Tag Archives: intellectual property

Copyright law helps perpetuate neo-colonial knowledge-oligarchies

Source: Center for a Stateless Society
by Vishal Wilde

“When research capabilities are inhibited, the effects channel downwards and impact the quality of the education received by students whose teachers lack access to the latest research. There will obviously be a difference between students who are taught by those who simply regurgitate textbooks versus students who are taught by those who love their subjects so much that they constantly research it, apply it, and build upon its frontiers. This regurgitation from textbooks and set syllabi is usually borne of a subservience to those who derive benefit and privilege from the knowledge-oligarchs. This is a major reason why students from universities with ‘superior’ research activity and output,both within across and across countries, are not only generally more prized by employers but are also afforded an absurd sense of authority and credibility over and above their ‘normal’ peers in daily life. Indeed, even if the faculty do not want to teach their students and the students would like to teach themselves, they are unable to do so because of the restrictions imposed by copyright law.” (07/11/17)


Waymo drops most patent claims in Uber self-driving car lawsuit

Source: TechCrunch

“There were a few big breaks in the case between Waymo and Uber over self-driving car technology today. As a result, the scope of the case is starting to come into focus as both companies prepare for a trial set to begin in October. First of all, Waymo has narrowed its case, dropping three out of four patent claims it originally made against Uber. Meanwhile, Uber has been granted the ability to depose Alphabet CEO Larry Page about why his company decided against partnering with Uber as part of its autonomous vehicle program. Waymo, the self-driving technology arm of Google parent Alphabet, filed the lawsuit in February, alleging theft of trade secrets that Uber planned to use in its autonomous vehicles. The case centers around engineer Anthony Levandowski, who Waymo claims stole 14,000 documents before leaving the company and founding Otto, a self-driving trucking company which Uber later acquired.” (07/07/17)


Yes, hate speech is free speech

Source: National Review
by Rich Lowry

“With the Left feverishly attempting to squash unwelcome speech on college campuses, with the president of the United States musing about tightening libel laws, with prominent liberals asserting that so-called hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment, free speech in America at least has one reliable friend — the Supreme Court of the United States. In a firm 8-0 decision, the court slapped down the Patent and Trademark Office for denying a band federal trademark registration for the name ‘The Slants,’ a derogatory term for Asian-Americans. The case involves a very small corner of federal law, but implicates the broader logic of political correctness, which is that speech should be silenced for the greater good if there is a chance that someone, somewhere might be offended by it.” (06/20/17)


Copyright law shouldn’t pick winners

Source: Electronic Frontier Foundation
by Elliot Harmon

“When looking at a proposed policy regulating Internet businesses, here’s a good question to ask yourself: would this bar new companies from competing with the current big players? Google will probably be fine, but what about the next Google? In the past few years, some large movie studios and record labels have been promoting a proposal that would effectively require user-generated media platforms to use copyright bots similar to YouTube’s infamous Content ID system. Today’s YouTube will have no trouble complying, but imagine if such requirements had been in place when YouTube was a three-person company. If copyright bots become the law, the barrier to entry for new social media companies will get a lot higher.” [editor’s note: Copyright law shouldn’t exist – TLK] (06/20/19)


SCOTUS strikes down rule against disparaging trademarks

Source: Hollywood Reporter

“Those of fiendish or mischievous mind will have an easier time registering trademarks after the Supreme Court on Monday decided to reject as unconstitutional a rule against disparaging ones. The high court’s decision, authored by justice Samuel Alito, holds that a Lanham Act provision against such offensive trademarks is facially invalid under the First Amendment. … The free speech victory goes to Simon Tam, the Asian-American frontman for The Slants who attempted to register his rock band’s name. He says he picked his band’s moniker in an effort to reclaim a stereotype. After trademark examiners refused Tam’s application, Tam brought a lawsuit, and in December 2015, he prevailed at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court has now affirmed the lower appeals court’s opinion, which is also potentially welcome news for the NFL’s Washington Redskins, whose own marks were canceled for being disparaging to Native Americans.” (06/19/17)


A conversation between voluntaryists: What’s with IP?

Source: Everything Voluntary
by Kenny Kelly & Kilgore Forelle

“Kilgore and I have had another discussion. This time about intellectual property (IP) laws and their role, if any, in a free society. This topic is not as much of a debate as the last, but still worth having.” (06/17/17)


Segregated Witness and the possibility of patent infringement

Source: Bitcoin.com
by Jamie Redman

“During the late evening of June 1, Bitcoin.com received an email from an anonymous source who has been researching possible patent infringements associated with the Segregated Witness (Segwit) protocol. According to the researcher, Segwit may be at risk violating two specific patents filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).” (06/02/17)


Intellectual property dealt a hard blow

Source: A Geek With Guns
by Christopher Burg

“I pull no punches when it comes to my views on intellectual property. While I want intellectual property abolished entirely, I do admit that some uses are more egregious than others. One of the most egregious uses is restricting what consumers can do with a product after they’ve purchased it. John Deere made headlines by using intellectual property laws to prevent farmers from repairing their own equipment. Printer manufacturers have also been using intellectual property laws to restrict consumer access to third-party ink. The Supreme Court’s most recent ruling dealt a hard blow to those printer manufacturers …” (05/31/17)


No evidence that “stronger” patents will mean more innovation

Source: Electronic Frontier Foundation
by Vera Ranieri

“Right now, the patent lobby — in the form of the Intellectual Property Owners Association and the American Intellectual Property Law Association — is demanding ‘stronger’ patent laws. They want to undo Alice v. CLS Bank and return us to a world where ‘do it on a computer’ ideas are eligible for a patent. This would help lawyers file more patent applications and patent litigation. But there’s no evidence that such laws would benefit the public or innovation at all.” (05/24/17)


SCOTUS: Patent trolls’ loss is a win for honest commerce

Source: Garrison Center
by Thomas L Knapp

“On May 22, the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously — and correctly — on a fairly obscure case that nonetheless has huge implications in an area where millions or even billions of dollars are frequently at stake. In TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, the Court came down against the practice of ‘forum shopping’ in patent disputes. Hopefully this will reduce the incidence of ‘patent trolling.'” (05/23/17)