Items of some interest…

These are my recent Pin​board​.in links:

  • The Myth of the Sole Inven­tor by Mark Lem­ley :: SSRN

    “The the­ory of patent law is based on the idea that a lone genius can solve prob­lems that stump the experts, and that the lone genius will do so only if prop­erly incented. We deny patents on inven­tions that are “obvi­ous” to ordi­nar­ily inno­v­a­tive sci­en­tists in the field. Our goal is to encour­age extra­or­di­nary inven­tions – those that we wouldn’t expect to get with­out the incen­tive of a patent. The canon­i­cal story of the lone genius inven­tor is largely a myth. Edi­son didn’t invent the light bulb; he found a bam­boo fiber that worked bet­ter as a fil­a­ment in the light bulb devel­oped by Sawyer and Man, who in turn built on light­ing work done by oth­ers. Bell filed for his tele­phone patent on the very same day as an inde­pen­dent inven­tor, Elisha Gray; the case ulti­mately went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which filled an entire vol­ume of U.S. Reports resolv­ing the ques­tion of whether Bell could have a patent despite the fact that he hadn’t actu­ally got­ten the inven­tion to work at the time he filed. The Wright Broth­ers were the first to fly at Kitty Hawk, but their plane didn’t work very well, and was quickly sur­passed by air­craft built by Glenn Cur­tis and oth­ers – planes that the Wrights delayed by over a decade with patent law­suits. The point can be made more gen­eral: sur­veys of hun­dreds of sig­nif­i­cant new tech­nolo­gies show that almost all of them are invented simul­ta­ne­ously or nearly simul­ta­ne­ously by two or more teams work­ing inde­pen­dently of each other. Inven­tion appears in sig­nif­i­cant part to be a social, not an indi­vid­ual, phe­nom­e­non. Inven­tors build on the work of those who came before, and new ideas are often “in the air,” or result from changes in mar­ket demand or the avail­abil­ity of new or cheaper start­ing mate­ri­als. And in the few cir­cum­stances where that is not true – where inven­tions truly are “sin­gle­tons” – it is often because of an acci­dent or error in the exper­i­ment rather than a con­scious effort to invent. ”

    patents inno­va­tion intellectual-​​property lawyers

Items of some interest…

These are my recent Pin​board​.in links:

Items of some interest…

These are my recent Pin​board​.in links:

  • Sell­ing the Idea of a Chris­t­ian Nation: David Barton’s Alter­nate Intel­lec­tual Uni­verse | Pol­i­tics | Reli­gion Dispatches

    “I use the term “debate” in quotes because it is fraud­u­lent. Even advo­cates of the view­point of the “god­less Con­sti­tu­tion” (such as his­to­ri­ans Isaac Kram­nick and R. Lau­rence Moore) fully under­stand the reli­gious base of Amer­i­can his­tory. They sug­gest sim­ply (as Jon Stew­art was try­ing to get at) that the framers rather delib­er­ately excluded reli­gion, not because they sought an exclu­sion of reli­gion from the pub­lic square, but sim­ply to avoid any spe­cial priv­i­leges for it at the fed­eral level. Even­tu­ally, those views were incor­po­rated into state laws through the 14th Amend­ment, through the plu­ral­iza­tion of Amer­i­can life in the twen­ti­eth cen­tury, and through the epochal court cases of the 1940s through the 1970s. The Chris­t­ian Nation “debate” is not really an intel­lec­tual con­test between legit­i­mate con­tend­ing view­points. Instead, it is a man­u­fac­tured “con­tro­versy” akin to the global warm­ing “debate.” On one side are pur­vey­ors of a rich and com­plex view of the past, includ­ing most his­to­ri­ans who have writ­ten and debated fiercely about the found­ing era. The “other side” is a group of ide­o­log­i­cal entre­pre­neurs who have cre­ated an alter­nate intel­lec­tual uni­verse based on a his­tor­i­cal fun­da­men­tal­ism. In their drive to cre­ate a usable past, they show lit­tle respect for the past as a for­eign country. ”

    Chris­tian­ity con­ser­vatism history-​​is-​​a-​​feature-​​not-​​a-​​bug sto­ry­telling
  • Poor Mojo’s Newswire: Twit­pic qui­etly changes Terms of Ser­vice, they can now sell any pic you upload

    “You retain all own­er­ship rights to Con­tent uploaded to Twit­pic. How­ever, by sub­mit­ting Con­tent to Twit­pic, you hereby grant Twit­pic a world­wide, non-​​exclusive, royalty-​​free, sub­li­censeable and trans­fer­able license to use, repro­duce, dis­trib­ute, pre­pare deriv­a­tive works of, dis­play, and per­form the Con­tent in con­nec­tion with the Ser­vice and Twitpic’s (and its suc­ces­sors’ and affil­i­ates’) busi­ness, includ­ing with­out lim­i­ta­tion for pro­mot­ing and redis­trib­ut­ing part or all of the Ser­vice (and deriv­a­tive works thereof) in any media for­mats and through any media channels.”

    Twit­ter intellectual-​​property EULA licens­ing
  • Trade Secrets and Pub­lished Patent Appli­ca­tions — Patent Law Blog (Patently-​​O)

    “Patent Pub­li­ca­tion Elim­i­nates Trade Secret: In a straight­for­ward opin­ion, the appel­late panel held once pub­lished, the infor­ma­tion in a patent appli­ca­tion should be con­sid­ered “gen­er­ally known and read­ily avail­able” and there­fore are no longer amenable to trade secret protection.  ”

    patents intellectual-​​property lawyers nondis­clo­sure