Patentlyo Bits and Bytes by Anthony McCain

Get a Job doing Patent Law                  

6 thoughts on “Patentlyo Bits and Bytes by Anthony McCain

  1. link to arstechnica.com

    In an email to Ars, Jackson said his company is dropping its patent claims after seeing more prior art. He added that Cheng’s “patent troll” comments were out of line.

    Aww, the guy making big noises with his junky patents got his fee-fees hurt.

    Boo hoo.

  2. There just seems to be something wrong with this (from the Claire Laporte article):

    “To date, only 8 percent of IPRs have been brought against patents in the biopharma space. But some of these have inflicted real damage. Hedge-fund manager Kyle Bass has teamed up with patent troll Erich Spangenberg to form the Coalition for Affordable Drugs (CFAD). CFAD challenges biopharma patents while Bass shorts the stock of the patent owners.”

    I’m sure that someone using IPRs to make money shorting stock was an unanticipated consequence of this law, but wow — it takes some imagination to twist the rules like this.

  3. 9th Circuit revisits Dancing Baby copyright case: No fair use via algorithm

    link to arstechnica.com

    In the amended opinion, the language about algorithms being a “valid and good” type of fair use consideration is gone. The suggestion that the fair use consideration doesn’t need to be thorough has also been edited out.

    Getting that language out is another win for Stephanie Lenz, who sued back in 2007 after Universal Music sent her a copyright takedown over a video of her then-toddler Holden dancing to about 30 seconds of the Prince song “Let’s Go Crazy.”

    “For years, EFF and others have acknowledged that automated programs and filters may have a role to play the notice and takedown process,” wrote EFF lawyer Corynne McSherry in a blog post about the amended opinion. “But they cannot substitute for a fair use analysis in many cases and we don’t believe that what the court intended to suggest. We’re glad rightsholders can no longer misinterpret the ruling on this score.”

    So much for computers “doing what judges do.”

    Maybe next century?

    LOL

    1. Your laugh only shows that you miss the point that Night Writer makes with his statements as to those concerns.

      Exactly like Anon2’s statement sails right over your head.

      You might want to not post about your c1ue1essness so much.

      1. Keep the laughs coming, “anon.”

        You’re a super serious person! Nobody thinks you’re a mntal case, as far as you know.

Comments are closed.