Law Commons^™

Federalist Society’S Intellectual Property Practice Group And Its Stanford Law School Present A Debate On Open Source And Intellectual Property Rights, Lawrence Lessig, F. Scott Kieff, G. Marcus Cole

University of Massachusetts Law Review

Transcript of the Federalist Society’s Intellectual Property Practice Group and its Stanford Law School Chapter debate on Open Source and Intellectual Property Rights with panelists Professor Lawrence Lessig from Stanford University and Professor F. Scott Kieff from Stanford University and moderated by Professor G. Marcus Cole from Stanford Law School. This debate took place on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 in Palo Alto, California.

Stay Tuned: Whether Cloud-Based Service Providers Can Have Their Copyrighted Cake And Eat It Too, Amanda Asaro

Fordham Law Review

Copyright owners have the exclusive right to perform their works publicly and the ability to license their work to others who want to share that right. Subsections 106(4) and (5) of the Copyright Act govern this exclusive public performance right, but neither subsection elaborates on what constitutes a performance made “to the public” versus one that remains private. This lack of clarity has made it difficult for courts to apply the Copyright Act consistently, especially in the face of changing technology.

Companies like Aereo, Inc. and AereoKiller, Inc. developed novel ways to transmit content over the internet to be viewed …

Technology Drives The Law: A Foreword To Trends And Issues In Techology & The Law, Ralph D. Clifford

University of Massachusetts Law Review

Technology has always been a motivating force of change in the law. The creation of new machines and development of novel methods of achieving goals force the law to adapt with new and responsive rules. This is particularly true whenever a new technology transforms society. Whether it is increasing industrialization or computerization, pre-existing legal concepts rarely survive the transition unaltered - new prescriptions are announced while old ones disappear.

Predictability And Nonobviousness In Patent Law After Ksr, Christopher A. Cotropia

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., the Supreme Court addressed the doctrine of nonobviousness, the ultimate question of patentability, for the first time in thirty years. In mandating a flexible approach to deciding nonobviousness, the KSR opinion introduced two predictability standards for determining nonobviousness. The Court described predictability of use (hereinafter termed “Type I predictability”)— whether the inventor used the prior art in a predictable manner to create the invention—and predictability of the result (hereinafter termed “Type II predictability”)—whether the invention produced a predictable result—both as a means for proving obviousness. Although Type I predictability is easily explained as …

Holding Up And Holding Out, Colleen V. Chien

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Patent “hold-up” and patent “hold-out” present important, alternative theories for what ails the patent system. Patent “hold-up” occurs when a patent owner sues a company when it is most vulnerable—after it has implemented a technology—and is able wrest a settlement because it is too late for the company to change course. Patent “hold-out” is the practice of companies routinely ignoring patents and resisting patent owner demands because the odds of getting caught are small. Hold-up has arguably predicted the current patent crises, and the ex ante assertion of technology patents whether in the smartphone war, standards, or patent “troll” context. …

District Courts Versus The Usitc: Considering Exclusionary Relief For F/Rand-Encumbered Standard-Essential Patents, Helen H. Ji

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Technological standards allow manufacturers and consumers to rely upon these agreed-upon basic systems to facilitate sales and further invention. However, where these standards involved patented technology, the process of standard-setting raises many concerns at the intersection of antitrust and patent law. As patent holders advocate for their patents to become part of technological standards, how should courts police this activity to prevent patent holdup and other anti-competitive practices? This Note explores the differing approaches to remedies employed by the United States International Trade Commission and the United States District Courts where standard-essential patents are infringed. This Note further proposes that …

Patent Markets: An Opportunity For Technology Diffusion And Frand Licensing?, Stéphanie Chuffart-Finsterwald

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

None.

Frand's Forever: Standards, Patent Transfers, And Licensing Commitments, Jay P. Kesan, Carol M. Hayes

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.