THE regulatory turn in IP

Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 109-115

  Lemley, Mark A ^a,b  

^a STANFORD LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

^b Durie Tangri LLP ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876232319     PISSN: 01934872     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. See generally William J. Baumol, The Free-Market Innovation Machine (2002).
2. See Mark A. Lemley, Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding, 83 TEX. L. REV. 1031, 1041 (2005);
3. see also R. H. Coase, The Problem of Social Cost, 3 J. L. & ECON. 7, 8 (1960).
4. See Richard A. Epstein, The Disintegration of Intellectual Property? A Classical Liberal Response to a Premature Obituary, 62 STAN. L. REV. 455, 480-513 (2010).
5. For a survey of the competing libertarian interests in intellectual property, see N. Stephan Kinsella, Against Intellectual Property, J. LIBERTARIAN STUD., Spring 2001, at 1, 8-12.
6. Compare Copyright Act of 1909, Pub. L. No. 60-349, 35 Stat. 1075, available at http://www.copyright.gov/history/1909act.pdf (23 pages in typed, nonproportional font)
7. Copyright Act and related amendments, UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE, COPYRIGHT LAW OF THE UNITED STATES AND RELATED LAWS CONTAINED IN TITLE 17 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE (2011), available at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ circ92.pdf (266 pages).
8. See, e.g., 17 U.S.C. §§ 108, 110-11, 113-15, 118-19, 121-22 (2006).
9. See Peter S. Menell, Forty Years of Wondering in the Wilderness and No Closer to the Promised Land: Bilski's Superficial Textualism and the Missed Opportunity to Return Patent Law to Its Technology Mooring, 63 STAN. L. REV. 1289, 1308-11 (2011) (describing the historical interpretation of the Patent Act and recent departure).
10. See Richard A. Epstein, Patent Deformation: US Congress Sails Into Dangerous Waters, FINANCIAL TIMES, Apr. 26, 2011, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ 27d02b1c- 6f8d-11e0-952c-00144feabdc0.html.
11. See, e.g., Viacom Intern., Inc. v. YouTube, 676 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2012);
12. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC, 667 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2011);
13. Val- Com Sues Megaupload.com for Copyright Infringement, PR NEWSWIRE, (Mar. 23, 2012), http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases-test/valcom-sues- megaupload com-for-copyright-infringement143977406.html?utm-expid=43414375-18.
14. See, e.g., Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007).
15. See, e.g., Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int'l Serv., Assoc., 494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007).
16. See, e.g., In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation, 462 F. Supp. 2d 1060 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (including venture capital firm Hummer Winblad as party).
17. See Ben Sisario, U.S. Charges Popular Site With Piracy, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 20, 2012, at B1.
18. See, e.g., Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-403, § 104, 122 Stat. 4256, 4259 (increasing civil penalties for counterfeiting that violates copyright law).
19. See, e.g., Stop Online Piracy Act, H.R. 3261, 112th Cong. § 102 (2011) (proposing granting courts the authority to block Internet access to sites that facilitate copyright violations upon application from the Department of Justice).
20. David Kravets, Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It's .Seizable, WIRED (Mar. 6, 2012, 6:30 AM), http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/feds-seize-foreign- sites/.
21. See, e.g., Ben Sisario, Hip-Hop Copyright Case Had Little Explanation, N.Y. TIMES, May 7, 2012, at B4;
22. Ryan Singel, Oops! Copyright Cops Return Seized RojaDirect Domain Names - 19 Months Later, WIRED (Aug. 29, 2012, 4:07 PM), http://www.wired.com/ threatlevel/2012/08/domain-names-returned/ (government withdrew its seizure complaint and returned the rojadirecta.com domain name 19 months after it was seized, while a motion to dismiss its complaint was pending).
23. See Larry Popelka, Only Lawyers Win in Patent Wars, BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK, Apr. 24, 2012, http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04- 24/patent-wars-lawyers-are-the-only-winners ("A patent arms race is on. It is likely to hurt-not help-real innovation.").
24. See Mark A. Lemley & Bhaven Sampat, Is the Patent Office a Rubber Stamp?, 58 EMORY L.J. 181, 195 (2008).
25. See John R. Allison et al., Extreme Value or Trolls on Top?: The Characteristics of the Most-Litigated Patents, 158 U. PA. L. REV. 1, 18 (2009).
26. For a discussion of the costs imposed by litigation from non-practicing entities- commonly referred to as "patent trolls"-see James Bessen & Michael J. Meurer, The Direct Costs from NPE Disputes (Bos. Univ. School of Law, Working Paper No. 12-34, 2012), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/ sol3/papers.cfm? abstract-id=2091210.
27. Since I gave this talk, Yahoo and Facebook resolved their litigation. See Michael J. De La Merced, Yahoo and Facebook Settle a Lawsuit Over Patents, N.Y. TIMES, July 7, 2012, at B2.
28. For the initial report, see Barbara Ortutay, Yahoo Sues Facebook over patents, USA TODAY, Mar. 13, 2012, at 1B.
29. See Ashby Jones and Jessica E. Vascellaro, Smartphone Patents: The Never- Ending War, WALL ST. J., Apr. 13, 2012, at B1, available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303624004577339931560320116.html.
30. This is according to my own calculations. See Bryan Gardiner, Patently offensive, THE DAILY (Aug. 19, 2012), http://www.thedaily.com/article/2012/ 08/18/081812-tech-feature-apple-lawsuit-gardiner/ ("Lemley agrees. 'By my count, the companies litigating smartphone patents have spent about $700 million in legal fees and $15 billion buying patents to assert against each other,' he says.").
31. See Colleen V. Chien, Startups and Patent Trolls (Santa Clara Univ. School of Law, Accepted Paper No. 09-12, 2012), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/ papers.cfm?abstract-id=2146251 (finding that most troll suits are brought against small companies, not large ones).
32. See, e.g., JAMES BESSEN & MICHAEL J. MEURER, PATENT FAILURE: HOW JUDGES, BUREAUCRATS, AND LAWYERS PUT INNOVATORS AT RISK 13 (2008) (finding that innovation works well only in the pharmaceutical industry);
33. DAN L. BURK & MARK A. LEMLEY, THE PATENT CRISIS AND HOW THE COURTS CAN SOLVE IT 3-4 (2009).
34. See Joseph A. DiMasi et al., The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs, 22 J. HEALTH ECON. 151, 166 (2003) (estimating the cost of a new drug to be $800 million, unadjusted for inflation).
35. See, e.g., Benjamin N. Roin, Unpatentable Drugs and the Standards of Patentability, 87 TEX. L. REV. 503, 503 (2009);
36. Eric Budish et al., Do fixed patent terms distort innovation? Evidence from cancer clinical trials (Oct. 21, 2012) (working paper) (on file with author).