In today's New York Times' Economic Scene column, Hal R. Varian discusses the lack of intellectual property in the fashion industry, and cites the outstanding work of Kal Raustiala and Chris Sprigman. They have been a two-man intellectual demolition crew on IP in fashion goods. Their work on the piracy paradox is a must read.

He rightly notes that if lawyers called the fashion tune, fashion would become "boring, boring, boring." Not to mention more scarce and expensive.

Unfortunately, he goes off the rails a bit in claiming that the lack of copyright in America for foreign authors hurt the book trade. In fact it promoted the growth of literacy, and the development of the book industry and an American authorial class.

There is an amusing article with a list of "greatest technology flops." Interesting that out of the top three two involve DRM - the Digital Audio Tape: died because of a mandatory copy protection scheme built into every unit, and Circuit City's DIVX - the DVD you couldn't play for more than two days unless you paid them extra money to unlock it. Turning to page two we find e-books - funny but not so many people want to buy e-books that are DRMed for one and only one e-book reader...So it looks like three out of the top fourteen worst business ideas involved DRM. Coincidence? I think not.

A group of Wisconsin researchers have tried to claim that they own broad patents relating to embryonic stem cell research. To grant a monopoly in that key area of research would be catastrophic for scientific and health related advancements. Fortunately, the Patent office has rejected the claim. However, don't give the Patent office too much credit here. This was only done after some public interest groups took the trouble to jump through the bureaucratic hoops and raise a stink about it. (Kudos to the Public Patent Foundation!)

The issue can still be appealed by the Wisconsin group, so be sure to follow this important case closely. The question remains if it will have broader ramifications over the stem cell patent cottage industry.

I seem to recall certain celebrities speaking out against politicians with a restrictive stance on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research (Michael J. Fox, the late Christopher Reeve, etc.). This site is not the proper forum for that particular underlying debate. However, it is notable that like-minded celebrities have never spoken out publicly against overly broad patent restrictions - even though that issue will likely impede progress in scientific medical research more than the position of any politician with regards to the federal funding issue. If these people are truly interested in medical progress (and I presume that they are), they might want to consider speaking up on the issue of patent reform.

Some cynics have accused Fox, Reeve and others of using the stem cell issue as merely a way to score cheap partisan points against Republicans. I never doubted their sincerity on the stem cell issue, but here is a perfect opportunity to prove the cynics wrong. I would respectfully suggest that they start by targeting the current Governor of Wisconsin.

[Michael Perelman previously wrote about another group involved in the Wisconsin patent challenge when it was first filed. Be sure to check it out.]

[Here's an idea for you sci-fi writers out there to explore: What if our current patent system had been in place during the discovery of fire? It would be interesting to try and project the ramifications for today's world.]

I missed this when it first came out. The US Patent and Trademark Office reports it has issued its first patent under an accelerated procedure link here. The Office writes that the first patent under its accelerated examination program that began in August 2006, for a printer ink gauge, was filed with the USPTO on September 29, 2006, and was awarded to Brother International, Ltd. on March 13, 2007. Average review time for applications in the ink cartridge technology area is 25.4 months. This patent issued in 6 months, a time savings of 18 months for the patent holder.

To be eligible for accelerated examination, applicants are required to provide specific information, known as an examiner support document, so the USPTO can issue a final decision by the examiner within 12 months on whether their application for a patent will be granted.

Inventions that are new, useful, non-obvious, and accompanied by a written description disclosing how to make and use it, are presumed to be patentable. To reject an application, the USPTO must show that the invention is obvious or not new ("prior art").

Normally, applicants have to disclose to the USPTO relevant prior art of which they are aware but are not required to search for it. For accelerated examination, they must search for prior art, submit all prior art that is closest to their invention, and explain what the prior art teaches and how their invention is different.

They must state how their invention is useful and show how the written description supports the claimed invention. Only a limited number of claims is allowed in each application and the time for responding to most USPTO communications is shortened.

This and the peer review process (recently described here) presumably will improve the quality of patents issued. However, there is a good bit of skepticism among those of us at Against Monopoly who see the USPTO as overwhelmed and under the strong influence of existing patent holders and big business.

Keep an eye peeled.

[Via Lawrence Solum who is often on the lookout for new legal articles dealing with intellectual property law and philosophy.]

Viva Moffat has written an interesting paper on the problems resulting from overlapping intellectual property protections -

"The interactions between the three federal schemes of intellectual property protection – copyright, patent, and trademark – have often been overlooked. This article addresses some of the issues raised by the overlaps between these areas of law and concludes that the availability of more than one form of protection for certain creative or inventive works creates problems in many circumstances; that those problems have not been considered fully by policymakers or courts; and that overlapping protection interferes with the benefits meant to flow to the public."

It has often been said that the porn industry helps drive technological innovation (i.e., Helping to decide competing formats, etc.). Can it also help drive the legal debate over IP?

Behold the latest copyright/trademark dispute involving a gay porn film that references an Italian classic.

The response letter from the defense attorney is well worth reading.

[Hat-tip: Mathhew Heller from Courthouse news]

For an extra 30 cents you will be able to get songs from EMI on itunes without DRM - for 30 cents less you can get the DRM version. It will be interesting to see how many people buy the DRM version and remove it themselves...The EMI press release is here

The new higher quality DRM-free music will complement EMI's existing range of standard DRM-protected downloads already available. From today, EMI's retailers will be offered downloads of tracks and albums in the DRM-free audio format of their choice in a variety of bit rates up to CD quality. EMI is releasing the premium downloads in response to consumer demand for high fidelity digital music for use on home music systems, mobile phones and digital music players. EMI's new DRM-free products will enable full interoperability of digital music across all devices and platforms.

A good summary of why DRM infested music is an inferior product.

Mike at Techdirt tells us that the Patent Peer Review System (about which we reported earlier) is up and taking applications for patent reviews and for those who wish to qualify as public or outside reviewers, all in the interest of tapping public knowledge about the appropriateness of granting a particular patent in view of prior art or obviousness link here. The Peer Review site is at link here and has a lot of additional information.

The Associated Press reports that there is concern over infringement fears from participating in the reviews link here, but Beth Noveck, the program's director, insists deliberate infringement laws apply to patents, not applications. She is a professor and director of New York Law School's Institute for Information Law & Policy, which is running the project. An initial test starts tomorrow and it is hoped to have the system fully up by June 1. For some early comment, see link here

Steven Jobs explains

Want to know what the media industry would look like without copyright? There is one branch that has never had much access to copyright. For details, look here. For reasons that will become immediately apparent, this highly profitable portion of the industry does not make a living by suing its customers.