Canst Thou Draw Out Leviathan with Computational Bibliography? New Angles on Printing Thomas Hobbes’ “Ornaments” Edition

This article attributes one of the three “first” editions of Leviathan to the London printer John Richardson (fl. 1673–1703), revising Noel Malcolm’s attribution to a different printer in the recent Clarendon Edition of Leviathan. We lay out the mystery of Leviathan’s so-called “Ornaments” edition and use evidence from damaged type pieces to say why we attribute its printing to Richardson. We then give a short sketch of Richardson’s life and career and present evidence that supports a new date for the edition, including newly discovered advertisements and evidence from deteriorating type. We conclude with some implications for book history and bibliography, on the one hand, and Hobbes scholarship on the other. We argue that what we call “computational bibliography”—the analysis of bibliographical evidence through computational methods such as machine learning and computer vision— offers new angles for seeing the materiality and craft of clandestine, anonymously-printed books like Hobbes’ Leviathan

Use of prediction methods for patent and trademark applications in Spain

Patent and trademark offices which run according to principles of new management have an inherent need for dependable forecasting data in planning capacity and service levels. The ability of the Spanish Office of Patents and Trademarks to carry out efficient planning of its resource needs requires the use of methods which allow it to predict the changes in the number of patent and trademark applications at different time horizons. The approach for the prediction of time series of Spanish patents and trademarks applications (1979e2009) was based on the use of different techniques of time series prediction in a short-term horizon. The methods used can be grouped into two specifics areas: regression models of trends and time series models. The results of this study show that it is possible to model the series of patents and trademarks applications with different models, especially ARIMA, with satisfactory model adjustment and relatively low error

Who Rpinted Shakespeare’s Fourth Folio?

According to Fredson Bowers, writing in Shakespeare Quarterly in 1951, we will never know the printer of that section "until we know everything there is to be learned about seventeenth-century types." 2 Bowers doubted we could ever list the full set of F4's printers because F4 was printed anonymously, and the volume left few clues about its printers. While George Watson Cole's 1909 "examination of the letterpress show[ed] that a copy of the Third Folio was apparently broken into three portions and sent to three different printers," Bowers himself only got as far as attributing the first of F4's three separately paginated parts. 3 The purpose of this note is to identify the other two printers involved in F4, one of whom, John Macock, was the printer whose shop was responsible for F4's Hamlet. Regrettably, this short note does not include everything there is to be learned about seventeenth-century types.

Brief of Amici Curiae 56 Professors of Law and Economics in Support of Petition of Writ of Certiorari

28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) provides that a defendant in a patent case may be sued where the defendant is incorporated or has a regular and established place of business and has infringed the patent. This Court made clear in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Prods. Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 223 (1957), that those were the only permissible venues for a patent case. But the Federal Circuit has rejected Fourco and the plain meaning of § 1400(b), instead permitting a patent plaintiff to file suit against a defendant anywhere there is personal jurisdiction over that defendant. The result has been rampant forum shopping, particularly by patent trolls. 44% of 2015 patent lawsuits were filed in a single district: the Eastern District of Texas, a forum with plaintiff-friendly rules and practices, and where few of the defendants are incorporated or have established places of business. And an estimated 86% of 2015 patent cases were filed somewhere other than the jurisdictions specified in the statute. Colleen V. Chien & Michael Risch, Recalibrating Patent Venue, Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-1 (Sept. 1, 2016), Table 3. This Court should grant certiorari to review the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because the Federal Circuit’s dubious interpretation of the statute plays an outsized and detrimental role, both legally and economically, in the patent system

Brief of Amici Curiae 56 Professors of Law and Economics in Support of Petition of Writ of Certiorari

28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) provides that a defendant in a patent case may be sued where the defendant is incorporated or has a regular and established place of business and has infringed the patent. This Court made clear in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Prods. Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 223 (1957), that those were the only permissible venues for a patent case. But the Federal Circuit has rejected Fourco and the plain meaning of § 1400(b), instead permitting a patent plaintiff to file suit against a defendant anywhere there is personal jurisdiction over that defendant. The result has been rampant forum shopping, particularly by patent trolls. 44% of 2015 patent lawsuits were filed in a single district: the Eastern District of Texas, a forum with plaintiff-friendly rules and practices, and where few of the defendants are incorporated or have established places of business. And an estimated 86% of 2015 patent cases were filed somewhere other than the jurisdictions specified in the statute. Colleen V. Chien & Michael Risch, Recalibrating Patent Venue, Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-1 (Sept. 1, 2016), Table 3. This Court should grant certiorari to review the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because the Federal Circuit’s dubious interpretation of the statute plays an outsized and detrimental role, both legally and economically, in the patent system