The Administrative-Private Law Interface in IP

Important upcoming event at Harvard Law School March 29 on The Administrative-Private Law Interface in IP.  Event Begins at 9:15 EST with four panels and keynote remarks from both Dave Kappos and James Smith.

Image result for harvard law school


 Do Administrative Law and Private Law Mix in IP? (Arti Rai, Todd Rakoff, Kali Murray, Scott Kieff)
 Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Green’s Energy Group, LLC (Adam Mossoff, Sophie Wang, John Duffy, Caleb Nelson)
 Preclusion and Deference (Melissa Wasserman, Megan La Belle, Kristin Hickman, John Golden)
 The Antitrust-IP Intersection (Keith Hylton, Anne Layne-Farrar, Scott Hemphill, Einer Elhauge)

Conference Site:

Free live webcast here: .


12 thoughts on “The Administrative-Private Law Interface in IP

  1. 4

    This was a good idea for a conference… Eight years ago when we started doing it at American!

  2. 3

    OT, link to

    But according to Bryer, Stevens, and Posner all you do is write down what you want the computer to do on a piece of paper and give the paper and pizza to a boy to implement it. But, how come this happened then?

      1. 3.1.1

        Describing functionality isn’t enough Ben. You can only describe functionality when it is enabled by the disclosure and what those of ordinary skill in the art know.

        That is the line.

    1. 3.2

      “But, how come this happened then?”

      I doubt that it happened because of the compooter bruh. More likely the sensors weren’t good enough to see the person hiding in the shadow. I posted the vid from the accident in the other thread.

      1. 3.2.1

        You also posted a Vox link showing how the “E V I L” corporations took the streets and changed the laws (the poor soul kil led was breaking the law)


          “You also posted a Vox link showing how the “E V I L” corporations took the streets and changed the laws (the poor soul kil led was breaking the law)”

          Yes indeed I did. And no doubt MM is soopar worried that the law will change yet again to accommodate robots. That doesn’t seem to be a completely unreasonable fear considering that history.

          Though to be fair, vox is more than a bit leftist. So they have a tendency to think of “the commons”/”the common highway where everyone is chillaxin in the street” = good. Which I mean sure, it is good, but is it better than having the ability to get where you want to go pretty fast and have everyone practically be able to do so (even if they have to bum a ride). Tough choice. Now in 20 years or whatever we’ll be facing the choice of further modifying the laws to make the streets even safer for robots to drive us around so we can hopefully get those casualties down even further, while still having the ability to drive around super fast (and with a robo chauffeur/assistant). And this is in the overall times where city planners are trying to make more walking/bike/hangout areas in cities as is.

    2. 3.3

      While the first post waits to clear, here is an additional snippet from the article linked within Night Writer’s link (emphasis added):

      Any unnecessary death is a tragedy, but the collision in Phoenix was far from the only death on our streets that day. Over 100 people die in automobile-related crashes each day in America. In fact, there were 10 pedestrian deaths alone in the Phoenix area last week. Most years, these crashes represent the leading cause of death for people in their teens and twenties. It’s appalling and a steep price to pay for our car-dependent geography. And since most of us drive every day, it’s a tangible risk we all take.

      But it’s “not about the safety”…

      1. 3.3.1

        That is an interesting part. I wonder how the overall safety record of robots is so far compared to humans?


          Overall safety record?

          It’s “not about safety” per the “muh victims” Malcolm (even as he plays that safety card, and p00rly so).

          The first post (with the sub-linked item from Night Writer’s link) is still in moderation.

  3. 2

    Duffy the man who likely was paid to come up with the mythical new reference to try and support the Constitutionality of IPRs. I’d like a disclosure about whether he was paid or not.

Comments are closed.