2015 National Student Symposium
Our patent system has historically been thought to be an engine of innovation, but it is much criticized today. Is a one-size-fits all model for patent duration appropriate in today's technological environment or does it simply incentivize unnecessary litigation? For instance, the rapid pace of technological change in some areas may obviate the need of lengthy patents in some areas. Should certain innovation—such as business processes be patentable? Should the patent office be reorganized or split up to better assess patents. What other types of incentives, including those provided by copyright or prizes, provide alternatives to patents?
- Ms. Phyllis Turner-Brim, Chief Intellectual Property Counsel, Intellectual Ventures
- Prof. Doug Melamed, Visiting Professor, Stanford Law School
- Prof. Michael Meurer, Boston University School of Law
- Mr. Adam Mortara, Partner, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP
- Moderator: Hon. Danny J. Boggs, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
This program was presented on February 21, 2015, as part of the 2015 Federalist Society National Student Symposium. 2014 National Lawyers Convention
Carly Fiorina delivered this address at the 2014 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 14, 2014. She was introduced by Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups at The Federalist Society.
- Mrs. Carly Fiorina, Fiorina Group
- Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
Mayflower Hotel 2014 National Lawyers Convention
The U.S. Supreme Court has in the past several years begun to take several intellectual property cases each term, often including important copyright cases, like last term’s American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. At the same time, the legislature has already substantially revised patent rights, seems to be ready to revisit patent rights yet again, and is poised to consider revisions to copyright. On the table seem to be issues of the length of copyright term, fair use, and more. Our panel of experts will discuss the past present and future of IP and copyright.
The Federalist Society's Intellectual Property Practice Group presented this panel on "Copyright Revision" on Thursday, November 13, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.
- Ms. Danielle Aguirre, Senior Vice President, Business & Legal Affairs, National Music Publishers’ Association
- Mr. Usman Ahmed, Policy Counsel, eBay Inc.
- Prof. David S. Olson, Associate Professor of Law, Boston College Law School
- Ms. Katherine A. Oyama, Senior Copyright Policy Counsel, Google, Inc.
- Prof. Mark F. Schultz, Senior Scholar and Director of Academic Programs, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, George Mason University School of Law; Law Professor, Southern Illinois University
- Moderator: Hon. Douglas H. Ginsburg, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit; Professor of Law, George Mason University
Mayflower Hotel Intellectual Property Practice Group Podcast
Professor Tom W. Bell, Chapman University, Fowler School of Law, participated in a Teleforum conference call on the topic, "Copyright Originalism." Professor Bell's new book, Intellectual Privilege: Copyright, Common Law, and the Common Good, argues that copyright in the United States has mutated into something the Founders would have hardly recognized, much less approved of. He so admires their version of copyright that he convinced the Mercatus Center to publish Intellectual Privilege under what he calls the "Founders' Copyright," allowing the public to enjoy his book under terms that replicate the effect of the original Copyright Act, passed in 1790. Christopher Newman, Associate Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law, joined to offer his comments and questions.
SCOTUScast 7-29-14 featuring Mark Schultz
- Prof. Tom W. Bell, Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law
- Prof. Christopher Newman, Associate Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law
On June 25, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo. This case involves the question of whether, under sections 101 and 106 of the Copyright Act, a company “publicly performs” a copyrighted television program--a privilege normally reserved to the copyright holder--when it retransmits a broadcast of that program to thousands of paid subscribers over the Internet.
In an opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the Court held by a vote of 6-3 that Aereo is not simply an “equipment supplier” and that it performs petitioners’ works publicly within the meaning of the Transmit Clause. Chief Justice Roberts as well as Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined the opinion of the Court. Justice Scalia authored a dissenting opinion which Justices Thomas and Alito joined. The decision of the Second Circuit was reversed.
To discuss the case, we have Mark Schultz, who is an Associate Professor of Law at the Southern Illinois University School of Law.