CT member Peter Carnes (CEO of Traffax, Inc.) testified before of the House Committee on Small Business today about “The Impact of Intellectual Property on Entrepreneurship and Job Creation”. Peter shared the stage with a really diverse group of IP owners – from ABRO, which has problems protecting its trademarks, [...]
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in Bilski v. Kappos, finding that Bilski’s patent was not valid, but reaffirming the patentability of methods and software. Those in the "IP Sucks" camp were hoping the court would embrace their vision and overturn the entire concept software patents. Thankfully, their hopes and dreams lie shattered on the floor soaked in tears, much like my hopes for a USA semifinal birth in the World Cup.
Over the past few weeks an online debate has been brewing between antitrust scholars over the FTC case against Intel. The focus of the debate has been the FTC's decision to pursue most of its case using its Section 5 authority to prevent "unfair and deceptive" practices, rather than its Section 2 authority for combating anti-competitive behavior. The discussion began with a piece by Bob Litan, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department in the Clinton Administration, entitled "The FTC's Radical Application of Section 5." As the title suggests, Litan has some serious concerns about the FTC's case in general and its application of Section 5. It's a pretty compelling piece that I recommend to all you antitrust geeks, but if you're short on time/attention span I'll try to summarize.
The Swedish Presidency announced last week that the EU Patent System was one step closer. We are of course very pleased to see that the dossier is moving forward; and we have continuously praised the Swedish Presidency for their great efforts. A good patent protection is essential to achieving the levels of innovation that European SMEs deserve.
Slashdot's recent discussion of how an Australian research/tech transfer agency enforced its patent rights against 14 of the world's largest tech companies has what everybody should view as a happy ending: reinvestment. Australia's CSIRO has "injected $150 million from the proceeds of its wi-fi technology to the once-defunct science and [...]