Law Commons^™

A Crisis Of Faith & The Scientific Future Of Patent Theory, Oskar Liivak

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The current reward framing for the patent system has resisted all attempts to either confirm or to refute the benefits of the system. Yet that should not surprise us. We should be surprised that we ever thought that the system could be justified at all. The reward framing has infected the patent system with pathological defects that make the system both unjustifiable and unfalsifiable. An alternate framing that focuses on ex ante technology transfer can support and explain many of the doctrinal features of the current patent system, but it can do so while avoiding the pathologies that plague today's …

Full Federal Circuit Curbs On Sale Bar's Threat To Patents, Zong-Qiang Bill Tian, Matthew D'Amore

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Unresolved Interpretive Ambiguity Of Patent Claims, Oskar Liivak

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Claims are at the heart of every major patent related issue. Most importantly, they determine a patent's potent rights of exclusion. Yet, we cannot predict how courts will set the exact boundaries of claims. This renders smooth operation of the patent system near impossible. For some time, scholars have theorized that a basic policy disagreement is a source of this uncertainty. Some judges favor narrower patents, some favor broader and judges will naturally tend toward their policy preference. Policy disagreements result in claim uncertainty. Recently, scholars Tun- Jen Chiang and Lawrence Solum have taken this view further arguing that this …

The 2015 Changes To The Federal Rules Matter For Your Patent Case And Tech Business: Getting In The Courthouse Door Just Got Tougher, Matthew D'Amore

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Copyright For Literate Robots, James Grimmelmann

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Almost by accident, copyright has concluded that copyright law is for humans only: reading performed by computers doesn't count as infringement. Conceptually, this makes sense: copyright's ideal of romantic readership involves humans writing for other humans. But in an age when more and more manipulation of copyrighted works is carried out by automated processes, this split between human reading (infringement) and robotic reading (exempt) has odd consequences and creates its own tendencies toward a copyright system in which humans occupy a surprisingly peripheral place. This essay describes the shifts in fair use law that brought us here and reflects on …

There's No Such Thing As A Computer-Authored Work - And It's A Good Thing, Too, James Grimmelmann

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Treating computers as authors for copyright purposes is a non-solution to a non-problem. It is a non-solution because unless and until computer programs can qualify as persons in life and law, it does no practical good to call them "authors" when someone else will end up owning the copyright anyway. And it responds to a non-problem because there is nothing actually distinctive about computer-generated works.

There are five plausible ways in which computer-generated works might be considered meaningfully different from human-generated works: (1) they are embedded in digital copies, (2) people create them using computers rather than by hand, (3) …