• 5th Global Congress On IP And The Public Interest: Successes, Strategies Highlighted

    WASHINGTON, DC — More than 400 activists, academics and practitioners from over 50 countries gathered at this year’s Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, according to organisers. At the Congress, participants shared success stories, developed strategies, and engaged in critical dialogue to re-think and re-invent intellectual property systems that serve the public interest.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Enhanced Mutagenesis Methods

    By Kevin E. Noonan — Ulrich (Uli) Laemmli, an illustrious professor of biochemistry and molecular biology, developer of SDS (sodium dodecyl sulfate)-polyacrylamide electrophoresis (PAGE) for separating proteins, and responsible for identifying the “sc…

    Continue Reading ...
  • 時間経過




    $$ The conditions were by no means optimised but, however, the results indicated that over a 24 hour period a mass of 45 g of fluid was evaporated. / その条件は、決して最適化されていないが、その結果は、24時間が経過すると流体の45gの質量が蒸発したことを示した。(USP8551061)

    $$ It is apparent from these data that the pressure in each chamber oscillates about the equilibrium pressure (the pressure present in a chamber where no deformation of the walls takes place), with the amplitude of oscillation decaying to zero over time. / これらのデータから、各チャンバーの圧力は平衡圧(壁が変形していないチャンバーにおける圧力)から振れていて、時間経過に伴って振れの振幅が0に減衰していることが明らかである。(USP8567889)

    $$ This means that if a signal is distributed over a number of different modes, the components spread out over time during propagation, a phenomenon known as dispersion. / このことは、一つの信号が多数の異なるモードにわたって分布する場合、周波数成分は、伝搬中に時間経過と共に拡散する現象を意味し、この現象は分散として知られている。(USP8171191)

    $$ A third problem is that fluid remaining in the nozzle arrangement, or which leaks out of the nozzle arrangement over time, may degrade or become contaminates with microbes. / 第3の問題はノズル装置内に残っている流体、あるいは時間の経過によりノズル装置から漏れ出た流体が微生物により劣化し、あるいは汚染される場合があることである。(USP7651013)

    $$ The optimal ratio is preferably kept substantially constant with time. / 最適な比は、好ましくは時間が経過しても実質的に一定であるように維持される。(USP8283626)

    $$ Furthermore, as the contact surfaces will inevitably wear with time, the use of a wedging action advantageously enables the mating of the contact surfaces to be maintained despite the wear. / さらに、時間の経過に伴って接触面は必然的に摩耗するため、くさび作用の利用は、摩耗にもかかわらず接触面の接合を維持することが可能な点で有利である。(USP7090586)

    $$ After the filling process is complete, e.g. after the expected filling time derived from the model, the second end (4) of the gas cell (2) is disconnected from the gas chamber (41) and attached to an optical fibre portion (5), using a splicing device as described above. / 充填工程完了後、例えば、モデルから導かれる予想充填時間経過後、気体セル(2)の第2端部(4)を気体チェンバ(41)からはずし、上述したスプライシング装置を用いて光ファイバ部(5)に取り付ける。(USP8079763)

    $$ After 18 h at room temperature the mixture was filtered through Celite and the residue washed with ethanol (100 ml). / 室温で18時間経過した後、この混合物をCeliteで濾過し、残渣をエタノール(100mL)で洗浄した。(USP7649000)

    $$ Once the radiation absorption device(s) (9) are activated, they start recording the radiation from the sample (8) and the timer records the duration of the measurement which stops once the pre-determined duration time has elapsed. / 一旦放射線吸収設備(9)が作動すると、試料(8)からの放射線を記録し始め、所定の時間が経過すると停止する測定継続時間をタイマーが記録する。(USP7578972)

    $$ As time elapses, the nature or requirements of the applications whose data is being archived changes. / 時間の経過につれ、データがアーカイブされるアプリケーションの性質又は要件が変動する。(USP8386436)

    $$ In step S22, a check is made to determine whether or not the timer has lapsed. / ステップS22では、タイマに設定された時間が経過しているかどうかを判定する。(USP8160423)

    $$ After a certain time lapse, during which the second reading (relating to the second calibration solution) is taken, the slow release capsule dissolves providing a second solubility plateau and hence the third calibration solution. / 或る時間が経過し、その間に第二の(第二較正溶液に関する)読みが取られた後、徐放出カプセルが溶解し、平坦な第二溶解度を与え、従って、第三較正溶液を与える。(USP8141409)

    $$ The vertical axis corresponds to the monitored temperature of the pumping mechanism, the horizontal axis corresponds to the passage of time. / 縦軸はポンプ機構のモニター温度に相当し、横軸は時間の経過に相当する。(USP8398376)


    Continue Reading ...
  • Valuing Wikimedia Commons Images

    Several years ago, both Lisa and I wrote about Heald, et al.’s study that attempted to value public domain photographs as used on Wikipedia. While I liked the study a lot, two of my chief critiques were small sample size and unclear value of hits on Wikipedia pages.

    A new paper extends their study, and provides even more evidence of the extensive use of Wikimedia Commons photos. In What is the Commons Worth? Estimating the Value of Wikimedia Imagery by Observing Downstream Use, Kris Erickson (University of Leeds), Felix Rodriguez Perez (Independent), and Jesus Rodriguez Perez (University of Glasgow), have attempted to generalize the findings from the prior study. The paper is published in an ACM conference proceeding, but is available without a paywall on SSRN. The abstract is here:

    The Wikimedia Commons (WC) is a peer-produced repository of freely licensed images, videos, sounds and interactive media, containing more than 45 million files. This paper attempts to quantify the societal value of the WC by tracking the downstream use of images found on the platform. We take a random sample of 10,000 images from WC and apply an automated reverse-image search to each, recording when and where they are used ‘in the wild’. We detect 54,758 downstream uses of the initial sample and we characterize these at the level of generic and country-code top-level domains (TLDs). We analyze the impact of specific variables on the odds that an image is used. The random sampling technique enables us to estimate overall value of all images contained on the platform. Drawing on the method employed by Heald et al (2015), we find a potential contribution of USD $28.9 billion from downstream use of Wikimedia Commons images over the lifetime of the project.

    In one fell swoop, the authors have answered my two concerns. The random sample is much larger, and their search went far beyond Wikipedia, to commercial and non-commercial uses. It turns out that the images were used a whopping 5.4 times each on average, which is a lot of usage when extrapolated to the millions of images in the Commons.

    As with the prior study, estimating the value is a bit back of the envelope. Assuming that every commercial (and non-commercial) user would have paid the Getty Images fee is a big assumption, as many might have substituted to homegrown photos or maybe no photo at all. The authors note that this is a big assumption. Another issue is that not every item in the commons is within copyright, and my have been findable by other means.

    That said, I do not think the assumption detracts from the value of the Wikimedia Commons for two reasons. First, they report Getty having revenues of nearly $1 billion per year, so finding $28 billion value over the lifetime of the WC is perhaps not far-fetched. Second, even if people would not pay the full amount, they might have been willing to pay less than the Getty fee (which also includes some public domain items). In the absence of WC, the differences between what they would have paid and what they get (either nothing or homegrown or search costs) is deadweight loss.

    I frankly had no idea that Wikimedia Commons was used so much, but I’m glad that there’s competition in the stock photo market. I’ll finally note that the discussion about which images get used is an interesting one. It turns out-just like Netflix, Facebook, and Twitter-the stuff that gets curated for you is the stuff you wind up seeing and using.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Some Recent Articles on Damages

    1.  Jason Reinecke has posted a paper on ssrn titled Lost Profits Damages for Multicomponent Products: Clarifying the Debate, __ Stanford L. Rev. __ (forthcoming).  Here is  a link, and here is the abstract:
    In Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit determined that the “but for” compensatory damages test applies to calculate lost profits damages in patent infringement cases over multicomponent products. The court rejected Synopsys’s argument that because multicomponent products necessarily have many important features beyond the one or two that are infringing, the court should only award the plaintiff the portion of “but for” damages that are apportionable to the infringing features. Although some scholars have supported the decision, many scholars believe that the Mentor Graphics rule will tend to overcompensate patentees and that an apportionment rule would be best.

    I offer a comprehensive economic framework for implementing the Mentor Graphics “but for” compensatory damages scheme in scenarios that were not before the court in Mentor Graphics but will arise in the future in this complex multicomponent world. By exploring the implications of this framework, I provide needed clarity to the Mentor Graphics debate. First, I show that a properly constructed compensatory damages rule and the apportionment rule advocated for by Synopsys and many scholars operate far more similarly than commentators currently believe.

    Second, I show that if my proposed framework is adopted, then each of the concerns expressed by scholars over the Mentor Graphics rule is either alleviated, overstated, or in need of some revision. I conclude by clarifying exactly what might be concerning about the Mentor Graphics rule. 

    I read this paper in draft, and thought it was quite good. 

    2.  Daniel Fanning has published a student note titled Enhanced Damages: Historically, Recently, and Why Willfulness is not a Prerequisite, 42 S. Ill. Univ. L. Rev. 477 (2018).  Here is a link, and here is the abstract:

    This Note provides a history of enhanced damages leading to the enactment of 35 U.S.C. § 284, including an overly complex judicial doctrine for the application of the statutory grant of enhanced damages, and finishes with an explanation of why this doctrine should not include a requirement for a finding of willfulness.  Part II covers the initial history and development of the doctrine of enhanced damages, including the statutory framework and the courts’ interpretation of that framework.  Part III reviews two recent cases that drastically changed the award of enhanced damages.  Finally, Part IV expands on both the history and recent decisions while explaining that a finding of willfulness should not be a prerequisite for a court to exercise its statutory discretion to enhance damages.
    3. Gert Würtenberger has published an article titled First Contours of European Law on Damages in IP Infringement Cases, in the August-September 2018 issue of GRUR Int. (pp. 725-31).  Here is the abstract:
    The value of intellectual property rights depends in part by the efficiency of the enforcement system in cases of infringement.  Compensation of damages, as consequence of the infringement of intellectual property right, has specific importance as an instrument to guarantee this value.  Since the legal systems of the Member States of the European Union provide partly different approaches in this matter, the Union has initiated harmonization of national laws and introduced Union-wide valid intellectual property rights accompanied by legal measures, such as the Anti-Piracy Directive and the Directive on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (Enforcement Directive).  This article analyses the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) by defining more precisely the compensation of damages provided in the Enforcement Directive.
    The article discusses, among other things, the CJEU’s four recent IP damages decisions:  Liffers, Hansson, Oławska Telewizja Kablowa, and United Video.
    Continue Reading ...