IP and Innovation: Are we heading for Star Trek or Star Wars as Science Fiction becomes Science Fact?

Technology today would have seemed like science fiction to people fifty years ago.  In fact, wireless Bluetooth earpieces, handheld smartphones and tablet computers all appear ripped from science fictions novels, movies and television programs for the 1950’s and 60’s.  Recently NASA’s Ames Research Center reported its progress in creating a real-life tricorder, a device known well to Star Trek aficionados, which detects the health conditions of a patient (as well as detecting other things).  While the tricorder of Star Trek only collected data and perhaps generated a diagnosis, today our “real” technology includes innovations in which human made devices are acting like humans, generating “their” own IP content. For example, the IBM supercomputer WATSON has been tasked to analyze medical databases, patient records, journal articles, etc., to identify disease conditions, create new medical diagnostic tools, and identify new therapeutic treatments.

As more and more technologies that once were science fiction are now becoming reality, we look at how IP laws can deal with futuristic technology today.   While our technology continues to evolve we ask whether IP laws with their genesis in the Industrial Age are sufficient to to deal with technology of today and of the future.

On Friday October 17, at the 2014 ITechLaw Conference in Paris, Joren De Wachter and I will lead a discussion to explore these issues.  We will explore:

·               Who or what can create Intellectual Property?
·               Can devices, software, etc., create Intellectual Property?  If so, “who” owns the IP?  The owner of the machine? The operator of the machine? The inventor of the machine?
·               Can/should IP rights apply to inventions or creations made by machines?
·               If one interacts with a computer game, and the “game” generates IP content, who owns that content?  The gamer?  The game platform creator?
·               Are current IP laws and associated rights and restrictions adequate to cover emerging technologies?
·               What are the IP rights / limitations of third parties who implement technological innovations?

After the presentation and discussion, OP-IP will summarize the insights and remarks of the participants. 

© Stephen J. Weyer 2014

Send email feedback- sweyer@stites.com

Patented Tobacco Plant Genetically Engineered to Produce Antibodies Against Ebola gets Boost to Treat Dr. Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebol

Dr. Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebol, infected with Ebola, are being treated at Emory University hospital with an experimental cocktail of antibodies which target the deadly virus.  But these antibodies are not just any antibodies; they were synthesized and harvested from tobacco plants that scientists genetically engineered to produce antibodies against Ebola.


A team of scientists has worked for around twenty years on uses of plant-based therapeutics for the prevention and treatment of disease.  In August of 2013, U.S. Patent No. 8,513,397 ("Mason, et al.") entitled, DNA replicon system for high-level rapid production of vaccines and monoclonal antibody therapeutics in plants, issued on the technology which was initially filed as a patent application in 2008.  The potentially life-saving treatment remains in the experimental stages.  However, the novel antibody treatment got a boost last week when Branty and Writebol became infected with Ebola.  The dire conditions of Dr. Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebol led to the use of the still experimental patented technology.

While the treatment remains experimental and more testing is required before the cocktail of antibodies will be approved for treatment of Ebola, the tragedy of the outbreak and Brantly and Writebol becoming infected themselves has fast-tracked this treatment for Ebola and may result in similar antibody therapies to treat other infection diseases.

Sources:

Ebola Vaccine Antibodies Are Made in Tobacco Plants

Ebola vaccine pioneer joked about use of genetically engineered virus to cull human population

© Stephen J. Weyer 2014

Send email feedback- sweyer@stites.com

Aereo's Online Streaming Broadcast TV Caught Between a Rock and a Hard Place

The U.S. Copyright Office has denied Aereo's request to pay compulsory licensing fees to retransmit broadcast television signals over the Internet, as cable provides pay to retransmit over coaxial cable lines.  A denial letter dated July 16, 2014 sent to Aereo explains the U.S. Copyright's position, essentially saying that Aereo is not a cable service provider, and therefore, not eligible for paying the compulsory license (a.k.a. statutory license) to authorize it to retransmit the broadcast television programs. 

This rejection puts Aereo between a rock and a hard place.  In June, the U.S. Supreme Court (ABC et al. v. Aereo) determined that Aereo's streaming broadcast content over the Internet was a violation of the U.S. Copyright laws, in part, based on the Court finding similarities between Aereo's service and that of cable service providers.  The Court reasoned that Congress intended to regulate the "type of service" that Aereo was providing, citing the compulsory licensing provisions of the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 111 (§111)  Regrettably for Aereo, the U.S. Copyright Office does not find §111 covers Internet re-transmission. Therefore, Aereo, for now, cannot pay the statutory license fee to become an authorized retransmitter of broadcast television content.

For a more complete discussion on ABC et al. v. Aereo see...

• Supreme Court finds Aereo's Emerging Online Streaming Technology Hits Copyright Infringement Bullseye; and
• Slings and Aereos of Outrageous Fortune: Supreme Court Rules that Aereo Infringes

© Stephen J. Weyer 2014

Send email feedback- sweyer@stites.com