Converting Intellectual Assets into Property

The mouse and graphic interface were first commercialized on Macintosh computers. Yet, Steve Jobs is said to have derived both from the Alto computer developed by Xerox\u27s Palo Alto Research Center. While Jobs became a billionaire, Xerox completely failed to get into the personal computer business, missing one of the biggest business opportunities in history. Preferring to be more akin to Apple than to Xerox, firms are increasingly mindful that their most valuable assets are apt to be ideas and information instead of land, buildings and inventory. Not capable of being fenced in or locked up, intangible assets can be protected when they are converted into patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets -- collectively intellectual property (IP)

Scientific Facts vs. Political Values

Professor Field takes exception to a recent Science editorial

IP Basics: Advice on IP Careers for Those with Technical Backgrounds

[Excerpt] Full-time law school takes three years and culminates in the Juris Doctor. A J.D. from a school accredited by the American Bar Association qualifies a person to take the bar exam in any state. As mentioned above, college graduates need not pursue any particular line of study to be accepted into law school. At the University of New Hampshire School of Law, for example, over a third of our students have degrees in engineering or science, and many have had extensive experience or advanced degrees, including M.D.s and Ph.Ds. -- the last being particularly helpful for biotechnology patent careers

IP Basics: Copyright for Digital Authors

Written for computer artists and programmers, this paper addresses the basics, as well as the registration of multiple works, difference between works that are and are not prepared for hire, and other matters of interest to entrepreneurs as well as to free-lance programmers and artists

Exhuming the “Diversity Explanation” of the Eleventh Amendment

This essay, in a symposium honoring the scholarship of Ninth Circuit Judge William A. Fletcher, explores the “diversity explanation” of the Eleventh Amendment that he had advanced in articles while he was a UC-Berkeley law professor. That explanation, contrary to existing Supreme Court doctrine that heavily constitutionalizes state sovereign immunity from suits by private parties and foreign countries, would view the Eleventh Amendment as having solely to do with federal courts’ constitutional jurisdiction and nothing to do with states’ sovereign immunity. The essay notes the cleanness of interpretation provided by the diversity explanation, in contrast with the convoluted nature of current doctrine, and concludes that overruling of that doctrine would be warranted

Intellectual Property: The Practical and Legal Fundamentals

Patents, copyrights, trademarks and related interests are known as intellectual property (IP). It has not been long since patents especially were regarded in U.S. courts, and the Supreme Court in particular, as tools of monopolists, and their owners often fared poorly. However, people have come increasingly to view privately funded innovation as critical to national economic well-being and to agree that such innovation cannot occur unless companies that succeed in the marketplace can recoup their research, development and marketing costs. That is a major function of IP, and, particularly within the past dozen years, IP has been seen, both here and abroad, as playing a key role in developing technologies for the next century

Quick-donning backpack harness

Harness device permits user to quickly put on or take off load carried in backpack arrangement. It can be attached with one hand; has controlled deformation belt that automatically encircles user upon application of pressure; has rigid shoulder harness elements which move automatically into place; and primary attachment components cannot be displaced while harness is in place

Controlling Patent Prosecution History

[Excerpt] “One of the most salient effects of patent prosecution history arises in the context of the doctrine of equivalents. Under that doctrine, although patent claims may be found to be broader than their literal scope, territory surrendered during prosecution cannot be encompassed as equivalent. Nor can territory forfeited by initial failure to claim be captured under the doctrine of equivalents. Most attorneys who prosecute applications are apt to be aware of such problems and to take measures to avoid them.