Category: History of Intellectual Property

Categories
Biotech High Tech Industry History of Intellectual Property Innovation Intellectual Property Theory Inventors Legislation Patent Law Patent Litigation Patent Theory Patentability Requirements Software Patent Supreme Court Uncategorized

Federal Circuit Brings Some Clarity and Sanity Back to Patent Eligibility Doctrine

By Adam Mossoff and Kevin Madigan

closeup of a circuit boardFollowing the Supreme Court’s four decisions on patent eligibility for inventions under § 101 of the Patent Act, there has been much disruption and uncertainty in the patent system. The patent bar and most stakeholders in the innovation industries have found the Supreme Court’s decisions in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014), AMP v. Myriad (2013), Mayo Labs v. Prometheus (2012), and Bilski v. Kappos (2010) to be vague and doctrinally indeterminate. Given the moral panic about the patent system that has been created as a result of ten years of excessive lobbying in D.C. for legislation that weakens patent rights, judges have responded to the excessive discretion they have under these cases by invalidating whole swaths of patented innovation in the high-tech, biotech, and pharmaceutical industries. The Patent Office is also rejecting patent applications at record levels, even for traditional inventions outside of high-tech and life sciences directly affected by the recent § 101 case law.

In Sequenom v. Ariosa, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to bring some clarity to the law of patent eligibility and to reign in some of the judicial and Patent Office excesses, but unfortunately it rejected this opportunity when it denied Sequenom’s cert petition this past June. Fortunately, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is now taking the lead in providing some much-needed legal guidance on patent eligibility to the inventors and companies working in the innovation industries. In two recent decisions, Enfish v. Microsoft and Rapid Litigation Management v. CellzDirect, the Federal Circuit has set forth some important doctrinal guideposts for defining what counts as a patent-eligible invention. Not only do these two decisions bring some reason and clarity back to the law of patent eligibility under § 101, they provide important doctrinal insights on how stakeholders may wish to address this problem if they ultimately choose to seek relief in Congress.

Enfish and the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions (a/k/a “Software Patents”)

At the time it was decided, some commentators believed that the Alice decision was a directive from on high that most, if not all, computer software programs were not patentable inventions. This was a surprising claim if only because the Alice Court did not once use the phrase “software” in its entire opinion. Of course, “software patent” is not a legal term in patent law; the proper term is “computer-implemented invention,” as used by the Alice Court, and so the Court may have been only avoiding vague rhetoric from the patent policy debates. More important, though, this claim about Alice contradicts the Court’s opinion in Bilski just four years earlier, when the Court warned the Federal Circuit not to adopt a bright-line rule that limited § 101 to only physical inventions of the “Industrial Age,” because this created unnecessary and innovation-killing “uncertainty as to the patentability of software.”

Unfortunately, the ambiguities in Alice and in the Court’s prior patentable subject matter decisions, such as Mayo, left enough discretionary wiggle room in applying the generalized patent-eligibility test to permit judges and patents examiners to wage war on computer-implemented inventions. They thus made real again in the twenty-first century Justice Robert Jackson’s famous observation in 1949 that “the only patent that is valid is one which this Court has not been able to get its hands on.” Jungersen v. Ostby & Barton Co., 335 U.S. 560, 572 (1949) (Jackson, J., dissenting). As one commentator remarked several months after Alice was decided, “It’s open season on software patents.” The data over the next several years has borne out the truth of this statement.

The key argument against patents on computer-implemented inventions, such as key components of word processors, programs that run internet searches (like the patented innovation that started Google), and encryption software, is that such inventions are inherently “abstract.” The judicial interpretation of § 101 has long maintained that abstract ideas, laws of natural, and natural phenomena are unpatentable discoveries. In Alice, for instance, the Court held that a complex software program for extremely complex international financial transactions was an “abstract idea” and thus unpatentable under § 101. But beyond claims that something long known is “abstract,” the Court has failed to define with precision what it means for a discovery to be abstract. With little to no specific guidance from the Alice Court, it is no wonder that judges and examiners have succumbed to the recent moral panic about patents and declared “open season” on patents covering computer-implemented inventions.

In this context, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Enfish v. Microsoft is extremely important because it ends the unreasoned, conclusory “I know it when I see it” rejections of patents as “abstract” by judges and examiners.

In Enfish, the Federal Circuit reversed a trial court’s summary judgment that a patent on a computer-implemented invention was an unpatentable abstract idea. The patent covered a type of database management system on computers, a classic incremental innovation in today’s digital world. In its decision, the trial court dissected the invention down into the most basic ideas in which all inventions can be reframed as representing; for example, methods of using internal combustion engines can easily be reframed in terms of the basic laws in thermodynamics. In this case, the trial court asserted that this patent on a computer-implemented invention covered merely the “abstract purpose of storing, organizing, and retrieving” information. The trial court thus easily concluded that the invention was merely “abstract” and thus unpatentable.

The Federal Circuit rejected the trial court’s conclusory assertion about the invention being “abstract” and further held that such assertions by courts are a legally improper application of § 101. With respect to the patent at issue in this case, Judge Todd Hughes’ opinion for the unanimous panel found that

the plain focus of the claims is on an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity. Accordingly, we find that the claims at issue in this appeal are not directed to an abstract idea within the meaning of Alice.

More important, the Enfish court cautioned courts against the methodological approach adopted by the trial court in this case, in which “describing the claims at such a high level of abstraction and untethered from the language of the claims all but ensures that the exceptions to § 101 swallow the rule.” The court recognized that adopting a “bright-line” rule that computer-implemented inventions—the “software patents” decried by critics today—are necessarily “abstract” runs counter to both § 101 and the recent Supreme Court cases interpreting and applying this provision: “We do not see in Bilski or Alice, or our cases, an exclusion to patenting this large field of technological progress.”

Further confirming that Enfish represents an important step forward in how courts properly secure technological innovation in the high-tech industry, the Federal Circuit relied on Enfish in its recent decision in BASCOM Global Services Internet Inc v AT&T Mobility LLC. Here, the Federal Circuit again rejected the trial court’s dissection of a patent claim covering a software program used on the internet into an “abstract” idea of merely “filtering content.” The BASCOM court emphasized that courts must assess a claim as a whole—following the Alice Court’s injunction that courts must assess a patent claim as “an ordered combination of elements”—in determining whether it is a patentable invention under § 101. As numerous patent scholars explained in an amicus brief filed in support of Sequenom in its failed cert petition before the Supreme Court, requiring a court to construe a “claim as a whole” or “the invention as a whole” is a basic doctrinal requirement that runs throughout patent law, as it is essential to ensuring that patents are properly evaluated both as to their validity and in their assertion against infringers.

CellzDirect and the Patentability of Discoveries in the Bio-Pharmaceutical Industry

The high-tech industry is not the only sector of the innovation industries that has been hit particularly hard by the recent §101 jurisprudence. The biotech and pharmaceutical industries have also seen a collapse in the proper legal protection for their innovative discoveries of new therapeutic treatments. One recent study found that the examination unit at the Patent Office responsible for reviewing personalized medicine inventions (art unit 1634) has rejected 86.4% of all patent applications since the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo. Anecdotal evidence abounds of numerous rejections of patent applications on innovative medical treatments arising from extensive R&D, and the most prominent one was the invalidation of Sequenom’s patent on its groundbreaking innovation in prenatal diagnostic tests.

In this light, the decision on July 5, 2016 in Rapid Litigation Management v. CellzDirect is an extremely important legal development for an industry that relies on stable and effective patent rights to justify investing billions in R&D to produce the miracles that comprise basic medical care today. In CellzDirect, the trial court found unpatentable under § 101 a patent claiming new methods for freezing liver cells for use in “testing, diagnostic, and treating purposes.” The trial court asserted that such a patent was “directed to an ineligible law of nature,” because scientists have long known that these types of liver cells (hepatocytes) could be subjected to multiple freeze-thaw cycles.

In her opinion for a unanimous panel, Chief Judge Sharon Prost held that the method in this case is exactly the type of innovative process that should be secured in a patent. Reflecting the same methodological concern in Enfish and BASCOM, the CellzDirect court rejected the trial court’s dissection of the patent into its foundational “laws of nature” and conventional ideas long-known in the scientific field:

The claims are simply not directed to the ability of hepatocytes to survive multiple freeze-thaw cycles. Rather, the claims of the ’929 patent are directed to a new and useful laboratory technique for preserving hepatocytes. This type of constructive process, carried out by an artisan to achieve “a new and useful end,” is precisely the type of claim that is eligible for patenting.

In other words, merely because a patentable process operates on a subject matter that constitutes natural phenomena does not mean the patent improperly claims either those natural phenomena or the laws of nature that govern them. To hold otherwise fails to heed the Mayo Court’s warning that “all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas,” and thus to dissect all patents down into these unpatentable foundations would “eviscerate patent law.” The CellzDirect court was explicit about this key methodological point in evaluating patents under § 101: “Just as in [the industrial process held valid by the Supreme Court in] Diehr, it is the particular ‘combination of steps’ that is patentable here”—the invention as a whole.

Conclusion

The U.S. has long prided itself as having a “gold standard” patent system—securing to innovators stable and effective property rights in their inventions and discoveries. As scholars and economic historians have long recognized, the patent system has been a key driver of America’s innovation economy for more than two hundred years. This is now threatened under the Supreme Court’s § 101 decisions and the “too broad” application of the Court’s highly generalized patent-eligibility tests to inventions in the high-tech and bio-pharmaceutical sectors. The shockingly high numbers of rejected applications at the Patent Office and of invalidation of patents by courts, as well as the general sense of legal uncertainty, are threatening the “gold standard” designation for the U.S. patent system. This threatens the startups, new jobs, and economic growth that the patent system has been proven to support. Hopefully, the recent Enfish and CellzDirect decisions are the first steps in bringing back to patent-eligibility doctrine both reason and clarity, two key requirements in the law that have been sorely lacking for inventors and companies working in the innovation economy.

Categories
Copyright History of Intellectual Property Innovation Inventors Trade Secrets Trademarks Uncategorized

Strong IP Protection Provides Inventors and Creators the Economic Freedom to Create

Here’s a brief excerpt of a post by Terrica Carrington that was published on IPWatchdog.

CPIP went against the grain with this conference, and showed us, bit by bit, what our world might look like today without intellectual property rights. Music wouldn’t sound the same. Movies wouldn’t look the same. You wouldn’t be reading this on your smartphone or have access to the cutting-edge biopharma and healthcare products that you rely on. And some of our greatest artists and inventors might be so busy trying to make ends meet that they would never create the amazing artistic works and inventions that we all enjoy. In short, CPIP explored how intellectual property rights work together as a platform that enables us to innovate, share, and collaborate across industries to develop incredible new products and services at an astounding rate.

To read the rest of this post, please visit IPWatchdog.

Categories
Commercialization Copyright Copyright Licensing History of Intellectual Property Innovation Internet Legislation Uncategorized

Making Copyright Work for Creative Upstarts

The following post is by CPIP Research Associate Matt McIntee, a rising 2L at George Mason University School of Law. McIntee reviews a paper from CPIP’s 2014 Fall Conference, Common Ground: How Intellectual Property Unites Creators and Innovators.

By Matt McIntee

cameraIn Making Copyright Work for Creative Upstarts, recently published in the George Mason Law Review, Professor Sean Pager demonstrates how the current copyright system can be improved to better support creative upstarts. Pager defines “creative upstarts” to include “independent creators and producers who (a) are commercially-motivated; (b) operate largely outside the rubric of the mainstream commercial content industries; and (c) therefore lack the kind of copyright-related knowledge, resources, and capabilities that mainstream players take for granted.” Though these upstarts depend on their copyrights to make a living, they often find it difficult to effectively navigate the copyright system.

Pager explains how the copyright system generally benefits sophisticated users. For example, the Copyright Act contains hyper-technical language that can be difficult for naïve users to traverse. Pager pilots through this strikingly complex legal regime and determines that there are ample opportunities to afford better copyright protection to creative upstarts without diluting the copyrights held by others. He offers several proposals geared towards protecting the interests of creative upstarts, and he explains how the copyright system was designed without these features in mind.

One of Pager’s proposals is that we lower copyright registration costs, which potentially deter creative upstarts from registering their works. He notes that registration, obtaining accurate copyright information, and clearing copyrights are among the chief costs associated with obtaining copyright protection. A $35 registration fee may seem insignificant due to the benefits that come with it, but these costs can add up quickly for creative upstarts who generate large volumes of works. For example, graphic artists typically create many original works in order to build their portfolios, and the registration costs could be prohibitive.

Pager also notes that the Copyright Office’s searchable database increases costs for creative upstarts by adding valuable time to the process. The database is supposed to be complete and catalogued so that persons can easily search for accurate copyright information, but unfortunately this is not always the case. As a result, many creative upstarts have to spend precious time sifting their way through incomplete records and clearing copyrights instead of spending their time creating.

Tracing the history of the current regime, Pager explains how the copyright system assumes that artists seeking copyright protection have ample resources, such as lawyers, production facilities, manufacturers, and money. When the system was designed, policymakers structured it to support a “capital intensive process” that required significant investment and risk. But as Pager notes, the industry has shifted, and creative upstarts now form the bulk of content creators. A copyright system designed for artists recording on 8-track tapes is no longer appropriate in the digital age.

Pager offers a number of incremental steps to reform copyright law with the goal of making it more favorable to creative upstarts while still protecting the other players in the field. Though he acknowledges that there is no “magic bullet” solution, Pager argues that “improvements must come through a combination of substantive, procedural, and institutional reforms that yield incremental improvements across the entire copyright system.” And with such a comprehensive approach, he notes that certain tradeoffs will have to be made.

Substantively, Pager discusses how reducing systemic complexity is “deceptively simple.” While replacing “fuzzy standards with bright-line rules” would to some degree enhance certainty, Pager notes that “bright lines quickly become blurred” in a “world of fast-changing technologies and business practices.” He proposes instead that a “more realistic fallback goal would be to couple open-ended standards with clear safe harbor provisions or explicit examples.” Under this system, “standards would have room to evolve” while “their core meaning would be anchored as a starting point.”

Regarding procedural reforms, Pager suggests a “small claims dispute resolution” mechanism to drastically reduce costs for creative upstarts by providing them with a quick way to pursue infringement claims. Right now, copyright claims are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal district courts, an impractical and expensive route for independent artists. The Copyright Office has put forth a proposal for such a mechanism, but Pager argues that there is a “fatal flaw” since the process “would only be available on a voluntary basis.” By allowing “better-resourced adversaries” to opt out, the Office’s proposal leaves creative upstarts vulnerable.

Pager proposes that the Section 512 notice-and-takedown procedures could be improved to better support creative upstarts. Currently, creators are burdened by both the number of takedown notices required and the lack of access to the “trusted sender” facilities available to major participants. As Pager notes, the House Judiciary Committee addressed these issues as recently as March of 2014, but questions remain concerning who will bear the costs and how the transition will be implemented.

Turning to the registration system, Pager suggests three reforms that would benefit creative upstarts. First, having a single registry for authors to register their works, rather than a multitude of public and private registries, would reduce administrative burdens. Second, registration records would be more efficiently maintained through a tiered-fee system that charges more to larger content creators in order to subsidize the costs of smaller upstarts. Lastly, removing the timely registration requirement for enhanced damages, coupled with small claims dispute resolution reform, would provide cost-effective enforcement mechanisms.

Finally, Pager explains how technology can play a pivotal role in helping creative upstarts. One example is updating the Copyright Office website to provide more basic information about the copyright system. This information is currently scattered all over the Internet, and it could be organized to make it more user-friendly and less “lawyerly.” Another example is implementing software similar to TurboTax that actively assists authors when registering their copyrights. There would first have to be substantive changes in the law to allow for such software, but Pager believes that this technology would be incredibly helpful to those navigating the registration system.

Creative Upstarts is a fascinating look into the world of creative upstarts. With their interests and the interests of the larger copyright ecosystem in mind, Pager skillfully traverses our complicated copyright regime and identifies ample opportunities to improve copyright protections for creative upstarts. The twenty-first century is a digital age, and creators and innovators have the technological ability to produce creative works right on their laptops. Pager’s hope is the Copyright Act will be updated to address the realities of this modern world for creative upstarts.

Categories
Commercialization Copyright Copyright Licensing Copyright Theory History of Intellectual Property Innovation Intellectual Property Theory Internet Law and Economics Uncategorized

Copyright’s Republic: Promoting an Independent and Professional Class of Creators and Creative Businesses

By Mark Schultz and Devlin Hartline

The following essay is the first in a series of CPIP essays celebrating the 225th anniversary of the Copyright Act by recognizing the rich purposes, benefits, and contributions of copyright. This series of essays will be published together in a forthcoming collection entitled “Copyright’s Republic: Copyright for the Last and the Next 225 Years.”

The current academic and policy discussion of copyright focuses on balancing the gross economic benefits and harms of copyright. A more complete understanding of copyright can account for both the needs and rights of individuals and the public good. Copyright is important because it helps creators make an independent living and allows them to pursue and perfect their craft. In short, it enables a professional class of creators.

The creative industries benefit from this independence too. They must find a market, but they are not beholden to anybody but their customers and shareholders in choosing what creative works to promote. This enables a richly diverse cultural landscape, with movie studios, television channels, record labels, radio stations, and publishers specializing in vastly different types of material.

To understand the importance of a professional class of creators, it’s helpful to understand the paradoxical role of money in creativity. While some are quick to say, “It’s not about the money,” in some essential ways, it really is about the money. Certainly, for some creators, the proposition is straightforward. As the eighteenth-century poet Samuel Johnson famously and cynically proclaimed: “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.” For countless others, however, creative endeavors hardly bring riches. And even commercial creators frequently leave money on the table rather than do something they find distasteful. Nevertheless, money is important.

This seeming paradox can be resolved by considering the role of money overall in creative work. We can take creators at their word: There are many nonmonetary factors that influence and incentivize creativity, such as love, independence, curiosity, and passion. In fact, thinking about the money can hurt the creative process. But while creators may not “do it for the money,” the money is what makes it possible for them to spend their time honing skills and creating high-quality works. The money endows a professional class of creators and the various creative industries and channel partners that support them. This vibrant ecosystem – empowered by copyright – generates a rich diversity of cultural works.

Creative individuals, like every other human being, need to eat, and, like most of us, they need to work to eat. The real question is, what kind of work are they able to do? Some notable creators have worked in their spare time, but many of the greats thrive most when they can merge their avocation with their vocation. They get better at creating when their work is creation.

There is, of course, more than one way to fund professional creation – patronage, tenured university teaching, and commercial markets founded on copyright are notable ways to do it. One of the virtues of a commercial property rights system is that it fosters creative independence.

The independence afforded by a commercial system based on property rights is highlighted by contrasting it with the greater constraints under other systems. Before the first modern copyright statute passed nearly three centuries ago, many creators depended heavily on the patronage system. Wealthy patrons funded creative efforts by either commissioning works directly or employing creators to staff positions where they were given time to develop new works. To be sure, many great works were produced under this system – the musical compositions of Johann Sebastian Bach and Joseph Haydn stand testimony to this fact.

However, the economic benefits of patronage often came at the expense of the personal autonomy and integrity of these creators. As the old adage goes, “he who pays the piper calls the tune.” Sometimes these constraints were quite direct. When Johann Sebastian Bach attempted to leave the service of one of his patrons to go work for another, the former patron refused to accept his resignation and briefly had him arrested.

More important, patrons had tremendous say in the work of composers. They could decide what and when the composers wrote. They might not appreciate the value of the works created for them. For example, Bach’s Brandenburg Concertos are now recognized as works of genius. Unfortunately, the noble to whom they were dedicated, Christian Ludwig, the Margrave of Brandenburg, was apparently indifferent. The score sat on his shelf, unperformed and unappreciated, for decades. The concertos were not published until nearly 150 years later, after being rediscovered in an archive.

For these reasons, many composers dreamed of financial independence. For example, the composer Joseph Haydn once celebrated leaving behind the patronage of the Esterhazys, which was rather secure and relatively undemanding. Haydn moved to London, where he became the eighteenth-century equivalent of a successful rock star – in demand for his services and making lots of money. London had a private market – not yet so much supported by copyright and publishing as by private commissions and paid performances. In any event, Haydn prospered. In fact, at one point he wrote letters urging his friend Mozart to join him in London as soon as possible, unabashedly rhapsodizing over the money to be made there.

Still, he was now on his own, earning his own pay rather than being kept by a patron. For Haydn, artistic independence trumped economic security:

How sweet this bit of freedom really is! I had a kind Prince, but sometimes I was forced to be dependent on base souls. I often sighed for release, and now I have it in some measure. I appreciate the good sides of all this, too, though my mind is burdened with far more work. The realization that I am no bondservant makes ample amend for all my toils.

Haydn, Letter to Maria Anna von Genzinger, September 17, 1791

The modern copyright system, beginning with the English Statute of Anne in the early eighteenth century, freed creators from the restrictive patronage system. Like patronage, copyright offered creators the financial support they needed so that they could devote themselves to their craft. Unlike patronage, however, it gave them much-needed personal autonomy and artistic independence.

Beethoven, a young contemporary and student of Haydn working at the end of the patronage era, was able to support himself. His facility at performing his own difficult work helped him make a living. But he also used and supported copyright. He would often publish his works first in England to ensure that they received copyright there. He also lobbied the German states for a copyright law.

For Beethoven, too, money was important for the artistic independence it provided:

I do not aim at being a musical usurer, as you think, who composes only in order to get rich, by no means, but I love a life of independence and cannot achieve this without a little fortune, and then the honorarium must, like everything else that he undertakes, bring some honor to the artist.

Ludwig van Beethoven, Letter to publisher, August 21, 1810

The era of patronage was long ago, but human nature has not changed in the decades and centuries since. Creators still face the dilemma of trying to support themselves while maintaining independence. Every economic arrangement imposes some constraints, but some impose more than others.

A good example of how modern copyright enables individual creators to enjoy independence while supporting themselves is provided by the career of photographer Michael Stern. Stern is a hard-working creative entrepreneur – one 30-minute video he made required 103,937 photographs and 900 hours to produce. Stern doesn’t depend on subsidies or grants; rather, he values the independence he gets from being self-employed. He explains:

“The real benefit of being a self-employed photographer,” he says, “is that I can move through life on my terms and do what I want in the way I want to do it. That freedom drives me.” But, it’s not for everybody, he warns. “Nobody loves you like your mother, and even sometimes not even her. So ya gotta do it for yourself. If you don’t, you won’t have the drive needed to reach your goals.”

Instead of creating works that conform to the limited demands of their patrons, creators supply their works to the marketplace, where the demands of consumers are far more diverse. This proves beneficial to creators and society alike. Creators from all walks of life and with all sorts of interests can find the market that will support them, and this fosters a rich cultural landscape encompassing multiple political and social views.

Copyright fulfills its constitutional purpose of promoting progress by incentivizing creators through the grant of marketable rights to their works, but these rights do more than simply lure creators with the hope of economic benefits. Just as crucially, these rights endow creators with substantial personal autonomy while respecting their individuality and dignity. This fosters a creative environment conducive to the creation of high-quality works with enduring social value.

Copyright is a market-based system that supports a professional class of creators who rely on the value of their rights in order to make a living. These marketable rights have also given rise to entire creative industries that lend critical support to professional creators, and through the division of labor these industries enable professional creators to accomplish great feats that would be impossible if they worked alone.

The numbers testify to copyright’s success in helping to create a professional class of creators in the United States. As a recent report on the creative industries enabled by copyright found, there are 2.9 million people employed by over 700,000 businesses in the United States involved in the creation or distribution of the arts. They accounted for 3.9 percent of all businesses and 1.9 percent of all employees.

This creative ecosystem enables professional creators to produce the sorts of high-quality works that society values most. The popularity of these works in the marketplace makes them commercially valuable, and this in turn compensates professional creators and the creative industries that support them for creating the works that society finds so valuable.

This virtuous circle benefits creators and the public alike – just as the Framers had envisioned it. Copyright is not only doing its job, it is doing it well. The number of works available in the market is incredible – certainly more than anyone could ever possibly consume. And the diversity of voices able to connect with audiences in the marketplace makes our cultural lives all the more fulfilling.

Categories
Commercialization Copyright Copyright Licensing Copyright Theory History of Intellectual Property Innovation Intellectual Property Theory Internet Law and Economics Uncategorized

Copyright’s Republic: Copyright for the Last and the Next 225 Years

By Mark Schultz and Devlin Hartline

This past Sunday marked the 225th anniversary of the first U.S. Copyright Act. As we move well into the twenty-first century, a claim that copyright no longer “works” in the “digital age” has become commonplace – so commonplace, in fact, that it’s arguably the dominant cliché in modern copyright discussions. Like many clichés, it contains a tiny grain of truth wrapped in a huge ball of glib, unhelpful, and even harmful generalizations.

Before one can understand what the future of copyright and the creative industries could and should look like, one should first appreciate what the first 225 years of copyright has given to the United States. Copyright laid the foundation for, and continues to support, the largest, most enduring, and most influential commercial culture in human history. That commercial culture is uniquely democratic, progressive, and accessible to both creators and audiences.

Could the Copyright Act profitably be revised? In theory, perhaps, and thus there is a grain of truth in the clichés about modernizing copyright. The 1976 Copyright Act and many of its subsequent amendments are overburdened with detailed regulatory provisions contingent on outdated assumptions about technology and business. They also sometimes embody political compromises that reflect circumstances that have long since passed. However, we should pause before hastening to replace yesterday’s contingencies with those of today. And we should also pause – indefinitely – before overturning the entire enterprise on the grandiose assumption that the Internet has changed everything.

Before we can understand what the future of the creative industries could and should look like, we need to appreciate what we have achieved and how we achieved it. The American creative industries are everything the Founding generation that drafted the 1790 Copyright Act could have dreamed – and so much more. Through its press, news media, and publishing industries, the U.S. has perpetuated the spirit of the Enlightenment’s Republic of Letters, with lively, reasoned, and sustained public discussions and debates about values, science, and politics.

The U.S. has produced a creative industry that enlightens and edifies while also diverting and distracting billions of people with its cultural products. This vast commercial creative marketplace allows professional writers, artists, musicians, actors, filmmakers, game designers, and others to make a living doing something that fulfills them and their audience. The U.S. has achieved much based on the twin foundations of free expression and copyright, securing the right to express oneself freely while securing the fruits of the labors of those who craft expressions.

The past thus has much to teach the future, while inevitably yielding to change and progress. Copyright should continue to secure the many values it supports, while being flexible enough to support innovation in creativity and business models.

On this occasion of the 225th anniversary of the first U.S. Copyright Act, the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property (CPIP) is recognizing the essential contribution of copyright and commercial culture to the United States. To that end, CPIP will be publishing a series of essays highlighting the fact that, contrary to the facile narratives about copyright that dominate modern discussions, copyright isn’t simply a law designed to incentivize the creation of more creative stuff. It has much richer purposes and benefits. Copyright:

  • Supports a professional class of creators.
  • Enables a commercial culture that contributes to human flourishing.
  • Serves as a platform for innovation in both the arts and sciences.
  • Promotes a free republic.

U.S. copyright law has achieved these lofty goals for the last 225 years, and it will continue to do so—but only if we let it and help it do so. In many important ways, U.S. culture and politics has been so shaped by the commercial culture created by copyright that it rightly can be called Copyright’s Republic.

Part I: Copyright Promotes an Independent and Professional Class of Creators and Creative Businesses

Categories
Conferences Copyright Copyright Theory History of Intellectual Property Injunctions Innovation Intellectual Property Theory Internet Inventors Patent Law Patent Theory Remedies Uncategorized

IP Promotes Progress by Securing the Individual Liberty of Inventors and Creators

This is the third in a series of posts summarizing CPIP’s 2014 Fall Conference, “Common Ground: How Intellectual Property Unites Creators and Innovators.” The Conference was held at George Mason University School of Law on October 9-10, 2014. Videos of the conference panels and keynote will be available soon.

The second panel of CPIP’s 2014 Fall Conference analyzed the common moral case for copyrights and patents. The panel was moderated by Professor Chris Newman (George Mason University School of Law). Two of the panelists, Professor Mark Schultz (CPIP, and Southern Illinois University School of Law) and Professor Eric Claeys (George Mason University School of Law) explained the theoretical and normative principles underlying the moral case for intellectual property. The other two panelists, Dr. Ken Anderson (Thermaquatica) and David Lowery (musician, producer, and lecturer at the University of Georgia), then showed how those principles play out in practice.

Professor Schultz noted that the moral case for intellectual property is often overshadowed by (or outright ignored in favor of) the economic case. But in addition to being economically valuable, intellectual property serves important moral functions by enabling artists and inventors to live free and flourishing lives. Intellectual property fosters economic independence, enables the creation of a private sector, and supports political freedom. Patents and copyrights give an important set of choices to creators and inventors, enabling them not only to survive, but also to thrive. As such, intellectual property is a moral right that facilitates individual liberty. While the economic justifications for copyrights and patents remain important, it is equally important not to lose sight of their strong moral underpinnings.

Professor Claeys discussed the moral case for injunctive relief against IP infringement. Starting from a traditional property law perspective, he explained that remedies (such as injunctive relief) are essential in reinforcing and vindicating property rights. Just as with traditional property, copyrights and patents confer exclusive control to their owners to secure to them the value of their productive labors. By protecting copyright and patent owners’ discretion over the deployment of their property, injunctions protect their moral rights in the fruits of their labors. Claeys further noted that this labor-based understanding of intellectual property could inform the balance of equities discussed in eBay v. MercExchange, filing significant gaps in the Supreme Court’s reasoning and likely leading to a different conclusion regarding licensing companies’ ability to obtain injunctions.

Anderson and Lowery addressed the role of IP in their respective fields. Dr. Anderson discussed how patents were crucial to his ability to obtain investors for his green tech company. He invented a new, environmentally-friendly technology to convert “coal, biomass and other organic solids into low molecular weight products.” Being able to protect the value of his work through patent protection (he filed multiple rounds of patents all over the world) has been essential to his company’s success and his ability to commercialize his invention.

Lowery discussed how the lack of copyright enforcement in the digital era has affected the music industry, leading to an environment where internet platforms thrive, but the artists and creators who fuel the value of those platforms struggle mightily to make ends meet. In many ways, musicians are worse off now than they were in the 1950s (an era that s well-known for the exploitation of musicians). Nonetheless, he expressed hope that the third decade of the Internet could embrace legal and technological innovations that make it a better place for artists.

In sum, the panelists illustrated the fundamental moral importance of intellectual property, which applies equally to inventors’ patent rights as it does to artists’ copyrights. Intellectual property isn’t just about economic incentives. IP also promotes progress by securing the individual liberty of inventors and creators.

Categories
Commercialization Conferences Copyright Copyright Licensing Copyright Theory Economic Study High Tech Industry History of Intellectual Property Injunctions Innovation Intellectual Property Theory Internet Inventors Law and Economics Patent Law Patent Licensing Patent Litigation Patent Theory Remedies Software Patent Uncategorized

Intellectual Property Unites Creators and Innovators

This is the first in a series of posts summarizing CPIP’s 2014 Fall Conference, “Common Ground: How Intellectual Property Unites Creators and Innovators.” The Conference was held at George Mason University School of Law on October 9-10, 2014. Videos of the conference panels and remarks, as well as panel summaries, will be available soon.

Introduction by Professors Adam Mossoff and Mark Schultz

Common Ground: How Intellectual Property Unites Creators and Innovators

The creative industries and innovation industries have much in common, but too often this is overlooked. Both industries engage in brilliant intellectual work to bring new products and services into the world, both take great risks to commercialize this work, and both depend on intellectual property – copyrights (for the creative industries) and patents (for the innovation industries). Unfortunately, most accounts of these two industries emphasize their differences and frequently portray them in conflict.

This conference will explore the common ground shared by these two dynamic industries, focusing on the similar values secured by their patents and copyrights and thus their common policy goals and commercial developments.

It should be unsurprising that these two industries share much in common. The work of inventors and artists is much the same. We see hints of this in their respective aspirations. Engineers, for example, often talk of seeking “elegant” or “beautiful” solutions to the technological problems they face. Artists also strive to innovate technically in how they create their works, as demonstrated with much panache in the recent documentary, Tim’s Vermeer. Many creators apply their prodigious talents to both art and invention.

One may think of a Steve Jobs today as exemplifying this truth, but history is replete with examples. Leonardo da Vinci also comes to mind, the quintessential Renaissance Man. In the 19th century, Samuel Morse invented the telegraph, but he was also a successful artist and in fact he developed the telegraph while working as a well-known Professor of Art at New York University.

In modern America, Walt Disney has defined much of our culture not just with his artistic creations, but also with his innovative technological creations in movies, theme parks and products. More recently, filmmakers George Lucas and James Cameron have cast large shadows in popular culture, but their contributions to filmmaking technology may prove even more enduring and pervasive.

These and many other examples are unsurprising when one considers that art and technology both result from the same source: productive intellectual labor.

As the work of artists and inventors is at heart the same, so is the moral and economic case for securing property rights to them. Artists and inventors deserve to own the fruits of their productive labors. In protecting these labors, intellectual property rights secure to them their liberty and their careers. These rights thus fuel the vast economic activity that drives the innovation economy – bringing to market the products and services that ensure full and flourishing lives for them and for the rest of us as well.

Too often, though, the creative and innovation industries are portrayed as being at odds. One popular narrative today – in both scholarly and popular accounts – is that technology disrupts the creative industries, forcing copyright owners to adapt. This is a myopic account of their relationship that ultimately creates a false picture. In truth, creativity and innovation – secured by copyrights and patents – constantly spur each other to greater heights.

The true story of creativity and innovation is more properly viewed as a virtuous circle.

Recording and broadcast technology, for instance, gave musicians and other performers their first worldwide audiences, whose demand for ever-more entertainment and information spurred further improvement and expansion of technology. The invention of the electric guitar, spurred by a series of patented improvements, enabled blues and rock ‘n’ roll, which in turn pushed further developments in music and recording technology.

The Internet certainly created much disruption, but it also has been a fountainhead of creativity. To take just one example, streaming of original, creative content enables television viewers to enjoy storytelling as never before, bringing about what some are now calling a Second Golden Age of Television.

Our technological devices, such as smartphones and iPads, would not be so well loved and so ubiquitous without the games, music, and video content they deliver to hundreds of millions of people the world over.

The common ground and shared aspirations of creators and innovators is clear, but rarely appreciated in the din of today’s policy debates.

Thus, our Annual Conference this year considers afresh the common goals, challenges and needs of the creative and innovation industries. Many distinguished speakers with extensive knowledge and experience in both fields will address how intellectual property rights represent the bedrock of this common ground. We hope that you will enjoy what promises to be enlightening discussion.

**Panel summaries coming soon**

Categories
Copyright Copyright Theory History of Intellectual Property Innovation Intellectual Property Theory Law and Economics Patent Law Patent Litigation Patent Theory Statistics Uncategorized

Intellectual Property, Innovation and Economic Growth: Mercatus Gets it Wrong

By Mark Schultz & Adam Mossoff

A handful of increasingly noisy critics of intellectual property (IP) have emerged within free market organizations. Both the emergence and vehemence of this group has surprised most observers, since free market advocates generally support property rights. It’s true that there has long been a strain of IP skepticism among some libertarian intellectuals. However, the surprised observer would be correct to think that the latest critique is something new. In our experience, most free market advocates see the benefit and importance of protecting the property rights of all who perform productive labor – whether the results are tangible or intangible.

How do the claims of this emerging critique stand up? We have had occasion to examine the arguments of free market IP skeptics before. (For example, see here, here, here.) So far, we have largely found their claims wanting.

We have yet another occasion to examine their arguments, and once again we are underwhelmed and disappointed. We recently posted an essay at AEI’s Tech Policy Daily prompted by an odd report recently released by the Mercatus Center, a free-market think tank. The Mercatus report attacks recent research that supposedly asserts, in the words of the authors of the Mercatus report, that “the existence of intellectual property in an industry creates the jobs in that industry.” They contend that this research “provide[s] no theoretical or empirical evidence to support” its claims of the importance of intellectual property to the U.S. economy.

Our AEI essay responds to these claims by explaining how these IP skeptics both mischaracterize the studies that they are attacking and fail to acknowledge the actual historical and economic evidence on the connections between IP, innovation, and economic prosperity. We recommend that anyone who may be confused by the assertions of any IP skeptics waving the banner of property rights and the free market read our essay at AEI, as well as our previous essays in which we have called out similarly odd statements from Mercatus about IP rights.

The Mercatus report, though, exemplifies many of the concerns we raise about these IP skeptics, and so it deserves to be considered at greater length.

For instance, something we touched on briefly in our AEI essay is the fact that the authors of this Mercatus report offer no empirical evidence of their own within their lengthy critique of several empirical studies, and at best they invoke thin theoretical support for their contentions.

This is odd if only because they are critiquing several empirical studies that develop careful, balanced and rigorous models for testing one of the biggest economic questions in innovation policy: What is the relationship between intellectual property and jobs and economic growth?

Apparently, the authors of the Mercatus report presume that the burden of proof is entirely on the proponents of IP, and that a bit of hand waving using abstract economic concepts and generalized theory is enough to defeat arguments supported by empirical data and plausible methodology.

This move raises a foundational question that frames all debates about IP rights today: On whom should the burden rest? On those who claim that IP has beneficial economic effects? Or on those who claim otherwise, such as the authors of the Mercatus report?

The burden of proof here is an important issue. Too often, recent debates about IP rights have started from an assumption that the entire burden of proof rests on those investigating or defending IP rights. Quite often, IP skeptics appear to believe that their criticism of IP rights needs little empirical or theoretical validation, beyond talismanic invocations of “monopoly” and anachronistic assertions that the Framers of the US Constitution were utilitarians.

As we detail in our AEI essay, though, the problem with arguments like those made in the Mercatus report is that they contradict history and empirics. For the evidence that supports this claim, including citations to the many studies that are ignored by the IP skeptics at Mercatus and elsewhere, check out the essay.

Despite these historical and economic facts, one may still believe that the US would enjoy even greater prosperity without IP. But IP skeptics who believe in this counterfactual world face a challenge. As a preliminary matter, they ought to acknowledge that they are the ones swimming against the tide of history and prevailing belief. More important, the burden of proof is on them – the IP skeptics – to explain why the U.S. has long prospered under an IP system they find so odious and destructive of property rights and economic progress, while countries that largely eschew IP have languished. This obligation is especially heavy for one who seeks to undermine empirical work such as the USPTO Report and other studies.

In sum, you can’t beat something with nothing. For IP skeptics to contest this evidence, they should offer more than polemical and theoretical broadsides. They ought to stop making faux originalist arguments that misstate basic legal facts about property and IP, and instead offer their own empirical evidence. The Mercatus report, however, is content to confine its empirics to critiques of others’ methodology – including claims their targets did not make.

For example, in addition to the several strawman attacks identified in our AEI essay, the Mercatus report constructs another strawman in its discussion of studies of copyright piracy done by Stephen Siwek for the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI). Mercatus inaccurately and unfairly implies that Siwek’s studies on the impact of piracy in film and music assumed that every copy pirated was a sale lost – this is known as “the substitution rate problem.” In fact, Siwek’s methodology tackled that exact problem.

IPI and Siwek never seem to get credit for this, but Siwek was careful to avoid the one-to-one substitution rate estimate that Mercatus and others foist on him and then critique as empirically unsound. If one actually reads his report, it is clear that Siwek assumes that bootleg physical copies resulted in a 65.7% substitution rate, while illegal downloads resulted in a 20% substitution rate. Siwek’s methodology anticipates and renders moot the critique that Mercatus makes anyway.

After mischaracterizing these studies and their claims, the Mercatus report goes further in attacking them as supporting advocacy on behalf of IP rights. Yes, the empirical results have been used by think tanks, trade associations and others to support advocacy on behalf of IP rights. But does that advocacy make the questions asked and resulting research invalid? IP skeptics would have trumpeted results showing that IP-intensive industries had a minimal economic impact, just as Mercatus policy analysts have done with alleged empirical claims about IP in other contexts. In fact, IP skeptics at free-market institutions repeatedly invoke studies in policy advocacy that allegedly show harm from patent litigation, despite these studies suffering from far worse problems than anything alleged in their critiques of the USPTO and other studies.

Finally, we noted in our AEI essay how it was odd to hear a well-known libertarian think tank like Mercatus advocate for more government-funded programs, such as direct grants or prizes, as viable alternatives to individual property rights secured to inventors and creators. There is even more economic work being done beyond the empirical studies we cited in our AEI essay on the critical role that property rights in innovation serve in a flourishing free market, as well as work on the economic benefits of IP rights over other governmental programs like prizes.

Today, we are in the midst of a full-blown moral panic about the alleged evils of IP. It’s alarming that libertarians – the very people who should be defending all property rights – have jumped on this populist bandwagon. Imagine if free market advocates at the turn of the Twentieth Century had asserted that there was no evidence that property rights had contributed to the Industrial Revolution. Imagine them joining in common cause with the populist Progressives to suppress the enforcement of private rights and the enjoyment of economic liberty. It’s a bizarre image, but we are seeing its modern-day equivalent, as these libertarians join the chorus of voices arguing against property and private ordering in markets for innovation and creativity.

It’s also disconcerting that Mercatus appears to abandon its exceptionally high standards for scholarly work-product when it comes to IP rights. Its economic analyses and policy briefs on such subjects as telecommunications regulation, financial and healthcare markets, and the regulatory state have rightly made Mercatus a respected free-market institution. It’s unfortunate that it has lent this justly earned prestige and legitimacy to stale and derivative arguments against property and private ordering in the innovation and creative industries. It’s time to embrace the sound evidence and back off the rhetoric.

Categories
Copyright Copyright Theory History of Intellectual Property Intellectual Property Theory Law and Economics Patent Law Patent Theory Uncategorized

IP as a Source of Personal and Economic Freedom

CPIP’s Mark Schultz authored an excellent essay today in TechPolicyDaily.com advocating intellectual property as a source of personal and economic freedom.  The essay, “A Free Market Perspective on Intellectual Property Rights,” describes parallels between physical property and intellectual property and dispels several denigrating myths about intellectual property’s role in a free market.  It’s a quick read, and well-worth checking out.

Categories
Commercialization History of Intellectual Property Innovation Patent Law Patent Licensing Patent Litigation Uncategorized

Guest Post by Wayne Sobon: A Line in the Sand on the Calls for New Patent Legislation

On June 9-11, the IP Business Congress sponsored by Intellectual Asset Magazine (IAM) hosted a debate on the resolution: “This house believes that the America Invents Act should be a legislative line in the sand and that no more reform of the US patent system is needed.” The debate was moderated by Denise DeFranco, a partner with the Finnegan law firm.  Arguing on behalf of the resolution were David Schwartz, Associate Professor of Law at Chicago-Kent College of Law, and Wayne Sobon, Vice President and General Counsel of Inventergy, Inc.  Arguing against the resolution were Michael Meurer, Professor of Law at Boston University School of Law and Dan Lang, Vice President, Intellectual Property, Cisco.  

With Mr. Sobon’s permission, we are publishing here a slightly modified version of his opening statement at the IP Business Congress debate. Mr. Sobon spoke for himself and not on behalf of his employer or any other institutions.

A Line in the Sand on the Calls for New Patent Legislation

Wayne Sobon
Vice President & General Counsel, Inventergy

With the June 4, 2013 announcement by the Obama Administration of a new set of legislative priorities to change our patent laws yet again, bolstered by a chorus of academics and interested corporations, there are now four separate bills in Congress (with more coming) proposing a wide range of changes to the patent system. Fresh from the seven-year battle that concluded with the America Invents Act of 2011, we once more face a highly emotionally-driven campaign to alter the rules of the field, replete with name-calling (“trolls”).

But just as with our personal conflicts, the best way forward usually comes once we let emotions cool and we dispassionately take a longer view.

We just spent the better part of a decade — following significant research, public hearings, the reports of the National Academies of Science and the FTC, and the testimony of a wide variety of NGOs, corporations, and private inventors and citizens — debating and then approving the most significant changes to our patent system since the 1952 Act.  The America Invents Act of 2011was argued in forums like this and on the floor of our Congress as the needed corrective for poor-quality patents, claimed by so-called “trolls” to hold up and oppress innovative companies.

Various companies such as Cisco testified before Congress that the sweeping collection of provisions that make up the AIA were necessary to achieve these policy goals.  When it was enacted, it was heralded as “the most significant reform of the U.S. patent system since 1836.” Yet the ink is barely dry, and the voluminous regulations implementing the AIA have barely been set in motion, when the same group of academics and industry players are once again demanding sweeping new changes to the patent laws.

The United States intellectual property system is a precious resource.  Indeed, the Founding Fathers saw a unified, national regime of patent laws as so crucial to our democracy that they enshrined it as one of the key powers of Congress.  Unanimously and without debate, they passed Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of our Constitution.  One of the first acts of the first Congress was to pass the Patent Law of 1790.  That law has only been significantly amended five times in the last 220 some years.  Five times.  1793‎, 1836, 1870, 1952 and 2011.

One genius of our patent system has been an implicit recognition that since its underlying subject matter, innovation, remains by definition in constant flux, the scaffolding of our system and the ability of all stakeholders to make reasonably consistent, prudent and socially efficient choices, should remain as stable as possible.  But now these latest moves, demanding yet further significant changes to our patent laws, threaten that stability.  And it is in fact systemic instability, from whatever source, that allows the very parasitic behaviors we have termed “troll”-like, to flourish.

It is silly and blindly ahistoric to lump anyone who seeks to license or enforce a patent right, but who does not themselves make a corresponding product, as a “troll.”  Many arguments about Non-Practicing Entities (NPE), Patent Assertion Entities (PAE), Patent Licensing Assertion Entities (PLAE) — the various formal names and acronyms for the more commonly known epithet, “patent troll” — include an implicit and often explicit emotional condemnation of any patent holder who either did not invent or does not manufacture the patented products.  The President’s statements unfortunately are replete with such derision of people or firms who “don’t actually produce anything themselves.”

Yet, from the very outset, our American patent system distinguished itself from its English predecessor, by establishing the unfettered sale in the marketplace of patent rights, precisely because patents are private property rights (see here, here, and here).  In England, patent monopolies were still mostly creatures of the Crown — personal privileges. See B. Zorina Khan, The Democratization of Invention: Patents and Copyrights in American Economic Development, 1790-1920 (Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 36-38.  The United States patent system, based upon objective criteria for inventiveness and established in freely-alienable property rights, was as significant a revolution in the commercial sphere as the federalist structure was in the political.  Id., pp. 49-51, 60-62. And it’s hard to argue against the unprecedented success of the American economy based on the patented innovation protected by these laws.

And indeed, it might come as a surprise, that many of the inventor giants we hold in such high regard today in fact never manufactured the products covered by their patents.  Elias Howe did not make sewing machines.  Rather, having invented the hugely important lock-stitch technology, but being poor himself, he assembled financing, using then novel securitization of patents, and then licensed his patent to others (and famously, fought the equivalent of our smart phone wars, against Singer). Charles Goodyear never manufactured any rubber; he licensed his vulcanization process to others.  Thomas Edison also received third-party financing to operate his famous invention factory in Menlo Park, and he licensed his patented inventions to other companies for manufacture and sale in the marketplace, such as his invention of the first electric pen.  And when the unscrupulous refused to pay licenses, each of these inventors of course moved to enforce.

Rather than focus on practicing vs. non-practicing, as manufacturing and licensing are both equal rights in practicing a property right, let’s focus instead on parasitic behaviors. Let’s respect the genius of our Founders, and make few if any changes to the structure of our system.  And let’s focus on specific, targeted interventions that can actually cut off the systemic rot upon which parasitic behavior thrives.

Here are two important areas that could benefit from targeted interventions: (1) the high costs of litigation for all participants, and (2) the rampant and extended uncertainty of patent disputes.  Both of these interventions rest soundly in the discretion of our Federal Courts.  We already have the tools to bring down discovery costs (I’d argue we need less discovery than what we spend so much time, money, energy and emotion on to yield valid, fair results).  And as noted by now-former Chief Judge Randall Rader in his many public comments, judges already have the legal and procedural tools to cull sham lawsuits from the courts.  It just requires exercising judgment, as they ably can and do.  That’s why they’re called judges.

We do not need yet more statutory changes, changes that will engender more uncertainty and another decade of resulting litigation, to achieve the particular policy goals here.  We simply need our judges and our existing system to do the job they already have.