Jeffrey H. Birnbaum writes on the mushrooming of lobbying in response to the proposed law reforming patents link here. He reports that on one side are the tech companies in the self-described Coalition for Patent Fairness (including Intel, Cisco Systems, Apple, Oracle, Microsoft and the maker of the BlackBerry, as well as Verizon and Time Warner) and on the other are the drug companies. The Coalition supports the provision to "limit damages for patent infringements to the actual component in question and not the entire product" while the drug companies want big damages as under the current system in order to make it too expensive to be sued when the case is weak or they don't have the financial resources.

Birnbaum reports that the Coalition feels it is about to win. He fails to address how this affects the rest of the proposed changes in the law not covered in the story. They are more important overall than this provision but may get lost in the wheeling and dealing or sacrificed in the final draft link here. Too bad. This is a truly awful way to make law that affects the welfare of every American consumer in what they pay for purchases and what is available in the market place, i.e.innovation.

Listed under "no conflict of interest here." Talk about a dedicated lobbyist.

Julian Sanchez has a really interesting discussion of fashion copyrights link here. The Council of Fashion Designers of America "is pushing the Design Piracy Prohibition Act, which would create a special, limited three-year copyright in fashion designs, with penalties of $250,000 or $5 per copy for violations. The bill has been under consideration in the House since last year, and in August it was joined by a Senate version introduced by New York Democrat Chuck Schumer and eight cosponsors."

Sanchez goes on to say that the stakes for the high-end industry seem to have risen, as the time between first showing and the appearance of cheap knock-offs has shortened to the point that they appear in markets simultaneously. Up-scale mass marketers like Kohl and Target are involved. High-end tastes are beginning to spread throughout the market. As a result, competition is intensifying, creating the pressure for copyright.

However, having said that, it is unclear whether the high end retailers and designers are in fact damaged and thus whether there is any justification for these copyrights.

Moreover, the great problem will be to define what it is that is copyrighted and what then is a violation. How can you sue when the offense isn't clear, even though you can find a lawyer who will try.

In other words, when all is said and done, it sounds pretty dumb.

BoingBoing

The Coop, Harvard's Barnes-and-Noble-run bookstore, has begun to throw out students who "take a lot of notes" about book pricing, stating that their prices are "intellectual property." Apparently, no one with a Harvard Law degree is involved in formulating this notion, as factual matters (such as pricing) are not copyrightable.

Coop President Jerry P. Murphy '73 said that while there is no Coop policy against individual students copying down book information, "we discourage people who are taking down a lot of notes." The apparent new policy could be a response to efforts by Crimsonreading.org -- an online database that allows students to find the books they need for each course at discounted prices from several online booksellers -- from writing down the ISBN identification numbers for books at the Coop and then using that information for their Web site. Murphy said the Coop considers that information the Coop's intellectual property.

Nate Anderson reports that Microsoft has patented a new version of digital watermarks for music in a system that is undetectable and survives "the most common file manipulations" to a standard that meets the RIAA test. The watermark basically tells the viewer who originated the download so that DRM is no longer needed to protect copyrighted material, a modest improvement for buyers of music. If he passed it on, he violated the copyright and can be prosecuted link here.

As I read this story, I wondered whether watermarks could be used for other purposes involving restricted material. This suggest that it has great potential for the violation of privacy. For example, does it allow Big Brother to learn what you are watching or doing on the internet, or video or e-mail? That is the gist of David Lazarus' piece in the LATimes recounting how cable and phone companies which are sending out new privacy terms that would allow them to do just about whatever they wanted with their records of whom you write to or what you watch link here.

He reports that you can opt out of this invasion of privacy, but the means varies from company to company and you may have to do it in writing--it is up to the individual to act. Earlier this month, a federal judge shot down a section of the USA Patriot Act that allowed the government warrantless access to telecom companies' databases, but there is nothing in the privacy policy that would limit the company from giving the information to the government if it decided to, as the phone companies did earlier before the Patriot Act.

Lazarus seems to think that the information will be sold to companies to adjust their advertising, change their programing, or for other commercial purposes. He seems to have missed the possibility that the government might be a recipient.

Incidentally, Lazarus reports the data retention policies are generally far longer than the three-year rule followed by Google after a lot of protest.

The link in the previous post disappeared, so click here. [There was a problem with the link. I'm not entirely sure what link Bill wanted, but this seems to do the job. David] I was wrong: here is a link to the Gale Collection which has an announcement about putting the entire past economist online.

After a brief hiatus TIIP (TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Newsletter) is back. Great postings on patent lawsuits; Ken Arrow's views of innovation; Patent peer review; international court forum shopping; and generic drugs.

The Economist was a leading voice in the anti patent movement of the 19th century. Here is what it wrote in 1851, quoted in the Oct. 20th 2005 edition.

A market for ideas Oct 20th 2005 From The Economist print edition

The granting [of] patents ‘inflames cupidity', excites fraud, stimulates men to run after schemes that may enable them to levy a tax on the public, begets disputes and quarrels betwixt inventors, provokes endless lawsuits...The principle of the law from which such consequences flow cannot be just.

The Economist may have put it rather strongly in 1851, but its disapproval of patents represented conventional wisdom at the time. A century earlier, Adam Smith had described them as necessary evils, to be handed out sparingly, and many other economists have since echoed his reservations. Patents amount to temporary monopolies on useful new inventions. …

Now you can read through those great anti patent editorials without even going to an archive or library. The entire run of The Economist is now online and searchable here .

Thanks to Mark Brady for the pointer.

Via Kal Raustiala a nice New Yorker article about innovation and copyright in the fashion industry. And now for the test: is Larry Lessig right? Does only money matter when iit comes to making law? Or do ideas count? If we see Congress push through copyright for fasion, I think we can conclude that Larry has it right.

Scientific journals serve to sell stuff they get for free to libraries at a substantial price. At one time this made sense, since paper copies of journals played an important role in communicating scientific information. Since the advent of the internet, these journals are dinosaurs, much like the music industry. Like the music industry, they are not fading quietly into the good night. Here, via James Dow, is an amusing example:

If you click here, you will find a website offering you a chance to buy a book review. The six page book review can be downloaded in exchange for $42 plus tax. If you click here you can buy the 320 page book: for $17.19. (Or, still for less than the price of the book review, they'll throw in Daron Acemoglu's latest book.)