Archive for IP

SCOTUS: Patent Denied!

Leave a Comment

Opinion: The Devil is in ACTA’s details

ACTA will require courts to consider a ‘lost sale analysis’ when assessing the amount of damages to be awarded for copyright infringement. This assesses damages on the basis that an infringement represents a loss of revenue from a transaction that otherwise would have happened, and the damage is the price of the good.

via iTnews.com.au.

Leave a Comment

Genomics Law Report – Mozilla Firefox

Pigs Fly: Federal Court Invalidates Myriad’s Patent Claims

via Genomics Law Report – Mozilla Firefox.

Boo. Also, Yah.

1. The Plaintiffs Win. The ruling appears to be a nearly complete victory for the plaintiffs and their supporters, including the ACLU. With respect to Myriad’s issued patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, Judge Sweet’s ruling invalidates both Myriad’s composition of matter claims (its patents on isolated DNA sequences to all or a portion of the breast cancer genes) and its method claims (those patent claims that relate to analyzing or comparing isolated DNA sequences in order to detect mutations in a patient’s BRCA1/2 genes that might cause breast cancer).

The overall tone of the Court’s ruling is best captured by this passage (from page 135):

The identification of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene sequences is unquestionably a valuable scientific achievement for which Myriad deserves recognition, but that is not the same as concluding that it is something for which they are entitled to a patent.

Leave a Comment

Michael Geist – Copyright Bill’s Fine Print Makes For a Disturbing Read

Michael Geist – Copyright Bill’s Fine Print Makes For a Disturbing Read

Yesterday Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Canadian Heritage Minister Josee Verner delivered what amounts to a stinging rebuke to the Supreme Court’s copyright vision of public interest and balance. After months of internal discussions (though precious little public consultation), the government unveiled its much-anticipated copyright reform bill. Casting aside the concerns of major business, education, and consumer groups, the bill seeks to dramatically tilt Canadian law toward greater enforcement and restrictions on the use of digital content, leading Liberal Industry critic Scott Brison to warn that it could result in a “police state.”

Leave a Comment

Charlie Angus – News and Issues

Charlie Angus – News and Issues
WIPO REALITY CHECK: NDP OFFERS PRENTICE A WAY THROUGH COPYRIGHT MORASS

You tell ‘em Charlie. Jim finally responded to my letter. Didn’t actually say anything.

Leave a Comment

Techdirt: Is A Photograph A Derivative Work Of The Object In The Photo?

Techdirt: Is A Photograph A Derivative Work Of The Object In The Photo?

A derivative work is supposed to be for something that “recast, transformed, or adapted” the original work, and is normally used for something like a translation of copyrighted material. However, does a photograph really recast, transform or adapt the object? Or is it an entirely separate work?

The kind of thing I stay up at night worrying about.  (( as I farm primals ))

Comments (1)

EFF says patent reform could bust its Patent Busting Project

EFF says patent reform could bust its Patent Busting Project

The EFF has sent a letter to Senators Patrick Leahy D-VT and Arlen Specter R-PA outlining its problems with the Patent Reform Act the bill has already passed the House. Under the bills current language, patents will be subject to a post-grant review process, but the current reexamination system would be scrapped.The post-grant review system would allow nonprofits like the EFF to challenge bum patents for only 12 months after they are issued.

Seriously. Why should there be any time limit?

Leave a Comment

Canada’s obligations to the WIPO treaty.

We have not ratified that treaty and therefore have no obligations.

Leave a Comment

Letter to the Honourable Jim Prentice, Minister.

Subject: Canadian Copyright Bill AKA CDMCA

Dear Minister Prentice

It is believed that on Tuesday, the 11th of December 2007 you are expected to introduce new copyright legislation without public consultation. I would like to inform you of my sadness that you are letting a great opportunity to lead the Canadian people fall by the wayside. In my work as a scientific researcher I am intimately associated with the use and creation of copyrighted works and patented ideas so I consider myself to be both knowledgeable in the area and directly affected on a daily basis by any new law. The obfuscated process used to create our new copyright law is of great concern to me. It is also a disservice to your stature as a senior politician, to the people of the Calgary riding whom you represent, to Canadians at large, and to Canadian industry – cultural, technical, or otherwise. The anticipated contents of the bill lead me to believe that the benefits of international copyright cartels were considered to the exclusion of many Canadian copyright content generators and Canadian copyright users.

If, as the public suspects, you are intending to introduce, among other things, a Canadian version of the DMCA, you would do well to consider the fate of the original American DMCA: Bruce Lehman, it’s architect, has stated publicly that the results of that have not been those that the crafters of the legislation wished. In addition, 2 of the 4 major international music labels are beginning to abandon the DRM technologies that the DMCA was created to protect.

Does Canada really want to follow in failed footsteps or do we want to follow the lead as described in recent Canadian Supreme Court rulings that speaks to the necessity of balance in any copyright policy? Does Canada really want to create a law designed to aid local talent where this talent has explicitly and vociferously rejected such aid?

Prime Minister Harper in his recent throne speech included copyright reform as being one of the priorities of the Canadian government in the coming year but no public consultation has been carried out on digital technology – the area most likely to be addressed by new legislation – for more than 5 years.

Ordinary Canadians such as myself have many issues that we would like addressed in such legislation. I wonder if fair-use, time-shifting, device-shifting, personal and public archiving, free and open educational use, unhindered academic research, notice-and-notice safe harbour provisions, parody, satire, criticism and library access will be addressed with the care, fairness, and balance that they deserve.

You stated on the 6th of December that you would hold consultation and review of the law after it has passed. How can this be logical or sensible? Given the speed with which mature consideration of such complex issues is undertaken we cannot expect any revisions or changes to the law for many years. Canada and Canadians deserve forethought from their government – this new law puts that at risk.

I would therefore hope that you would respond to the recent outcry over this bill by referring it to a committee where its content and merits will be debated in an open and transparent process so as to benefit all Canadians.

Sincerely

Christopher Beck

Senior Bioinformatician

Genome Quebec and Montreal Heart Institute Pharmacogenomics Centre

 

CC: The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Josee Verner, James Rajotte, Thierry St-Cyr

Comments (3)

Copyright might follow U.S. model

Strangely, given their history, the National Post has a somewhat balanced article on the inclusion of copyright in the throne speech. It includes this gem from CRIA president Graham Henderson: “We’re concerned about hackers, the people who attack the business models,” said Mr. Henderson.

I wonder if anyone is going to pick up on that. CRIA wants a law put in place to protect their business model. Sigh. Techdirt has more reading on the whole Felony-Interfernce-Of-A-Business-Model is a not a real crime meme.

Leave a Comment

Older Posts »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.