just as important as Viacom v. YouTube...

The case is now remanded back to the district court to sort out, but the decision may save Vimeo tens of millions of dollars in liability, and more importantly, become a new guiding post for copyright owners and digital service providers. Here's the full opinion."

You Will Never Unsee This Wondrously Strange Fake Japanese Advertisement for Donald Trump; Slate, 6/16/16

Katy Waldman, Slate; You Will Never Unsee This Wondrously Strange Fake Japanese Advertisement for Donald Trump:

"Mike Diva is, per his Facebook page, a “MAKER OF VIDEOS/MUSIC/MEMES/DREAMS” and he has bequeathed the pre-apocalyptic world its eighth wonder, a dizzying, sorbet-hued phantasmagoria that gestures toward the coming end times. It is called “Japanese Donald Trump Commercial”...

We could not resist getting Diva, whose real name is Mike Dahlquist, on the phone...

How long did it take you to make the video?

Dahlquist: All told, about a month and a half. I’m really lucky my friends are talented and willing to work for free, because of course we had zero budget. The actress was a friend of mine, perfect for the part—her hair was already like that and everything."

Everything you need to know about Led Zeppelin's 'Stairway to Heaven' copyright infringement trial; Entertainment Weekly, 6/16/16

Eric Renner Brown, Entertainment Weekly; Everything you need to know about Led Zeppelin's 'Stairway to Heaven' copyright infringement trial:

"This week, Robert Plant and Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin attended Los Angeles court for the infringement trial aiming to determine whether or not the iconic band relied too heavily on the song of one of their classic rock contemporaries when writing “Stairway to Heaven.” The convoluted saga could result in a change of credit and reallocated royalties — and at the very least it’s just the latest in Zeppelin’s decades-long struggle with crediting the influences behind some of their biggest hits. Read on for everything you need to know about the case."

Supreme Court Rules on Legal Fees in Copyright Cases; New York Times, 6/16/16

Adam Liptak, New York Times; Supreme Court Rules on Legal Fees in Copyright Cases:

"The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that a Thai student who in 2013 won a copyright case involving imported textbooks should have another chance to persuade a lower court that the textbook’s publisher should pay his legal fees...

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, said whether the losing side’s position was objectively reasonable should play a major role in the analysis. But she said the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, and the district courts it supervises, may have placed nearly dispositive weight on that one factor.

Justice Kagan said other considerations — including motivation, deterrence and compensation — must also play a role in the analysis. But she appeared to suggest that the student, Supap Kirtsaeng, was unlikely to prevail under the correct standard."

Panels Brainstorm Ideas On Innovation And Drug Access; Intellectual Property Watch, 6/15/16

Catherine Saez, Intellectual Property Watch; Panels Brainstorm Ideas On Innovation And Drug Access:

"The Harvard Global Health Institute and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society & Global Access in Action co-organised an event on practical strategies to expand access to medicine and promote innovation on 13 June. The event was partly webcast.

In his introductory remarks, Ashish Jha, K.T. Li professor of international health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, talked about the tension between two communities with two competing sets of ideas.

The first set, he said, is the real practical need for more innovation for treating diseases and diagnostic tests. However, innovation fundamentally is expensive, “and there is no shortcut that we know of to make innovation happen without anybody’s forces,” he said.

The opposing factor, he said, is that a very large proportion of the world’s population that cannot afford to pay for the innovation. “The idea that innovation would only benefit those who can afford to pay for it is an idea that we feel is both from a moral, economic, and intellectual perspective, unsustainable.”

“We have to move forward beyond this tension, beyond this point of contention … and find practical solutions” that both support innovation yet ensure that there is broad access, he said."

Mr. Modi, Don't Patent Cow Urine; New York Times, 6/16/16

Achal Prabhala and Sudhir Krishnaswamy, New York Times; Mr. Modi, Don't Patent Cow Urine:

"The B.J.P. government released India’s first National Intellectual Property Rights Policy last month, and it is dangerously misguided. Although the paper reaffirms the basic tenets of India’s admirably farsighted patent laws, it also calls for protecting traditional remedies like cow urine. Taken to its logical conclusion, this policy could open the door to many more exceptions, playing into the hands of patent-happy international pharmaceutical companies.

Big Pharma justifies aggressive patenting by claiming that profit-making drives invention by giving labs and companies an incentive to invest in research. Indian law takes the opposite view: Higher standards for legal protection leave more room for innovation. Unlike many other countries, India does not allow patents for natural substances, traditional remedies, frivolous inventions or marginal innovations.

This is a good thing — a great thing, in fact. Having fewer patents means more competition for more generic drugs, which means more affordable medicine for more people. Imatinib, a drug used to treat a form of leukemia, is available in India at about one-tenth the price it costs in much of the world. In 2000, when the only anti-retroviral drugs for HIV/AIDS available were produced by Western companies, the annual cost of treatment was about $10,000. The price has dropped to about $350, at least in the developing world, thanks to generic equivalents that were developed in India.

Naturally, all this drives Big Pharma mad. Its business model relies largely on patenting small tweaks to existing technologies, which multiplies financial returns with only minimal investment in research."