Never underestimate the importance of protecting intellectual property
I thought this article took an interesting (even “innovative”) take on the issue of patent infringement. It explains ways in which someone who has their patent infringed can capitalize on the profits with the infringer, resulting in mutual benefit.
Google v. Equustek was the case I discussed last class where Equustek accussed it’s distributor of stealing its product to sell as a rival product. The Supreme Court of Canada provided an injunction to delist the infringer from Google worldwide.This ruling creates freedom of speech concerns as well as issues over whether countries can enforce their law on the Internet in other countries. With the global reach of the Internet, I believe this is a problem international law needs to solve in order to protect intellectual property rights. If infringers are protected by other countries such as in this case, companies will be unable to protect their rights. However, allowing other countries to decide what is acceptable fir the world’s Internet can force perfectly legal content in one country to be banned worldwide by other countries. I believe an international solution is required to deal with the problem.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/28/15888408/canada-supreme-court-google-block-search-results-equustek-datalink
Link: http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2015/09/hlaw1-1509.html
This article nicely describes the cases for today’s reading. I saw interesting comparisons to the content of our tech discussions we have been having over the past weeks. The cases for this week concerned the patentability of scientific endeavors. Growth in this area is no doubt aided by growth in technology. And like technology, the ability for others to use the information, process (etc.) discovered is good for vast application and potential improvement. In these cases, the Courts found that if the aspect at issue (a gene sequence, process, etc.) was not created but merely discoverable (regardless of how remarkable it was) it was not patentable. This bodes well for those trying to use the new found information to expand upon the newly discovered information. Does it strike the proper balance in incentivizing people to pursue finding information so novel in the scientific field? Could they be compensated for their findings by selling research, or instructions for finding? Should they create a separate venture implementing their research from which to profit? Should the goal of this research not be profit and the funding for the research come from grants, or would it be okay to compensate the workers after discovery – compensate with profit?
Beyond this, there does seem to be some distinction from the tech field – in the science area you are dealing with naturally occurring phenomenons. This would bode less well for receiving a patent. (I am also unsure of how often those developing in the tech area apply for patents – I imagine infrequently). Perhaps the process involved in science and the purpose of patent protection in the Constitution has an overarching commonality – perhaps a broader benefit to society – which the Founders wished to protect. Accordingly, it is more difficult to get patents. And when they are received, they receive stronger protection?
This article provides a comprehensive overview and analysis of federal court cases that consider the legality of embedded copyrighted materials on third party website. Per a Ninth Circuit case from 2007, “the practice of embedding (or “framing”) content from an external source within [a] site – so that customers can see what the third-party has posted – does not involve a reproduction nor a public display,” and is therefore lawful. However, a district court case from last month in New York concluded that embedded material may indeed constitute a public display, and would therefore be illegal. The article proceeds in an excellent discussion on the law of copyright in this space and contemplates normative questions that consider the challenges that would be presented if embedded material on the internet were found to violate copyright law.
This article by the NY Times is about the effects of the America Invents Act of 2011 and how Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group will affect innovation. The issue in this case is whether the taking of private property is something only a court can do, and not a patent office.
This article argues that stringent intellectual property laws are doing little to encourage real innovation and entrepreneurship. These laws could also prevent pharmaceutical companies from charging exorbitant fees from their exclusive rights to formulations that they tweak before the initial patent runs out.
Although prior to the Myriad Genetics case, this short piece talks about the high risks involved with entrepreneurship in the field of biotechnology. The high investment and lack of predictability of the outcome of the research make it difficult for new ventures in this field.
The Myriad Genetics ruling made me think how much more difficult it can be for companies to keep up doing research related to human DNA without the insurance that it will be patent protected. This article shows how unpredictable it has been to bring a DNA patent claim before the USPTO.
At least for Myriad, the Supreme Court decision does not seem to have affected its financial health, according to its latest fiscal report.
This article gives a nice overview over the development of the Supreme Court’s position on the patentability of biotechnology since Chakrabarty in 1980. While it points out that the Supreme Court has stripped back some eligible subject matter, in particular with its decisions in Myriad and Sequenom, it concludes that patent protection remains a valuable part of a biotechnology company’s business strategy.
The article also presents arguments pro and against stronger patent protection in this area based on a economic rather than moral approach. It points out that proponents of stronger patent protection fear that the elimination of entire categories of patentable subject matter “reduces or eliminates the incentive to invest in development of new treatments and diagnostic methods.”
But on the other hand, others believe this development fosters competition and increases “development of next-generation treatments resulting from modification of naturally occurring molecules.” This group also argues that the trend in the diagnostic market, anyway, is toward using information technology and data mining platforms.
A historical background to Copyrights and Patent laws and it’s constitutional support. The article gives an overview of the few first cases litigated in the US Supreme Court on patent and copyright issues. The comments below the article are a super interesting read.
This article discusses the Support Technology & Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience (STRONGER) Patents Act, introduced in the House of Representatives on last Tuesday, March 22.
Title II of the Act closely follows the language of the 2015 TROL Act and specifically addresses the problem of patent trolls.
The Act:
However, the act does not, in my view, effectively address the issue that many patent trolls are holders of valid but questionable (for example because very broad) patents. It seems difficult to me to establish a standard that puts these patent trolls on fair notice of when they are allowed to enforce their patents and when they are sent in bad faith.