Intellectual Property Law eJournal最新文献

{"title":"Defensive Publishing by a Leading Firm","authors":"Justin P. Johnson","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.606781","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.606781","url":null,"abstract":"I consider the use of defensive publishing by a firm with a patentable innovation in hand. Such publishing discloses technical information to rivals and foregoes the publisher’s legal right to exclude, but also prevents rivals from patenting. My analysis identifies why firms choose defensive publishing over patenting and trade secrecy. I present summary data suggesting that defensive publishing has become more common recently, that the composition of firms using it is changing, and that it has emerged especially as a response to the fear of bad patents being issued in the area of software and business methods. These data are consistent with my theoretical results.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116210512","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Patent Reversion: An Employee-Inventor's Second Bite at the Apple","authors":"R. Kamprath","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1577909","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1577909","url":null,"abstract":"In an attempt to more fully compensate employee-inventors without harming the return on investment of employers, a patent reversion is proposed similar to that already in place in copyright law. In Section II, the background of the relationship between employer and employee-inventor will be discussed in terms of patent rights. This section will outline the problems inherent in the pre-assignment status quo of these rights from employees to employers. Section III will begin with Part A, which is a review of previously proposed solutions to the under-compensation of employee-inventors. The second part of Section III will discuss the proposed patent reversion and why it should be implemented. Part B(1) will begin with a discussion of the reversion found in copyright which terminates transfers and licenses granted by the author based on a statutorily defined process and time period. Part B(2) of Section III will propose applying a reversion of patent rights to the inventor during the last part of the patent’s exclusivity period. Both the theoretical and practical problems associated with a patent reversion are discussed along with how the reversion can be implemented to create solutions. In Section IV, the conclusion will give a brief outline of what was discussed and propose that a patent reversion should be implemented in the future.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123459152","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Modeling Policy for New Public Media Networks","authors":"Ellen P. Goodman, A. Chen","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1569667","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1569667","url":null,"abstract":"Dramatic transformations in communications networks and business models over the last decades have forged consensus that the American public broadcasting system requires equally significant change. Contractions in commercial journalism have prompted calls for more news production from noncommercial entities. Explosions in digital media content have led to demands that public broadcasting focus on new information scarcities, new partnerships, and new networks. The law is hindering this push for progress. The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 and associated policies tie the legacy public broadcasting system to an outmoded analog network architecture. If the old public broadcasting system is to evolve into 21st century digital networks of public media, the network structures will have to change, along with policies that assume and support a stale, 20th century network design. The Federal Communications Commission’s 2010 National Broadband Plan supported reform of public broadcasting along the lines we are suggesting, drawing on our comments to the Agency. This Article provides a conceptual framework for the forthcoming debates on public media policy reform. It proposes a layered model of public media that maps onto the realities and capabilities of digital networks, and is rooted in computer network theory. By breaking down the core functions of public media into four distinct layers – infrastructure, creation, curation, and connection – we show how these functions should be distributed throughout newly configured public media networks. These functions should be carried out in a modular fashion by a wide range of noncommercial entities that interconnect with each other, either through intentional collaborations or through the use of common protocols. To implement this approach, we propose that federal legislation shift from a broadcast-centric to multi-platform orientation, and incent more robust interconnections among public media participants. This kind of modular, networked structure would refocus public media on its original purposes and establish stronger, more sustainable networks for the 21st century. Ultimately, a more innovative web of public media networks, supported by appropriate law and policy, will be better able to respond to emerging information needs and market gaps.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128805657","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Industry-Specific Antitrust Policy for Innovation","authors":"Mark A. Lemley","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1670197","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1670197","url":null,"abstract":"The premise that IP promotes dynamic efficiency while antitrust concentrates on static welfare is wrong, or at least oversimplified. It proceeds from a fundamentally Schumpeterian assumption that competition will not lead to innovation, and we need the lure of monopoly to drive investment in new products. In fact, however there is substantial economic evidence suggesting that competition itself may act as a greater spur to innovation than monopoly. Critically, different market structures will promote innovation in different industries. Sometimes - as in the pharmaceutical industry - we need the incentive provided by strong patents, but in other industries - like the Internet - competition is more likely to spur innovation. Both patent and antitrust law need to take these industry differences into account. And to do so, antitrust will need to shed its subservience to IP law.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126865847","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Our Bizarre System for Proving Copyright Infringement","authors":"Mark A. Lemley","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1661434","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1661434","url":null,"abstract":"At the heart of copyright infringement cases is “substantial similarity” between the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s works. But while every circuit agrees on the centrality of substantial similarity, that basic agreement conceals surprising differences in what exactly we mean by substantial similarity and how it is to be proven in court. And the majority approach, defined by the Second Circuit in Arnstein v. Porter and the Ninth Circuit in Sid and Marty Krofft, has the analysis of proof exactly backwards – permitting analytic dissection of the works and expert testimony where the question is one that should be handed to the members of the jury, and falling back on the “ordinary observer” test on the very questions that require careful dissection by the court. I argue that the Arnstein and Krofft tests make no sense. A better model draws from software copyright cases, which give filtration and dissection of unprotectable elements a more central role.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132575416","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Is the Sky Falling on the Content Industries?","authors":"Mark A. Lemley","doi":"10.31235/osf.io/hk3je","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/hk3je","url":null,"abstract":"Content owners claim they are doomed, because in the digital environment, they can't compete with free. But they've made such claims before. This short essay traces the history of content owner claims that new technologies will destroy their business over the last two centuries. None have come to pass. It is likely the sky isn't falling this time either. I suggest some ways content may continue to thrive in the digital environment.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"122 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130199530","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Value of Patents in Industry Standards: Avoiding License Arbitrage with Voluntary Rules","authors":"J. Hurwitz","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1650375","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1650375","url":null,"abstract":"This Article looks at the role that compulsory compensation rules for patent infringement play in creating patent hold-ups. It argues that patent hold-ups of industry standards can best be avoided by channeling patentees into voluntary negotiations with industry groups. This requires reworking compulsory compensation rules, so that patentees don't have strong incentives to create hold-up situations, which in turn means better defining compulsory compensation rules such that they yield royalties that are in line with what we would expect to see in voluntary negotiation. The paper suggests an initial economic framework and procedural mechanisms to reach this end.[Winner of Jones Day 2007 Swope Prize Antitrust Writing Competition][NB: This version may contain non-substantive differences from the version as published]","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131408917","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Packaging in the New World: Sustainability and Intellectual Property","authors":"R. R. Daureeawo","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1649672","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1649672","url":null,"abstract":"Nothing in the business world remains stagnant; the only thing which remains a constant is the focus to exceed customer expectation, keeping in mind the current state of technology. The packaging industry is no exception to that rule. In this article, I intend to discuss those changes to the packaging world which are now driving the consumer focus. Intellectual property and Sustainability are two terms which have become synonymous with the industry. The discussion will focus towards the needs of the packaging industry and with it the reasons why the current focus is the solution…Therefore the need for a consolidated solution exists which caters to packaging, intellectual property and sustainability. For the purposes of this article we shall call it – I.P.P.S.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127654983","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The TRIPS Agreement and Technological Innovation","authors":"G. Divita","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1636962","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1636962","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper we attempt to evaluate the possible spill-over of the international agreement on Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs for short), underwritten in 1994, regarding economic growth for both wealthy and developing countries. We find that the TRIPs convention has prompted, at the same time, innovation in developing countries and a rise in the per capita income for all the economies involved in international trade. As a by-product of our research we find that, despite the strong growth of resident patents application after 1995 (the year in which TRIPs came into force), most of the increase in the gross domestic product per capita in developing countries is attributable to the international transfer of technologies, via foreign direct investments.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"PP 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126681270","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Should China Adopt an Extended Licensing System to Facilitate Collective Copyright Administration: Preliminary Thoughts","authors":"Jia Wang","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1633708","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1633708","url":null,"abstract":"The paper argues that China could adopt an extended collective copyright licensing system similar to the one used in Nordic countries to facilitate collective management. The paper firstly examines the characteristics of three major models of collective administration. It then introduces the development of collective management organizations in China and demonstrates that a pesky problem CMOs face is they are unable to represent copyright holders who are not CMO members. The inability to represent non-members largely renders the CMO system inefficient. To address the problem, the paper recommends China adopt an extended licensing system based on the Nordic model and puts forward suggestions on how to implement such a system. Finally, the paper considers some downsides of the current legal and regulatory framework of the collective administration system and proposes amendments to the Copyright Law of 2001 and the Collective Copyright Management Regulations to address the deficiencies. To improve the CMO system based on the proposed amendments would provide a sound foundation for copyright law to implement an extended licensing system.","PeriodicalId":281709,"journal":{"name":"Intellectual Property Law eJournal","volume":"333 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122325730","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}