Bayesian data assimilation in shape registration

In this paper we apply a Bayesian framework to the problem of geodesic curve matching. Given a template curve, the geodesic equations provide a mapping from initial conditions\ud for the conjugate momentum onto topologically equivalent shapes. Here, we aim to recover the well defined posterior distribution on the initial momentum which gives rise to observed points on the target curve; this is achieved by explicitly including a reparameterisation in the formulation. Appropriate priors are chosen for the functions which together determine this field and the positions of the observation points, the initial momentum p0 and the reparameterisation vector field v, informed by regularity results about the forward model. Having done this, we illustrate how Maximum Likelihood Estimators (MLEs) can be used to find regions of high posterior density, but also how we can apply recently developed MCMC methods on function spaces to characterise the whole of the posterior density. These illustrative examples also include scenarios where the posterior distribution is multimodal and irregular, leading us to the conclusion that knowledge of a state of global maximal posterior density does not always give us the whole picture, and full posterior sampling can give better quantification of likely states and the overall uncertainty inherent in the problem

The Structure of Debt and Active Equity Investors: The Case of the Buyout Specialist

This paper examines the role buyout specialists play in structuring the debt used to finance the LBO and in monitoring management in the post-LBO firm. We find that when buyout specialists control the majority of the post-LBO equity, the LBO transaction is likely to be financed with less short-term and/or senior debt and less likely to experience financial distress. We also find that buyout specialists have greater board representation on smaller boards, suggesting that they actively monitor managers, and that for these transactions, using debt with tighter terms does not significantly increase the firm\u27s performance. In contrast, in all other transactions using such debt does significantly increase the firm\u27s performance. These findings suggest that active monitoring by a buyout specialist substitutes for tighter debt terms in monitoring and motivating managers of LBOs

Measuring Securities Market Efficiency in the Regulatory Setting

In Nov 1998, the SEC proposed a modification to the federal securities law disclosure requirements to facilitate the process of issuing new securities. Thomas and Cotter discuss how to determine when companies should be able to issue simplified disclosure documents

Unification: An international aerospace information issue

Science and technology projects are becoming more and more international and interdisciplinary. Other parts of the world, notably Europe, are increasingly powerful players in the aerospace business. This change has led to the development of various aerospace information initiatives in other countries. With scarce resources in all areas of government and industry, the NASA STI Program is reviewing its current acquisition and exchange practices and policies to factor in the changing requirements and new opportunities within the international community. Current NASA goals and activities are reviewed with a view toward developing a scenario for establishing an international aerospace data base, maintaining compatibility among national aerospace information systems, eliminating duplication of effort, and sharing resources through international cooperation wherever possible

Fifty Years of Patent Remedies Case Law: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

Over the past fifty years, courts have developed a body of case law on patent remedies that is, in many respects, solidly grounded in economic reasoning. Among the high points are the courts’ embrace, in various contexts, of the simple principle that patent damages should restore patent owners to the position they would have occupied, but for the infringement—and of an important corollary to that principle, namely the importance to damages calculations of the “noninfringing alternatives” concept. By contrast, certain other developments—including the confusing standards for determining when it is appropriate to use the “entire market value” of a product as the royalty base; the standards for awarding total profits for design patent infringement; and the intricacies of the patent marking statute—cry out for further judicial or legislative reform. Yet other developments, including the standards for granting injunctive relief (and, relatedly, for awarding ongoing royalties in lieu of injunctive relief); for calculating reasonable royalties; and for awarding enhanced damages, have in some respects been positive but could be further improved

A Burkean Perspective on Patent Eligibility, Part II: Reflections on the (Counter)Revolution in Patent Law

In 2007, I published an essay in the Berkeley Technology Law Journal, titled A Burkean Perspective on Patent Eligibility, in which I discussed how the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the United States Patent and Trademark Office had discarded various doctrines relating to patent eligibility - among them, rules that all patentable inventions must pertain to the technological arts, that they may not read on mental steps, and that patentable processes must effect a physical transformation - in favor of an approach that asked only whether an invention had practical utility and was predictable in its effects. Taking a cue from the (admittedly non-patent related) writings of the Anglo-Irish statesmen and political theorist Edmund Burke, I argued that some aspects of the older approach to patentable subject matter may have embodied an underappreciated wisdom, to the extent these older doctrines prevented patent law from intruding upon both laws of nature and human liberty interests, including freedom of speech and personal autonomy. At the same time, I recognized that, as times change, the law too must change, and I contended that it would be inadvisable to exclude computer and business-related art from the scope of patentable subject matter altogether. I nevertheless argued that, properly reformed and refined, the older doctrines could still play a useful role in preventing patent law from unduly extending its reach into every nook and cranny of human endeavor. Three years later, as we await the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski v. Kappos, the legal landscape appears to have changed substantially. From a time just prior to the publication of my Burkean paper and continuing to the present day, the Court has actively scaled back some of the Federal Circuit’s more expansive readings of patent doctrine in cases such as eBay Inc., MedImmune, KSR, Microsoft, and Quanta. Both the Federal Circuit and the Patent Office have applied more restrictive standards for patent eligibility as well, and the Supreme Court may go farther yet. Perhaps the greater risk now is that courts and other policymakers will settle on a formalistic approach that blindly adheres to the form of traditional doctrines while ignoring those doctrines’ underlying rationales. I will argue that a workable standard for patent eligibility should reflect the wisdom embodied in tradition, while being flexible enough to accommodate advances in relatively new useful arts such as information technology and biotechnology. In particular, I will argue that three screens derived from traditional patent doctrine - a “technological arts” screen, a “minimal physicality” screen, and a “noninvasiveness” screen, as I will define them - should suffice to ensure that patent law continues to encourage technological progress, without precluding access to the public domain building blocks from which such progress arises

Misuse

The misuse defense in copyright and patent law is something of an anomaly. Under the approach favored by many courts that have considered the defense, misuse is defined as the broadening of one\u27s copyright or patent with anticompetitive effect. When a defendant in a copyright or patent infringement suit succeeds in proving that the plaintiff has misused its copyright or patent, the court typically enters judgment that the copyright or patent is unenforceable until the misuse is purged. There is no necessary requirement that the copyright or patent defendant itself has been a victim of the misuse (the standing anomaly); and despite the posited relationship of misuse to competition policy, courts continue to affirm that misuse may exist even when the challenged practice does not amount to a violation of the antitrust laws. As such, misuse can become something of a wild card in copyright and patent litigation. Articulating a distinct role for the doctrine, in relation to both antitrust law and to such copyright doctrines as fair use and merger, has not proven easy. In this essay, I argue for a reformed and narrowed version of the misuse defense in both copyright and patent law. Specifically, I argue that licensing provisions that enable copyright or patent owners to extract concessions from licensees that are likely to cause net social harm to interests such as dynamic efficiency and freedom of speech should be deemed unenforceable under a doctrine of transactional misuse. Courts should be reluctant to find such misuse absent clear evidence of such net harm; at the same time, however, there may be rare cases in which such harm is present despite the fact that antitrust law would probably not intervene under similar circumstances. Finally, the standard remedy for transactional misuse should be limited to the unenforceability of the offending license provision, a reform that would tend to eliminate the standing anomaly. For litigation misuse, on the other hand, tentatively defined as the spurious assertion of copyright or patent rights in litigation for the purpose of inducing defendants to avoid accessing public-domain materials not within the scope of the grant, unenforceability of the intellectual property in its entirety may in some instances be an appropriate remedy

Optimal Fines for False Patent Marking

Since January 1, 2010, plaintiffs have filed over three hundred lawsuits under 35 U.S.C. § 292, the false patent marking statute. Fueled in large part by recent Federal Circuit case law embracing an expansive interpretation of the statute, this uptick has alarmed some observers, who fear that patent owners whose products bear the numbers of expired or inapplicable patents could be liable for, literally, billions of dollars in fines. While Congress and the courts consider various responses, one issue that has failed to attract much notice thus far is the question of how to calculate appropriate fines for marking violations. Although the statute permits courts to assess a fine of “not more than $500” for every falsely marked article, it specifies neither a minimum fine nor any methodology for setting the amount of the fine. This Essay proposes that, in setting fines, courts should attempt to approximate the social harm caused by false marking by taking into account (1) the plaintiff’s loss (if any) and the defendant’s gain (if any) attributable to the marking at issue; (2) the plausibility of substantial but less easily quantifiable harms to third parties; and (3) the risks, on the one hand, of underdeterring statutory violations if the penalty is too small and, on the other, of chilling patentees from lawfully marking their products if the risk of liability is too great. In cases in which the social harm from false marking appears minimal, courts should not be reluctant to impose only nominal fines