All you outdoorsy types – Check Out The Sun Mullet, by local inventor Adam Danner. It is a great way to keep your ears and the back of your neck from getting burned! http://ow.ly/foMtQ
In case you missed it, listen to my appearance on My Cool Inventions Radio Show online! http://ow.ly/foEYr
Don’t miss my radio debut TOMORROW at 4:30PM EST on My Cool Inventions Radio http://ow.ly/fm2ZM #patents
I’m working on Step 1 Today. http://ow.ly/f9Ubk
Although Judge Posner says that pharmaceutical companies are the poster children for patent protection, courts in India disagree. Most recently, Indian Intellectual Property Appellate Board revoked a patent covering an expensive, life-saving drug used in treating hepatitis C. Since 2006, Indian courts have dealt major blows to pharmaceutical companies by denying patent applications, invalidating issued patents and requiring at least one company to license its patent to generic drug makers.
In reaching these decisions, the Indian courts seem to be wrestling with the concept of allowing patentees to reap extreme (disproportionate?) financial rewards while depriving those truly in need access to life-saving therapies.
There is no serious dispute that allowing inventors to reap financial rewards from their efforts is sound policy. The “limited monopoly” conferred in a patent not only gives inventors the right to exclude others from making, using, selling and importing their inventions, but also incentives further innovation.
But when balancing the inventors’ “right to exclude” with the notion that human lives have value and should be saved, the Indian scales of justice appear to tip in favor of saving lives.
It was no accident that Judge Posner presided over Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. After volunteering to oversee it, the case was transferred to him from Wisconsin. After holding a Daubert hearing, Posner found that the testimony of Apple and Motorola’s damages experts were inadmissible. Subsequently, both parties moved for summary judgment on each other’s damages and injunction claims. The Court held that neither party provided sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment on damages and injunctive relief and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Posner has been open about his concern over excessive patent protections and his desire for major reforms. He finds patent protections especially excessive within the software industry. In his September 30, 2012 blog he states, “The problem of excessive patent protection is at present best illustrated by the software industry.” This begs the question: Was Posner’s ruling in Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. a shot at reform?
In Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley, the Supreme Court is considering the implications of the “First Sale” doctrine as it applies to importation into the United States of books that were “first sold” outside the U.S. John Wiley’s position is, essentially, that a copyrighted book purchased abroad does not qualify as a valid “first sale” in the United States, and a subsequent disposition of the book in the United States is an infringement of the copyright.
With all of this up in the air, I’m glad I decided not to sell the copy of Fodor’s Guide to Rome I purchased in Italy on eBay…yet.