Recent Headlines in the IP World:
- Rahul Verma: A New Patent Reveals Apple Could Be Planning to Make Its Own Game Controller (Source: Business Insider–India)
- Blake Brittain: Apple Lawsuit Over Messaging Patents Revived by U.S. Appeals Court (Source: Reuters)
- Kara Stancell: Clarus Therapeutics Announces Notice of Allowance for Patent Claims Covering JATENZO® (testosterone undecanoate) (Source: Yahoo Finance)
- Amelia Lucas: An Impossible Foods Competitor is Going After One of Its Key Patents in an Ongoing Legal Battle (Source: CNBC)
- Jacob Oliva: Patent Application Suggests Hyundai Developing Its Own Crab Walk Mode (Source: Motor1)
Commentary and Journal Articles:
- Corin Faife: A Series of Patent Lawsuits is Challenging the History of Malware Detection (Source: The Verge)
- Prof. Rachel Sachs: The Accidental Innovation Policymakers (Source: SSRN)
- Prof. Thomas F. Cotter: Standing, Nominal Damages, and Nominal Damages ‘Workarounds’ in Intellectual Property Law After TransUnion (Source: SSRN)
New Job Postings on Patently-O:
OT, but why (k)not?
Is math discovered or invented? – Jeff Dekofsky
https://youtu.be/X_xR5Kes4Rs
This Article identifies and explores a key problem with th[e] argumen [that lower prices for prescription drugs would harm innovation incentives]: that it is typically deployed both accidentally and asymmetrically in nature. Specifically, this Article considers previous changes to health laws that had the impact of increasing innovation incentives by providing large new subsidies to pharmaceutical companies – chiefly the creation of Medicare Part D and the passage of the Affordable Care Act…
I have not read Prof. Sachs article, so I do not want to sound too harsh a criticism here, but the abstract sure sounds strange. Why should I think of Medicare Part D as an “incentive” to innovation. Merely throwing money at drug companies is not “incentivizing” innovation.
The reason why one should be chary of patent reforms aimed at pharma companies is that patents—while they bring money to pharma companies—really are specifically tied to incentivizing innovation. One only gets a patent at all if one innovates, and its time limited nature means that you need to get that innovation to market quickly, before the patent runs out. By contrast, Medicare Part D pays drug makers whether they innovate or not, and those Part D dollars will be there next year just like they were there last year, so there is no urgency about Part D.
It is not helpful to think of all money that is poured into pharma as if a dollar is a dollar, and all of them are as innovation-incentivizing as the others. That is just not how anyone in the industry thinks about this subject.
I hear you – maybe the disconnect is “dollar from government — or tied to government program.”
It may be an easy “mistake” for an academic to make, seeing as most have a “natural” [read that as systemic] bias towards socialistic tendencies, and thus, any “dollar from the State” reads the same.
So is the intention behind the count filter to amplify people who’ll evade the count filter, or is that just an unaddressed byproduct of some other intention?
Think of Mr. Universe…
link to youtube.com
(limited example, of course)
The Oliva article is actually pretty cool – but I would have gone with a different figure.
Sadly for Hyundai, because crabs have been walking since, oh, almost the dawn of life on Earth, this patent and its claims are . . . abstract.
. . . an’ if the Examiner doesn’t catch that . . . an’ the patent is ever challenged . . . the Death Squad PTAB will . . . an’ if they don’t, the Dist. Ct will . . . an’ if they don’t, the CAFC will . . .
Hmm, as birds did not prevent the Wright brothers, perhaps crabs won’t disturb the attempt here.
Now, science fiction on the other hand….
Comments are closed.