William Mitchell’s new IP Journal “Cybaris” recently published its first issue. Each article is accopmanied by a videotaped interview and discussion with the author(s). Readers may also leave comments on the site. The first issue includes:
- A complete version the Matrix for Changing First-To-Invent by Brad Pedersen & Justin Woo that was originally discussed on Patently-O [Link]
- Trying to Agree on Three Articles of Law: The Idea/Expression Dichotomy in Chinese Copyright Law by Stephen McIntyre [Link]
- Buffering and the Reproduction Right: When is a Copy a Copy? by Steven Foley [Link]
- Note: The Best of Intentions: Why the Proposed Changes to the Canadian Access to Medicines Regime Should Not Be Implemented by Carly L. Huth [Link]
- Note: In Defense of TRIPs: It Only Seems Imperialistic by Anthony R. Noss [Link]
Note: The Statutory Damages Regime of Copyright Law: The Non-Commercial User and Capitol Records, Inc v. Thomas-Rasset by Heather N. Kjos [Link]
that’s really a fantastic post ! added to my favourite blogs list.. I have been reading your blog last couple of weeks and enjoy every bit. Thanks.
interesting! hmmm…. great posting! a truly an informative article! anyways, thanks for the links!
Elsewhere – fee authority does not include a non-diversion setting.
Your innovations are funding other government boondoggles.
Headline from 271:
Comprehensive Patent Reform Stalled; USPTO Fee -Setting Provisions to be Passed Tomorrow
the most significant observable attribute of FTF is the large number of instances where no party is entitled to a patent, including the first inventor.
That’s not an attribute of FTF, it’s an attribute of the bizarre non-grace-period grace period that’s being adopted along with it. It’s also based on some significant assumptions about who will file things when, and it is essentially a hypermagnification of the comparatively rare case that two people independently invent the same patentable invention within one grace period of each other.
I’m not sure why people insist on making a distinction between FTF and FITF. Who else is entitled to a patent anywhere in the world, if not an inventor who files?
Looks like the most significant observable attribute of FTF is the large number of instances where no party is entitled to a patent, including the first inventor. The only clear beneficiary to such a regime would be large corporations – in the short term.
In the long term everyone loses.
Comments are closed.