Madey v. Duke exposed one conflict when industry and universities work in overlapping areas. The 2002 federal court decision highlighted a problem at the intersection of university and industry goals.
According to Dr. Domonic Montisano of the UCSD’s technology transfer office, their goal is to get university research out to the public through the avenue of commercialization.
In the American system (and, perhaps to a lesser extent, in all countries following the Anglo-American legal approach), science and scientific evidence emerges and is interpreted through the actions of the parties involved. Expert witnesses testify for a particular side, and are employed by a particular side.
Techdirt discusses why you shouldn’t be concerned if someone “steals” your work and sells it, noting that “it’s not necessarily a bad thing.”
There’s a new law journal in town: “The International Free and Open Source Software Law Review (IFOSS L. Rev.) is a collaborative legal publication aiming to increase knowledge and understanding among lawyers about Free and Open Source Software issues. Topics covered include copyright, licence implementation, licence interpretation, software patents, open standards, case law and statutory changes.”
A recently published law review article concludes that experiments with “PatentSim,” “a multi-user interactive simulation of patent and non-patent (commons and open source) systems,” do not support the general justification of our current patent system.
There are many who disagree, but the study appears to raise interesting issues regarding the benefit to society of copyright protections. As Mike Masnick writes, copyright is about balancing benefits (incentives to create with the benefits of distribution).
Colleen Chien has a paper in SSRN, dated April of 2009, that explores the narrative of patents, from the epithet of “troll” applied to patent owners who seek only to leverage their patent through licensing, and not application, and including our rather romantic perception of an inventor.
Michael Geist explains the current status of business method patents in Canada where, so far, they have been firmly rejected – unlike in the United States.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear In re Bilski, a case that may well invalidate business-method patents.
Patent Law Blog (Patently-O): Challenging the Strong Presumption of Patent Validity One of the next major legal challenges to patent rights will …
Image via Wikipedia Microsoft Gets Slammed in Yet Another Patent Suit – Law Blog – WSJ: In what’s being billed as the …