Patents and The Regress of Useful Arts

Patent systems are often justified by an assumption that innovation will be spurred by the prospect of patent protection, leading to the accrual of greater societal benefits than would be possible under non-patent systems. However, little empirical evidence exists to support this assumption. One way to test the hypothesis that a patent system promotes innovation is to simulate the behavior of inventors and competitors experimentally under conditions approximating patent and non-patent systems. Employing a multi-user interactive simulation of patent and non-patent (commons and open source) systems ("PatentSim"), this study compares rates of innovation, productivity, and societal utility. PatentSim uses an abstracted and cumulative model of the invention process, a database of potential innovations, an interactive interface that allows users to invent, patent, or open source these innovations, and a network over which users may interact with one another to license, assign, buy, infringe, and enforce patents. Data generated thus far using PatentSim suggest that a system combining patent and open source protection for inventions (that is, similar to modern patent systems) generates significantly lower rates of innovation (p<0.05), productivity (p<0.001), and societal utility (p<0.002) than does a commons system. These data also indicate that there is no statistical difference in innovation, productivity, or societal utility between a pure patent system and a system combining patent and open source protection. The results of this study are inconsistent with the orthodox justification for patent systems. However, they do accord well with evidence from the increasingly important field of user and open innovation. Simulation games of the patent system could even provide a more effective means of fulfilling the Constitutional mandate "to promote the Progress of . . . useful Arts" than does the orthodox assumption that technological innovation can be encouraged through the prospect of patent protection

If We Could Talk to the Animals, How Should We Discuss Their Legal Rights?

The intricate tapestry of animal communication has long fascinated humanity, with the sophisticated linguistics of cetaceans holding a special place of intrigue due to the cetaceans’ significant brain size and apparent intelligence. This Essay explores the legal implications of the recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), specifically machine learning and neural networks, that have made significant strides in deciphering sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) communication. We view the ability of a being to communicate as one—but not the only—potential pathway to qualify for legal rights. As such, we investigate the possibility that the ability to communicate should trigger legal rights for beings capable of communicating, whether they be cetaceans or other creatures. As the Cetacean Translation Initiative (CETI) project, which is actively working to unlock sperm whale language, moves closer to enabling meaningful human-cetacean dialogue, we stand on the precipice of a transformative understanding that may compel a radical reevaluation of animal legal rights and, perhaps, human legal rights as well. In fact, viewing eligibility for legal rights through a more objective lens, such as a communication criterion, may even improve our understanding of human legal rights, their origins, extent, application, and even entitlement itself. We begin with an overview of animal communication, emphasizing the complex acoustic patterns of sperm whale songs and clicks, which have been captured and analyzed through the collaborative efforts of marine biologists and computer scientists. This cross-disciplinary effort has yielded what the Dominica Sperm Whale Project has named “Flukebook”—a robust dataset that informs machine-learning models with acoustic signals, contextual behavioral data, genetic data, and geospatial information—that opens the door to the potential of an interspecies large language model (LLM) useful for communication among sperm whales and humans. Having established that the prospect of communicating with another species is becoming increasingly feasible, we then delve into the philosophical and ethical considerations that accompany such a breakthrough. Drawing upon the perspectives of thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham, Professor Peter Singer, and Professor Martha Nussbaum, we investigate the ethical foundations for considering the legal rights of cetaceans, or other nonhuman animals. This investigation is juxtaposed with historical whaling laws and modern legal frameworks, probing the adequacy of current laws, norms, practices, and attitudes regarding emerging interspecies communication. Finally, we propose a novel legal paradigm that contends with the implications of cetacean communication capabilities. As we inch toward potentially understanding requests, preferences, or even rules or laws of sperm whales, the ethical imperative to reexamine their legal standing becomes undeniable. This Essay examines practical legal issues such as jurisdiction, standing, representation, autonomy, and the feasibility of animal citizenship. In fact, it envisions innovative legal constructs such as a “Magna Carta Cetacea” and a “United Species” extension of the United Nations. In addition, we endeavor to articulate an objective standard by which any being capable of the requisite communication qualifies for legal rights. In this potential legal frontier, the communication of preferences by an animal may necessitate that we seriously consider conferring legal rights to those animals. This groundbreaking dialogue could not only elevate the rights of whales, but also provoke a broader discussion about the principles underlying human legal rights themselves, challenging our current anthropocentric legal systems to evolve. As we decode the “codas” of sperm whales, we are challenged to reenvision the legal and normative matrix of life on Earth and our place within it, guided by potential principles such as mutual respect and legal recognition that transcend species boundaries

Fault Lines: An Empirical Legal Study of California Secession

Over the last decade, multiple initiatives have proposed that California should secede from the United States. This article examines the legal aspects of California secession and integrates that analysis with findings from an empirical study of public perceptions of such secession. There is no provision in the United States Constitution allowing states, or other political or geographical units, to secede unilaterally. The Civil War was fought to uphold this principle, and the United States Supreme Court confirmed it in its 1869 Texas v. White decision. Nevertheless, numerous instances of secession, both legal and extralegal, have occurred across human history, and there is continuing public interest in secession of various U.S. states, in particular California. We conducted an empirical study with 100 U.S. residents, half from California and half from other U.S. states, via Amazon’s crowdsourcing platform. We found that, while most participants (71%) opposed secession, a significant minority (25%) were in favor of it, with the remainder (4%) unsure. In addition, older people, and people who did not live in California, were statistically more inclined toward secession (37% in both cases) than were younger people (13%) and Californians (15%). Participants identified an array of themes relevant to California secession, including California being an “essential, vital component” of the U.S.; California being “indebted” to the U.S.; the U.S. keeping California “in check”; logistical factors such as “currencies,” “infrastructures,” “trade agreements,” and “a new military”; the “growing fascistic tendencies” of the U.S.; and feelings that California should “fend for themselves.” Other personal/idiosyncratic factors emerged as well, including residents’ concern about needing to “speak Spanish,” it becoming harder to “sell on eBay,” and that the “flags would need to be changed.” Still others were concerned about “violent confrontation” and “civil war.” Taken together, the legal and empirical factors paint a picture of the complexity of California secession, and offer insight into this and other instances of potential sociopolitical breakdown. Although unilateral secession would be illegal under U.S. law, we explore a number of peaceful secessions around the world, and abstract principles from them that may be helpful if California secession were ever to become a possibility. The numerous lines of argument provided by participants in this study, many of which find fault with the directions either of California or the rest of the U.S., help identify the stresses that could cause California to shear off and become a separate nation. While California would be the epicenter of this phenomenon, its aftershocks would likely be felt around the world

ChatGPT and Works Scholarly: Best Practices and Legal Pitfalls in Writing with AI

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have raised questions about whether the use of AI is appropriate and legal in various professional contexts. Here, we present a perspective on how scholars may approach writing in conjunction with AI and offer approaches to evaluating whether or not such AI-writing violates copyright or falls within the safe harbor of fair use. We present a set of best practices for standard of care with regard to plagiarism, copyright, and fair use. As AI is likely to grow more capable in the coming years, it is appropriate to begin integrating AI into scholarly writing activities. We offer a framework for establishing sound legal and scholarly foundations

Late-Binding Scholarship in the Age of AI

Scholarly processes play a pivotal role in discovering, challenging, improving, advancing, synthesizing, codifying, and disseminating knowledge. Since the 17th Century, both the quality and quantity of knowledge that scholarship has produced has increased tremendously, granting academic research a pivotal role in ensuring material and social progress. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is poised to enable a new leap in the creation of scholarly content. New forms of engagement with AI systems, such as collaborations with large language models like GPT-3, offer affordances that will change the nature of both the scholarly process and the artifacts it produces

Recall Bias in Client-Reported Outcomes in Canine Orthopaedic Patients Using Clinical Metrology Instruments.

Objective The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of client recollection of their dogs' preconsultation status using clinical metrology instruments such as the Liverpool Osteoarthritis in Dogs (LOAD) and Canine Brief Pain Inventory (CBPI) questionnaires in dogs presenting to a referral orthopaedic clinic.Study design This is a longitudinal prospective cohort study of client-owned dogs presenting for investigations of lameness (n = 217). LOAD and CBPI questionnaires were completed by the owners at the first consultation (T0). Owners were contacted at 2 (T1), 6 (T2), and 12 (T3) months and asked to recall their dogs' T0 status by completing another LOAD and CBPI questionnaire. The agreement between the T0 and recalled LOAD and CBPI scores was determined using the two-way mixed effects intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to determine the difference between scores.Results For the LOAD scores, there was moderate agreement between T0 and T1 (ICC: 0.64) and T0 and T2 (ICC: 0.53) scores and poor agreement between T0 and T3 (ICC: 0.496). For the CBPI Pain Severity Scores, there was poor agreement between T0 and all three subsequent time points (ICC Conclusion The LOAD and CBPI questionnaires are subject to recall bias. Studies reporting retrospectively acquired CMI data should be interpreted with caution

Preclinical single photon emission computed tomography of alpha particle-emitting radium-223

Objective: Dose optimization and pharmacokinetic evaluation of α-particle emitting radium-223 dichloride (223RaCl2) by planar γ-camera or single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging are hampered by the low photon abundance and injected activities. In this study, we demonstrate SPECT of 223Ra using phantoms and small animal in vivo models. Methods: Line phantoms and mice bearing 223Ra were imaged using a dedicated small animal SPECT by detecting the low-energy photon emissions from 223Ra. Localization of the therapeutic agent was verified by whole-body and whole-limb autoradiography and its radiobiological effect confirmed by immunofluorescence. Results: A state-of-the-art commercial small animal SPECT system equipped with a highly sensitive collimator enables collection of sufficient counts for three-dimensional reconstruction at reasonable administered activities and acquisition times. Line sources of 223Ra in both air and in a water scattering phantom gave a line spread function with a full-width-at-half-maximum of 1.45 mm. Early and late-phase imaging of the pharmacokinetics of the radiopharmaceutical were captured. Uptake at sites of active bone remodeling was correlated with DNA damage from the α particle emissions. Conclusions: This work demonstrates the capability to noninvasively define the distribution of 223RaCl2, a recently approved α-particle-emitting radionuclide. This approach allows quantitative assessment of 223Ra distribution and may assist radiation-dose optimization strategies to improve therapeutic response and ultimately to enable personalized treatment planning

Impaired Glucose Tolerance and Insulin Resistance Are Associated With Increased Adipose 11β-Hydroxysteroid Dehydrogenase Type 1 Expression and Elevated Hepatic 5α-Reductase Activity

OBJECTIVE—The precise molecular mechanisms contributing to the development of insulin resistance, impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and type 2 diabetes are largely unknown. Altered endogenous glucocorticoid metabolism, including 11β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 (11β-HSD1), which generates active cortisol from cortisone, and 5α-reductase (5αR), which inactivates cortisol, has been implicated