Data-generating patents

Northwestern University Law Review

Volumn 111, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 377-438

  Simon, Brenda M ^a   Sichelman, Ted ^b  

^a STANFORD LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85014045452     PISSN: 00293571     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (269)

1. Privacy Policy, GOOGLE, http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en//intl/en/policies/privacy/google_privacy_policy_en.pdf [https://perma.cc/U556-BV2C] (last modified Aug. 19, 2015).
2. Karen E. Lee, Note, Cooperative Standard-Setting: The Road to Compatibility or Deadlock? The NAFTA’s Transformation of the Telecommunications Industry, 48 FED. COMM. L.J. 487, 490 (1996)
3. Cole M. Fauver, Comment, Compulsory Patent Licensing in the United States: An Idea Whose Time Has Come, 8 NW. J. INT’L L. & BUS. 666, 676 (1988)
4. Terms of Service, GOOGLE, https://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/terms/user_terms.html [https://perma.cc/9GQN-7AU3]
5. Nathan Newman, Search, Antitrust, and the Economics of the Control of User Data, 31 YALE J. ON REG. 401, 407 (2014)
6. James Grimmelmann, Speech Engines, 98 MINN. L. REV. 868, 942-43 (2014).
7. HERBERT HOVENKAMP, MARK LEMLEY & MARK JANIS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND ANTITRUST: AN ANALYSIS OF ANTITRUST PRINCIPLES APPLIED TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW (2009)
8. Daniel F. Spulber & Christopher S. Yoo, Access to Networks: Economic and Constitutional Connections, 88 CORNELL L. REV. 885 (2003).
9. HOVENKAMP, LEMLEY & JANIS, supra note 14
10. Spulber & Yoo, supra note 14
11. William F. Baxter, Legal Restrictions on Exploitation of the Patent Monopoly: An Economic Analysis, 76 YALE L.J. 267, 312 (1966)
12. Maureen A. O’Rourke, Toward a Doctrine of Fair Use in Patent Law, 100 COLUM. L. REV. 1177, 1215-16 (2000).
13. Maureen A. O’Rourke, Toward a Doctrine of Fair Use in Patent Law, 100 COLUM. L. REV. 1177, 1215-16 (2000)
14. Oren Bracha & Frank Pasquale, Federal Search Commission? Access, Fairness, and Accountability in the Law of Search, 93 CORNELL L. REV. 1149, 1179-86 (2008).
15. J. Gregory Sidak, A Consumer-Welfare Approach to Network Neutrality Regulation of the Internet, 2 J. COMPETITION L. & ECON. 349, 454 (2006)
16. Oliver E. Williamson, The Economics of Antitrust: Transaction Cost Considerations, 122 U. PA. L. REV. 1439, 1492 (1974)
17. Pamela Samuelson, The Quest for a Sound Conception of Copyright’s Derivative Work Right, 101 GEO. L.J. 1505, 1527-29 (2013)
18. Dmitry Karshtedt, The Completeness Requirement in Patent Law, 56 B.C. L. REV. 949, 995-96, 1004-07 (2015)
19. Peter S. Menell, Intellectual Property and the Property Rights Movement, REG., Fall 2007
20. Ted Sichelman & Stuart J.H. Graham, Patenting by Entrepreneurs: An Empirical Study, 17 MICH. TELECOMM. & TECH. L. REV. 111, 136 (2010)
21. Gideon Parchomovsky & Peter Siegelman, Towards an Integrated Theory of Intellectual Property, 88 VA. L. REV. 1455, 1494 (2002).
22. Andrew Beckerman-Rodau, The Choice Between Patent Protection and Trade Secret Protection: A Legal and Business Decision, 84 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC’Y 371, 395-96 (2002)
23. Roy E. Hofer & L. Ann Fitzgerald, New Rules for Old Problems: Defining the Contours of the Best Mode Requirement in Patent Law, 44 AM. U. L. REV. 2309, 2337 (1995).
24. Dan L. Burk, Patents as Data Aggregators in Personalized Medicine, 21 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. 233, 233-49 (2015)
25. J. Jonas Anderson, Secret Inventions, 26 BERKELEY TECH L.J. 917, 923-24 (2011)
26. Mark A. Lemley, The Surprising Virtues of Treating Trade Secrets as IP Rights, 61 STAN. L. REV. 311, 314 (2008)
27. Andrew A. Schwartz, The Corporate Preference for Trade Secret, 74 OHIO ST. L.J. 623, 624 (2013).
28. Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, Do Patents Disclose Useful Information?, 25 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 545, 546 (2012).
29. Peter S. Menell, Intellectual Property: General Theories, in 2 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LAW AND ECONOMICS 129, 130-33
30. Oren Bar-Gill & Gideon Parchomovsky, Law and the Boundaries of Technology-Intensive Firms, 157 U. PA. L. REV. 1649, 1685 (2009).
31. ROGER M. MILGRIM & ERIC E. BENSEN, MILGRIM ON TRADE SECRETS § 1.01 (Matthew Bender & Co. ed. 2015).
32. DONALD S. CHISUM, CHISUM ON PATENTS §§ 3.01, 5.01 (Matthew Bender & Co. 2013).
33. JAY DRATLER, Jr., INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW: COMMERCIAL, CREATIVE, AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY § 4.03
34. Jason Mazzone & Matthew Moore, The Secret Life of Patents, 48 WASHBURN L.J. 33, 41-42 (2008).
35. Katherine J. Strandburg, What Does the Public Get? Experimental Use and the Patent Bargain, 2004 WIS. L. REV. 81, 103-04
36. Sichelman & Graham, supra note 29, at 136.
37. Mark A. Lemley, Does “Public Use” Mean the Same Thing It Did Last Year?, 93 TEX. L. REV. 1119, 1122-24 (2015)
38. Dmitry Karshtedt, The Riddle of Secret Public Use: A Response to Professor Lemley, 93 TEX. L. REV. SEE ALSO 159, 161 (2015)
39. David D. Friedman, William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, Some Economics of Trade Secret Law, 5 J. ECON. PERSP. 61, 62-63 (1991)
40. David D. Friedman, William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, Patent Preemption of Trade Secret Protection of Inventions Meeting Judicial Standards of Patentability, 87 HARV. L. REV. 807, 821 (1974).
41. Beckerman-Rodau, supra note 33
42. Kimberly A. Moore, Worthless Patents, 20 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1521, 1545 (2005)
43. Schwartz, supra note 41
44. ANDREW RUDGE, GUIDE TO EUROPEAN PATENTS § 8:4 (2008)
45. Robert P. Merges, Rent Control in the Patent District: Observations on the Grady Alexander Thesis, 78 VA. L. REV. 359, (1992)
46. Daniel C. Munson, The Patent-Trade Secret Decision: An Industrial Perspective, 78 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC’Y 689, 696-98 (1996)
47. W. Nicholson Price 2nd, Regulating Secrecy, 91 WASH. L. REV. (forthcoming 2017)
48. Sichelman & Graham, supra note 29, at 136.
49. Edmund W. Kitch, The Nature and Function of the Patent System, 20 J.L. & ECON. 265, 268 (1977).
50. JAMES BESSEN & MICHAEL J. MEURER, PATENT FAILURE: HOW JUDGES, BUREAUCRATS, AND LAWYERS PUT INNOVATORS AT RISK 66-68 (2008)
51. Mark A. Lemley, Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office, 95 NW. U. L. REV. 1495, 1499-1500 (2001)
52. Jeffrey A. Lefstin, The Formal Structure of Patent Law and the Limits of Enablement, 23 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1141, 1169 (2008).
53. Dan L. Burk & Mark A. Lemley, Is Patent Law Technology-Specific?, 17 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1155, 1168 (2002)
54. Robert P. Merges & Richard R. Nelson, On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope, 90 COLUM. L. REV. 839, 845-46 (1990).
55. Sean B. Seymore, The Teaching Function of Patents, 85 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 621, 637 (2010)
56. C. Leon Kim, Transition from Central to Peripheral Definition Patent Claim Interpretation System in Korea, 77 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC’Y 401, 404 (1995).
57. Donald S. Chisum, Best Mode Concealment and Inequitable Conduct in Patent Procurement: A Nutshell, a Review of Recent Federal Circuit Cases and a Plea for Modest Reform, 13 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 277, 278 (1997)
58. LESTER HORWITZ & ETHAN HORWITZ, PATENT OFFICE RULES AND PRACTICE § 71[H] (Matthew Bender & Co. 2015)
59. Brian J. Love & Christopher B. Seaman, Best Mode Trade Secrets, 15 YALE J.L. & TECH. 1, 3 (2012)
60. Marc A. McClain, Who Are the New “Best Mode” Police? An Analysis of Proposed New Methods of Enforcement of the Best Mode Requirement After the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 46 U. TOL. L. REV. 191, 219 (2014).
61. Stuart J.H. Graham & Ted Sichelman, Why Do Start-Ups Patent?, 23 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1063, 1086-88 (2008)
62. Gregory J. Maier, Software Protection—Integrating Patent, Copyright and Trade Secret Law, 69 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC’Y 151, 163-65 (1987)
63. Douglas Lichtman, How the Law Responds to Self-Help, 1 J.L. ECON. & POL’Y 215, 230 (2005)
64. Michael J. Meurer & Craig Allen Nard, Invention, Refinement and Patent Claim Scope: A New Perspective on the Doctrine of Equivalents, 93 GEO. L.J. 1947, 1974 (2005)
65. Elisabetta Ottoz & Franco Cugno, Choosing the Scope of Trade Secret Law When Secrets Complement Patents, 31 INT’L REV. L. & ECON. 219 (2011)
66. Robert P. Merges, Commercial Success and Patent Standards: Economic Perspectives on Innovation, 76 CALIF. L. REV. 803, 807 (1988)
67. Dennis Crouch, The Trade Secret Value of Early Patent Filing, PATENTLY-O (Oct. 23, 2008), http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/10/the-trade-secre.html [https://perma.cc/HF7D-49JF]
68. Steven B. Walmsley, Best Mode: A Plea to Repair or Sacrifice This Broken Requirement of United States Patent Law, 9 MICH. TELECOMM. & TECH. L. REV. 125, 134 (2002).
69. Ted Sichelman, Commercializing Patents, 62 STAN. L. REV. 341, 355 (2010)
70. Christopher A. Cotropia, The Folly of Early Filing in Patent Law, 61 HASTINGS L.J. 65, 128 (2009).
71. Ted Sichelman et al., Retracing the Origins of the Patent System
72. Thomas M. Jorde & David J. Teece, Rule of Reason Analysis of Horizontal Arrangements: Agreements Designed to Advance Innovation and Commercialize Technology, 61 ANTITRUST L.J. 579, 614 (1993)
73. Michael Mattioli, Disclosing Big Data, 99 MINN. L. REV. 535, 536 (2014)
74. W. Nicholson Price 2nd, Black-Box Medicine, 28 HARV. J. LAW & TECH. 419, 436 (2015)
75. Nicolas P. Terry, Big Data Proxies and Health Privacy Exceptionalism, 24 HEALTH MATRIX 65, 77 (2014)
76. ANN BLAIR, TOO MUCH TO KNOW: MANAGING SCHOLARLY INFORMATION BEFORE THE MODERN AGE 16 (2010)
77. WILLIAM S. PIERCE, FURNISHING THE LIBRARY INTERIOR 68 (1980).
78. Cynthia L. Barrett, Book Review, 2 NAT’L ACAD. OF ELDER LAW ATTORNEYS J. 7 (2006)
79. JOSEPH B. MILLER, INTERNET TECHNOLOGIES AND INFORMATION SERVICES 372 (2d ed. 2014).
80. RICHARD SAUNDERS, POOR RICHARD, 1733: AN ALMANACK (Benjamin Franklin prtg. 1732)
81. VIKTOR MAYER-SCHÖNBERGER & KENNETH CUKIER, BIG DATA: A REVOLUTION THAT WILL TRANSFORM HOW WE LIVE, WORK, AND THINK 84 (2013)
82. Stephen F. DeAngelis, Artificial Intelligence: How Algorithms Make Systems Smart, WIRED (Sept. 5, 2014), http://www.wired.com/insights/2014/09/artificial-intelligence-algorithms-2/ [https://perma.cc/CUG7-KVWV].
83. Benjamin Klein, Market Power in Antitrust: Economic Analysis After Kodak, 3 SUP. CT. ECON. REV. 43, 44 (1993)
84. Thomas G. Krattenmaker & Steven C. Salop, Anticompetitive Exclusion: Raising Rivals’ Costs to Achieve Power over Price, 96 YALE L.J. 209, 212-13 (1986)
85. Stephen Yelderman, Do Patent Challenges Increase Competition?, 83 U. CHI. L. REV. (forthcoming 2017)
86. Alan J. Daskin & Lawrence Wu, Observations on the Multiple Dimensions of Market Power, ANTITRUST, Summer 2005
87. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 62 HASTINGS L.J. 185, 187 (2010).
88. Christopher Heaney et al., The Perils of Taking Property Too Far, 1 STAN. J.L. SCI. & POL’Y 46 (2009)
89. Christopher M. Holman, The Impact of Human Gene Patents on Innovation and Access: A Survey of Human Gene Patent Litigation, 76 UMKC L. REV. 295, 299 (2007)
90. Brenda M. Simon, Patent Cover-Up, 47 HOUS. L. REV. 1299, 1308 (2011).
91. CTR. FOR GENETICS EDUC., UNDERSTANDING GENETIC TESTS FOR BREAST AND OVARIAN CANCER THAT RUNS IN THE FAMILY: INFORMATION AND DECISION AID 20 (2014), http://www.genetics.edu.au/Publications-and-Resources/PublicationsBrochuresandPamphlets/Understanding%20genetic%20tests%20for%20Breast%20and%20Ovarian%20Cancer%20that%20runs%20in%20the%20family-Information%20and%20Decision%20Aid.pdf [https://perma.cc/V26N-M7JS]
92. CTR. FOR GENETICS EDUC., UNDERSTANDING GENETIC TESTS FOR BREAST AND OVARIAN CANCER THAT RUNS IN THE FAMILY: INFORMATION AND DECISION AID 20 (2014), http://www.genetics.edu.au/Publications-and-Resources/PublicationsBrochuresandPamphlets/Understanding%20genetic%20tests%20for%20Breast%20and%20Ovarian%20Cancer%20that%20runs%20in%20the%20family-Information%20and%20Decision%20Aid.pdf [https://perma.cc/V26N-M7JS]
93. CTR. FOR GENETICS EDUC., UNDERSTANDING GENETIC TESTS FOR BREAST AND OVARIAN CANCER THAT RUNS IN THE FAMILY: INFORMATION AND DECISION AID 20 (2014), http://www.genetics.edu.au/Publications-and-Resources/PublicationsBrochuresandPamphlets/Understanding%20genetic%20tests%20for%20Breast%20and%20Ovarian%20Cancer%20that%20runs%20in%20the%20family-Information%20and%20Decision%20Aid.pdf [https://perma.cc/V26N-M7JS]
94. CTR. FOR GENETICS EDUC., UNDERSTANDING GENETIC TESTS FOR BREAST AND OVARIAN CANCER THAT RUNS IN THE FAMILY: INFORMATION AND DECISION AID 20 (2014), http://www.genetics.edu.au/Publications-and-Resources/PublicationsBrochuresandPamphlets/Understanding%20genetic%20tests%20for%20Breast%20and%20Ovarian%20Cancer%20that%20runs%20in%20the%20family-Information%20and%20Decision%20Aid.pdf [https://perma.cc/V26N-M7JS]
95. CTR. FOR GENETICS EDUC., UNDERSTANDING GENETIC TESTS FOR BREAST AND OVARIAN CANCER THAT RUNS IN THE FAMILY: INFORMATION AND DECISION AID 20 (2014), http://www.genetics.edu.au/Publications-and-Resources/PublicationsBrochuresandPamphlets/Understanding%20genetic%20tests%20for%20Breast%20and%20Ovarian%20Cancer%20that%20runs%20in%20the%20family-Information%20and%20Decision%20Aid.pdf [https://perma.cc/V26N-M7JS]
96. CTR. FOR GENETICS EDUC., UNDERSTANDING GENETIC TESTS FOR BREAST AND OVARIAN CANCER THAT RUNS IN THE FAMILY: INFORMATION AND DECISION AID 20 (2014), http://www.genetics.edu.au/Publications-and-Resources/PublicationsBrochuresandPamphlets/Understanding%20genetic%20tests%20for%20Breast%20and%20Ovarian%20Cancer%20that%20runs%20in%20the%20family-Information%20and%20Decision%20Aid.pdf [https://perma.cc/V26N-M7JS]
97. CTR. FOR GENETICS EDUC., UNDERSTANDING GENETIC TESTS FOR BREAST AND OVARIAN CANCER THAT RUNS IN THE FAMILY: INFORMATION AND DECISION AID 20 (2014), http://www.genetics.edu.au/Publications-and-Resources/PublicationsBrochuresandPamphlets/Understanding%20genetic%20tests%20for%20Breast%20and%20Ovarian%20Cancer%20that%20runs%20in%20the%20family-Information%20and%20Decision%20Aid.pdf [https://perma.cc/V26N-M7JS]
98. CTR. FOR GENETICS EDUC., UNDERSTANDING GENETIC TESTS FOR BREAST AND OVARIAN CANCER THAT RUNS IN THE FAMILY: INFORMATION AND DECISION AID 20 (2014), http://www.genetics.edu.au/Publications-and-Resources/PublicationsBrochuresandPamphlets/Understanding%20genetic%20tests%20for%20Breast%20and%20Ovarian%20Cancer%20that%20runs%20in%20the%20family-Information%20and%20Decision%20Aid.pdf [https://perma.cc/V26N-M7JS]
99. Angela M. Oliver, Personalized Medicine in the Information Age: Myriad’s De Facto Monopoly on Breast Cancer Research, 68 SMU L. REV. 537, 551-52 (2015)
100. Jay P. Kesan, Economic Rationales for the Patent System in Current Context, 22 GEO. MASON L. REV. 897, 918-19 (2015)
101. F. Scott Kieff & Troy A. Paredes, Engineering a Deal: Toward a Private Ordering Solution to the Anticommons Problem, 48 B.C. L. REV. 111, 114 n.15 (2007).
102. George Slefo, Microsoft and Yahoo Search Share Grows but Still Trails Google by Miles, ADVERTISINGAGE (Dec. 23, 2015), http://adage.com/article/digital/microsoft-yahoo-search-market-share-grows-google-s-dips/301934/ [https://perma.cc/S7B7-2HU6]
103. Parker Thomas, Google’s Search Engine Market Share Fell to 64%, YAHOO! FIN. (Dec. 29, 2015), http://finance.yahoo.com/news/google-search-engine-market-share-170640710.html [https://perma.cc/YZG2-6BXB].
104. Geoffrey A. Manne & Joshua D. Wright, If Search Neutrality Is the Answer, What’s the Question?, 2012 COLUM. BUS. L. REV. 151, 237
105. Manne & Wright, supra note 117, at 237.
106. Burk, supra note 37, at 245 n.63
107. Mike Masnick, Google Doesn’t Rely on Intellectual Property for Its Leadership Position, TECHDIRT (Nov. 12, 2009, 10:11 AM), https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091110/0843176877.shtml [https://perma.cc/7RSD-LJN5].
108. Michael L. Katz & Carl Shapiro, Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility, 75 AM. ECON. REV. 424, 424-26 (1985)
109. S.J. Liebowitz & Stephen E. Margolis, Network Externality: An Uncommon Tragedy, 8 J. ECON. PERSP. 133 (1994).
110. JOHN MACCORMICK, NINE ALGORITHMS THAT CHANGED THE FUTURE: THE INGENIOUS IDEAS THAT DRIVE TODAY’S COMPUTERS 24-25 (2012)
111. Sergey Brin & Lawrence Page, The Anatomy of a LargeScale Hypertextual Web Search Engine, 30 COMPUTER NETWORKS & ISDN SYS. 107 (1998)
112. CORONA BREZINA, SERGEY BRIN, LARRY PAGE, ERIC SCHMIDT, AND GOOGLE 30 (2012).
113. David Pridham & Brad Sheafe, Using IP to Benefit Startups and Large Companies Alike, CORP. COUNSEL (Aug. 25, 2015), http://www.corpcounsel.com/id=1202735624108/Using-IP-to-Benefit-Startups-and-Large-Companies-Alike-?slreturn=20151012124727 [https://perma.cc/TNQ5-4AMA]
114. Florian Mueller, The 4 Big Problems with Google’s Anti-Patent Stance, BUS. INSIDER AUSTL. (July 16, 2011), http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-4-big-problems-with-googles-anti-patent-stance-2011-7 [https://perma.cc/Q8K7-LXV3]
115. David Pridham, “Troll” Reform Would Kill Startups, PROVIDENCE J. (May 27, 2015, 2:01 AM), http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20150527/OPINION/150529433 [https://perma.cc/93B3-HF2S]
116. David Pridham, How to Kill the Next Generation of Startups, SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS (May 19, 2015, 4:36 AM), http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_28146187/david-pridham-how-kill-next-generation-startups [https://perma.cc/TE4S-AAQL].
117. Greta Lorge, Closing in on Cancer, STAN. MAG., Jan./Feb. 2016, https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=83001 [https://perma.cc/JU4ZRWKR]
118. Colleen V. Chien, Reforming Software Patents, 50 HOUS. L. REV. 325, 351 (2012)
119. Pamela Samuelson et al., A Manifesto Concerning the Legal Protection of Computer Programs, 94 COLUM. L. REV. 2308, 2318 n.24 (1994)
120. AMY N. LANGVILLE & CARL D. MEYER, GOOGLE’S PAGERANK AND BEYOND: THE SCIENCE OF SEARCH ENGINE RANKINGS (2011).
121. Stuart J.H. Graham et al., High Technology Entrepreneurs and the Patent System: Results of the 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey, 24 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1255, 1317 (2009)
122. Jim Hu, Yahoo Dumps Google Search Technology, CNET (Feb. 18, 2004, 9:56 AM), http://www.cnet.com/news/yahoo-dumps-google-search-technology/ [https://perma.cc/KW5F-7PQ3]
123. Jim Hu, Yahoo Sheds Inktomi for New Search Technology, CNET (Jan. 2, 2002, 4:43 PM), http://www.cnet.com/news/yahoo-sheds-inktomi-for-new-search-technology/ [https://perma.cc/P2KS-55R6]
124. Press Release, Google News, Yahoo! Selects Google as its Default Search Engine Provider (June 26, 2000), http://googlepress.blogspot.com/2000/06/yahoo-selects-google-as-its-default.html [https://perma.cc/49Y6-7KVF]
125. WALTER ISAACSON, THE INNOVATORS: HOW A GROUP OF HACKERS, GENIUSES, AND GEEKS CREATED THE DIGITAL REVOLUTION 462 (2014). 131
126. Vindu Goel, In Tests, Yahoo Uses Google to Power Search Results and Ads, N.Y. TIMES (July 1, 2015, 9:13 PM), http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/01/in-tests-yahoo-uses-google-to-power-search-results-and-ads/?_r=0 [https://perma.cc/UQB4-WBPW].
127. Daniel Eran Dilger, Google’s Current Stance on Patents with Android Would Have Prevented Google from Ever Having Existed, APPLEINSIDER (May 25, 2014, 8:39 PM), http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/05/25/googles-current-stance-on-patents-with-android-would-have-prevented-google-from-ever-having-existed [https://perma.cc/9P7X-ECSS]
128. John F. Duffy, The Death of Google’s Patents?, PATENTLY-O PAT. L.J. 2, 3-7 (July 21, 2008), http://patentlyo.com/media/docs/2008/07/googlepatents101.pdf [https://perma.cc/485Q-8VKU]
129. Manish Agarwal & David K. Round, The Emergence of Global Search Engines: Trends in History and Competition, 7 COMPETITION POL’Y INT’L 115, 126-27 (2011)
130. Kristine Laudadio Devine, Preserving Competition in Multi-Sided Innovative Markets: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Google?, 10 N.C. J.L. & TECH. 59, 75 (2008)
131. Greg Lastowka, Google’s Law, 73 BROOK. L. REV. 1327, 1337 (2008).
132. Roger B. Andewelt, Analysis of Patent Pools Under the Antitrust Laws, 53 ANTITRUST L.J. 611, 617-19 (1984)
133. U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE & FED. TRADE COMM’N, ANTITRUST GUIDELINES FOR THE LICENSING OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 30 (1995)
134. Dominic Rushe, Google: Don’t Expect Privacy When Sending to Gmail, GUARDIAN (Aug. 15, 2013, 3:00 AM), http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/14/google-gmail-users-privacy-email-lawsuit [https://perma.cc/YN7K-QNXS]
135. Grimmelmann, supra note 13, at 942-43
136. Natasha Singer, Never Forgetting a Face, N.Y. TIMES (May 17, 2014) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/technology/never-forgetting-a-face.html?_r=0 [https://perma.cc/P2RJ-YXAX]
137. Natasha Singer, Never Forgetting a Face, N.Y. TIMES (May 17, 2014) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/technology/never-forgetting-a-face.html?_r=0 [https://perma.cc/P2RJ-YXAX].
138. Natasha Singer, Never Forgetting a Face, N.Y. TIMES (May 17, 2014) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/technology/never-forgetting-a-face.html?_r=0 [https://perma.cc/P2RJ-YXAX]
139. Joshua A.T. Fairfield, Mixed Reality: How the Laws of Virtual Worlds Govern Everyday Life, 27 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 55, 81 (2012)
140. Jerry Kang & Dana Cuff, Pervasive Computing: Embedding the Public Sphere, 62 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 93, 101, 124 (2005).
141. Heidi Ledford, Bitter Fight over CRISPR Patent Heats Up, NATURE (Jan. 12, 2016), http://www.nature.com/news/bitter-fight-over-crispr-patent-heats-up-1.17961 [https://perma.cc/F3L9-2L7L]
142. Kelly Severick, Amid Patent Lawsuit, Genetic Sequencing Upstart Unveils New Technology, SCIENCE (Mar. 8, 2016, 4:15 PM), http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/amid-patent-lawsuit-genetic-sequencing-upstart-unveils-new-technology [https://perma.cc/TL6B-TAFT]
143. Scott R. Peppet, Regulating the Internet of Things: First Steps Toward Managing Discrimination, Privacy, Security, and Consent, 93 TEX. L. REV. 85, 88 (2014)
144. Scott R. Peppet, Regulating the Internet of Things: First Steps Toward Managing Discrimination, Privacy, Security, and Consent, 93 TEX. L. REV. 85, 88 (2014)
145. Andrew Morse, Novartis and Google to Work on Smart Contact Lenses, WALL ST. J., (July 15, 2014, 11:51 AM), http://www.wsj.com/articles/novatis-google-to-work-on-smart-contact-lenses-1405417127 [https://perma.cc/4VBD-LRTG].
146. Steven I. Friedland, Cell Phone Searches in a Digital World: Incorporating Function as well as Form in Fourth Amendment Analysis, 19 TEX. J. C.L. & C.R. 217, 225 (2014)
147. Scott R. Peppet, supra note 151
148. ADT Security - Privacy Policy, ADT, http://www.adt.com/about-adt/legal/privacy-policy [https://perma.cc/5C94-ARGQ]
149. Privacy Policy, APPLE, http://www.apple.com/privacy/privacy-policy/ [https://perma.cc/TSG9-RVQ6]
150. Claire Cain Miller, Tech Companies, Bristling, Concede to Federal Surveillance Program, N.Y. TIMES (June 7, 2013), http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-bristling-concede-to-government-surveillance-efforts.html?_r=0 [https://perma.cc/6SBD-4FJH]
151. Michael Lewis, Boom Box, N.Y. TIMES MAG., Aug. 13, 2000, at 36
152. A. Michael Froomkin, Flood Control on the Information Ocean: Living with Anonymity, Digital Cash, and Distributed Databases, 15 J.L. & COM. 395, 480-81 (1996)
153. Matthew Fisher, Will Your Vote Count?: Can the Current Software Withstand and Guarantee the Constitutional Right to Vote?, 8 J. HIGH TECH. L. 91, 96 (2008)
154. Scientific Instruments, PHRONTISTERY, http://phrontistery.info/instrum.html [https://perma.cc/VGR8-97B3]
155. Neil M. Richards, The Dangers of Surveillance, 126 HARV. L. REV. 1934, 1939 (2013)
156. Brenda M. Simon, The Implications of Technological Advancement for Obviousness, 19 MICH. TELECOMM. & TECH. L. REV. 331 (2013)
157. Utilities and Big Data: Accelerating the Drive to Value, ORACLE 17 (July 23, 2013), http://www.oracle.com/us/dm/oracle-utilities-2013-1979214.pdf [https://perma.cc/8UUR-BE82]
158. Utilities and Big Data: Accelerating the Drive to Value, ORACLE 17 (July 23, 2013), http://www.oracle.com/us/dm/oracle-utilities-2013-1979214.pdf [https://perma.cc/8UUR-BE82]
159. Roger D. Blair & Thomas F. Cotter, Strict Liability and Its Alternatives in Patent Law, 17 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 799, 800 (2002)
160. Julie E. Cohen & Mark A. Lemley, Patent Scope and Innovation in the Software Industry, 89 CALIF. L. REV. 1, 24 n.86 (2001)
161. Julie E. Cohen & Mark A. Lemley, Patent Scope and Innovation in the Software Industry, 89 CALIF. L. REV. 1, 24 n.86 (2001)
162. W. Nicholson Price 2nd & Arti K. Rai, Manufacturing Barriers to Biologics Competition and Innovation, 101 IOWA L. REV. 1023, 1028 (2016)
163. Jeanne C. Fromer, Patent Disclosure, 94 IOWA L. REV. 539, 572-73 (2009).
164. Jeanne C. Fromer, Patent Disclosure, 94 IOWA L. REV. 539, 572-73 (2009)
165. Jeanne C. Fromer, Patent Disclosure, 94 IOWA L. REV. 539, 572-73 (2009)
166. Jon Chally, Note, The Law of Trade Secrets: Toward a More Efficient Approach, 57 VAND. L. REV. 1269, 1285 (2004).
167. UNIF. TRADE SECRETS ACT § 1 cmt. (UNIF. LAW COMM’N 1985)
168. Friedman, Landes & Posner, supra note 56, at 70.
169. Friedman, Landes & Posner, supra note 56, at 70
170. Beckerman-Rodau, supra note 33, at 383, 394
171. Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, Trade Secrets: How Should We Be Allowed to Hide Them? The Economic Espionage Act of 1996, 9 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 1, 16 (1998)
172. Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, Trade Secrets: How Should We Be Allowed to Hide Them? The Economic Espionage Act of 1996, 9 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 1, 16 (1998)
173. Jeff Rabkin & Jessica Jardine Wilkes, Wearable Technology, Big Data and the Legal Frontier, LAW.COM (Dec. 14, 2015), http://www.law.com/sites/lawcomcontrib/2015/12/14/wearable-technology-big-data-and-the-legal-frontier/ [https://perma.cc/D5KG-PRD3]
174. FOOD & DRUG ADMIN., U.S. DEP’T OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVS. ET AL., MEDICAL DEVICE DATA SYSTEMS, MEDICAL IMAGE STORAGE DEVICES, AND MEDICAL IMAGE COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES 5-8 (Feb. 9, 2015), http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM401996.pdf?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery [https://perma.cc/9XWF-FXFD].
175. FOOD & DRUG ADMIN., U.S. DEP’T OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVS. ET AL., MEDICAL DEVICE DATA SYSTEMS, MEDICAL IMAGE STORAGE DEVICES, AND MEDICAL IMAGE COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES 5-8 (Feb. 9, 2015), http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM401996.pdf?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery [https://perma.cc/9XWF-FXFD]
176. MIKLOS SAVARY, GURUS AND ORACLES: THE MARKETING OF INFORMATION 8 (2012)
177. Paul Klemperer, Entry Deterrence in Markets with Consumer Switching Costs, 97 ECON. J. 99 (1987).
178. Aaron S. Edlin & Robert G. Harris, The Role of Switching Costs in Antitrust Analysis: A Comparison of Microsoft and Google, 15 YALE J. L. & TECH. 169, 195 (2013)
179. ERIC ENGE et al., THE ART OF SEO 625 (2012)
180. Mark A. Lemley, Michael Risch, Ted Sichelman & R. Polk Wagner, Life After Bilski, 63 STAN. L. REV. 1315 (2011)
181. Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Diagnostics Need Not Apply, 21 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 256, 256 (2015)
182. Rachel E. Sachs, Innovation Law and Policy: Preserving the Future of Personalized Medicine, 49 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 1881, 1908 (2016)
183. J. Jonas Anderson, Applying Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Restrictions, 17 VAND. J. ENT. & TECH. L. 267, 269 (2015)
184. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
185. Sharon K. Sandeen, Be Careful What You Wish For: Trade Secrets and the America Invents Act 1 (Sept. 20, 2013) (unpublished manuscript), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2327263 [http://perma.cc/93R6-97SG]
186. Sharon K. Sandeen, Be Careful What You Wish For: Trade Secrets and the America Invents Act 1 (Sept. 20, 2013) (unpublished manuscript), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2327263 [http://perma.cc/93R6-97SG]
187. Sharon K. Sandeen, Be Careful What You Wish For: Trade Secrets and the America Invents Act 1 (Sept. 20, 2013) (unpublished manuscript), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2327263 [http://perma.cc/93R6-97SG]
188. Sharon K. Sandeen, Be Careful What You Wish For: Trade Secrets and the America Invents Act 1 (Sept. 20, 2013) (unpublished manuscript), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2327263 [http://perma.cc/93R6-97SG]
189. Todd Hixon, Down-to-Earth Value from Big Data, FORBES (Oct. 17, 2013, 6:51 AM), http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddhixon/2013/10/17/down-to-earth-value-from-big-data/#40f981ae1077 [http://perma.cc/AXT7-35ZH].
190. Amy Kapczynski & Talha Syed, The Continuum of Excludability and the Limits of Patents, 122 YALE L.J. 1900, 1913-16 (2013).
191. Mark A. Lemley, The Economics of Improvement in Intellectual Property Law, 75 TEX. L. REV. 989 (1997)
192. Peter S. Menell, The Property Rights Movement’s Embrace of Intellectual Property: True Love or Doomed Relationship?, 34 ECOLOGY L.Q. 713, 729 (2007)
193. Lee Petherbridge, Comment, Intelligent Trips Implementation: A Strategy for Countries on the Cusp of Development, 22 U. PA. J. INT’L ECON. L. 1029, 1060 (2001)
194. Merges & Nelson, supra note 63, at 843, 907-09
195. Kurt M. Saunders, Patent Nonuse and the Role of Public Interest as a Deterrent to Technology Suppression, 15 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 389, 423 (2002)
196. Bryn Williams-Jones, History of a Gene Patent: Tracing the Development and Application of Commercial BRCA Testing, 10 HEALTH L.J. 123, 138-39 (2002)
197. Eileen M. Kane, Patent-Mediated Standards in Genetic Testing, 2008 UTAH L. REV. 835, 849
198. Tom Walsh et al., Spectrum of Mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and TP53 in Families at High Risk of Breast Cancer, 295 JAMA 1379, 1380, 1386 (2006)
199. Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, Are Business Method Patents Bad for Business?, 16 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 263, 275 (2000)
200. Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, Are Business Method Patents Bad for Business?, 16 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 263, 275 (2000)
201. Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, Are Business Method Patents Bad for Business?, 16 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 263, 275 (2000)
202. Nathan Newman, The Costs of Lost Privacy: Consumer Harm and Rising Economic Inequality in the Age of Google, 40 WM. MITCHELL L. REV. 850, 860-63 (2014)
203. Turna Ray, With New BRCA Testing Options, Patient Groups Advise Women to Speak to Genetics Expert, Share Reports, GENOMEWEB (June 19, 2013), https://www.genomeweb.com/clinical-genomics/new-brca-testing-options-patient-groups-advise-women-speak-genetics-expert-share [https://perma.cc/CM9X-5RL8]
204. Company Info, FACEBOOK, http://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/ [https://perma.cc/5A8V-H2NB]
205. Vindu Goel, Facebook Tinkers with Users’ Emotions in News Feed Experiment, Stirring Outcry, N.Y. TIMES (June 29, 2014), http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinkers-with-users-emotions-in-news-feed-experiment-stirring-outcry.html [https://perma.cc/H3NX-UV46]
206. Joshua Barrie, Nobody Is Using Google+, BUS. INSIDER (Jan. 20, 2015, 9:38 AM), http://www.businessinsider.com/google-active-users-2015-1 [https://perma.cc/7T8E-XEP7]
207. Katy Barnato, Google’s Changes to Gmail Provoke More Privacy Fears, CNBC (Jan. 10, 2014, 8:42 AM), http://www.cnbc.com/id/101326350 [https://perma.cc/U3SC-6BTF]
208. Steve Kovach, Tim Cook Ripped Apart Google’s Business Model in Two Paragraphs, BUS. INSIDER AUSTL. (Sept. 18, 2014, 11:43 AM), http://www.businessinsider.com.au/tim-cook-privacy-letter-2014-9 [https://perma.cc/6ACH-HBTL]
209. Catherine Tucker & Alexander Marthews, Social Networks, Advertising, and Antitrust, 19 GEO. MASON L. REV. 1211, 1223 (2012)
210. Shawn Baldwin, Why Facebook Shares Will Rise Just Like Amazon’s Did, FORBES (Oct. 4, 2012, 12:49 PM) http://www.forbes.com/sites/shawnbaldwin/2012/10/04/facebook-2-0/#73b85e672f21 [https://perma.cc/448R-TJPN]
211. Monu Bedi, Social Networks, Government Surveillance, and the Fourth Amendment Mosaic Theory, 94 B.U. L. REV. 1809, 1880 (2014)
212. William McGeveran, The Law of Friction, 2013 U. CHI. LEGAL F. 15, 58
213. Alejandro Crawford & Lisa Chau, Why Google’s Business Model Works, U.S. NEWS (June 25, 2013, 10:35 AM) http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/06/25/why-googles-business-model-works [https://perma.cc/SY88-RWB5]
214. Robert Hof, Facebook’s New Advertising Model: You, FORBES (Nov. 16, 2011, 6:00 PM), http://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthof/2011/11/16/facebooks-new-advertising-model-you/#572ed61852aa [https://perma.cc/J923-5EDM]
215. Eleonore Pauwels, Opinion, Our Genes, Their Secrets, N.Y. TIMES (June 18, 2013), http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/opinion/our-genes-their-secrets.html?_r=0 [https://perma.cc/VZ4T-XGZV]
216. Barbara J. Evans, Much Ado About Data Ownership, 25 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 69 (2011)
217. Michelle M. Mello & Leslie E. Wolf, The Havasupai Indian Tribe Case—Lessons for Research Involving Stored Biologic Samples, 363 NEW ENG. J. MED. 204 (2010)
218. Amy Harmon, Indian Tribe Wins Fight to Limit Research of Its DNA, N.Y. TIMES (Apr. 21, 2010), http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/us/22dna.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1 [https://perma.cc/PG2P-SFLZ]
219. Omer Tene, What Google Knows: Privacy and Internet Search Engines, 2008 UTAH L. REV. 1433, 1435-38.
220. Adam D.I. Kramer et al., Experimental Evidence of Massive-Scale Emotional Contagion Through Social Networks, 111 PNAS 8788 (2014), http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full [https://perma.cc/CJA7-LJDL]
221. Alexander H. Jordan et al., Misery Has More Company Than People Think: Underestimating the Prevalence of Others’ Negative Emotions, 37 PERSONALITY & SOC. PSYCHOL. BULL. 120-35 (2011), http://psp.sagepub.com/content/37/1/120.abstract [https://perma.cc/8UY8-SDED]
222. Andrew Perrin, Social Media Usage: 2005-2015, PEW RESEARCH CTR. (Oct. 8, 2015), http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/08/social-networking-usage-2005-2015/ [https://perma.cc/CR6V-K5QL].
223. Mark A. Lemley, Michael Risch, Ted Sichelman & R. Polk Wagner, Life After Bilski, 63 STAN. L. REV. 1315, 1344-45 (2011)
224. Mark A. Lemley, Michael Risch, Ted Sichelman & R. Polk Wagner, Life After Bilski, 63 STAN. L. REV. 1315, 1344-45 (2011)
225. Mark A. Lemley, Michael Risch, Ted Sichelman & R. Polk Wagner, Life After Bilski, 63 STAN. L. REV. 1315, 1344-45 (2011)
226. Collecting Survey Data: Internet Surveys, PEW RESEARCH CTR., http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s-survey-research/collecting-survey-data/ [https://perma.cc/L3DG-S3BK].
227. Anup Malani & Jonathan S. Masur, Raising the Stakes in Patent Cases, 101 GEO. L.J. 637, 639 (2013)
228. Ian Ayres & Eric Talley, Solomonic Bargaining: Dividing a Legal Entitlement to Facilitate Coasean Trade, 104 YALE L.J. 1027, 1092 (1995)
229. Brian J. Love, An Empirical Study of Patent Litigation Timing: Could a Patent Term Reduction Decimate Trolls Without Harming Innovators?, 161 U. PA. L. REV. 1309, 1313 (2013)
230. Jonathan M. Barnett & Ted Sichelman, Revisiting Labor Mobility in Innovation Markets (working paper, May 26, 2016), available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2758854
231. Barbara Evans, Economic Regulation of Next-Generation Sequencing, J.L. MED. & ETHICS, Fall 2014, https://www.aslme.org/media/downloadable/files/links/0/5/05.SUPP_Evans.pdf [https://perma.cc/RD5D-4FYW]
232. Samson Vermont, Independent Invention as a Defense to Patent Infringement, 105 MICH. L. REV. 475 (2006)
233. Samson Vermont, Independent Invention as a Defense to Patent Infringement, 105 MICH. L. REV. 475 (2006)
234. Samson Vermont, Independent Invention as a Defense to Patent Infringement, 105 MICH. L. REV. 475 (2006)
235. Samson Vermont, supra note 331, at 484-92.
236. Pamela Samuelson & Suzanne Scotchmer, The Law and Economics of Reverse Engineering, 111 YALE L.J. 1575, 1650-51 (2002).
237. Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Patents and the Progress of Science: Exclusive Rights and Experimental Use, 56 U. CHI. L. REV. 1017, 1074-78 (1989)
238. Maureen A. O’Rourke, Toward a Doctrine of Fair Use in Patent Law, 100 COLUM. L. REV. 1177, 1203-11 (2000)
239. Maureen A. O’Rourke, Toward a Doctrine of Fair Use in Patent Law, 100 COLUM. L. REV. 1177, 1203-11 (2000)
240. Maureen A. O’Rourke, Toward a Doctrine of Fair Use in Patent Law, 100 COLUM. L. REV. 1177, 1203-11 (2000)
241. Peter S. Menell, Tailoring a Public Policy Exception to Trade Secret Protection, 105 CALIF. L. REV. (forthcoming), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2686565 [https://perma.cc/6AYH-8LJL]
242. John F. Duffy, Harmony and Diversity in Global Patent Law, 17 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 685, 718-19 (2002)
243. Ted Sichelman, Purging Patent Law of “Private Law” Remedies, 92 TEX. L. REV. 517 (2014)
244. John M. Golden, Principles for Patent Remedies, 88 TEX. L. REV. 505, 556-57 (2010)
245. Christopher B. Seaman, Permanent Injunctions in Patent Litigation After eBay: An Empirical Study, 101 IOWA L. REV. 1949, 2002-06 (2016).
246. Barbara J. Evans, Mining the Human Genome After Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 16 GENETICS IN MED. 504, 506 (2014)
247. J.H. Reichman & Paul F. Uhlir, A Contractually Reconstructed Research Commons for Scientific Data in a Highly Protectionist Intellectual Property Environment, 66 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 315, 350 (2003)
248. Gideon Parchomovsky & Michael Mattioli, Partial Patents, 111 COLUM. L. REV. 207, 208 (2011)
249. Michael Mattioli, Data Pools, 32 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. (forthcoming 2017), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2671939 [https://perma.cc/8KRY-JTHU].
250. Michael Mattioli, Data Pools, 32 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. (forthcoming 2017), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2671939 [https://perma.cc/8KRY-JTHU]
251. National Institutes of Health, Final NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy, 79 Fed. Reg. 51,345-54 (2014), https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/08/28/2014-20385/final-nih-genomic-data-sharing-policy [https://perma.cc/FRM6-5JWL]
252. Barbara J. Evans et al., The FDA and Genomic Tests—Getting Regulation Right, 372 NEW ENG. J. MED. 2258, 2258, 2262 (2015)
253. Yaniv Heled, Patents vs. Statutory Exclusivities in Biological Pharmaceuticals—Do We Really Need Both?, 18 MICH. TELECOMM. & TECH. L. REV. 419, 449-61 (2012)
254. STEPHEN BREYER et al., ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & REGULATORY POLICY (5th ed. 2001).
255. Arti K. Rai & Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Bayh-Dole Reform and the Progress of Biomedicine, 66 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 289, 294 (2003)
256. Andrew W. Torrance, Patents to the Rescue - Disasters and Patent Law, 10 DEPAUL J. HEALTH CARE L. 309, 341 (2007)
257. Sara Boettiger & Alan B. Bennett, Bayh-Dole: If We Knew Then What We Know Now, 24 NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY 320, 323 (2006)
258. Rebecca S. Eisenberg & Arti K. Rai, Harnessing and Sharing the Benefits of State-Sponsored Research: Intellectual Property Rights and Data Sharing in California’s Stem Cell Initiative, 21 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1187, 1189 (2006)
259. National Institutes of Health, Final NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy, 79 Fed. Reg. 51345-54 (2014), https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/08/28/2014-20385/final-nih-genomic-data-sharing-policy [https://perma.cc/TS6L-5FT4].
260. DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS., HEALTH DATA INITIATIVE: STRATEGY AND EXECUTION PLAN 9 (2013), https://www.healthdata.gov/blog/health-data-initiative-strategy-execution-plan-released-and-ready-feedback [https://perma.cc/2W4U-JRGJ]
261. Press Release, Ambry Genetics, Ambry Genetics Launches Ambry Share, the Largest Disease-Specific Public Database of Sequenced Human Genomes, Increasing the Understanding of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer 10 Fold (Mar. 7, 2016), https://share.ambrygen.com/news/detail/1/ambry-genetics-launches-ambryshare-the-largest-disease-specific-public-database-of-sequenced-human-genomes-increasing-the-understanding-of-hereditary-breast-and-ovarian-cancer-10-fold [https://perma.cc/G5F8-82DB]
262. Francis S. Collins et al., The Human Genome Project: Lessons from Large-Scale Biology, 300 SCIENCE 286-90 (2003)
263. Turna Ray, In Tackling the VUS Challenge, Are Public Databases the Solution or a Liability for Labs?, GENOMEWEB (Feb. 12, 2014), https://www.genomeweb.com/clinical-genomics/tackling-vus-challenge-are-public-databases-solution-or-liability-labs [https://perma.cc/U59E-LLQP]
264. Jane C. Ginsburg, Copyright, Common Law, and Sui Generis Protection of Databases in the United States and Abroad, 66 U. CIN. L. REV. 151, 171 (1997).
265. Daniel J. Hemel & Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, Beyond the Patents-Prizes Debate, 92 TEX. L. REV. 303, 312 (2013)
266. Hemel & Ouellette, supra note 377, at 310-13
267. Benjamin N. Roin, Intellectual Property Versus Prizes: Reframing the Debate, 81 U. CHI. L. REV. 999 (2014)
268. Benjamin N. Roin, Intellectual Property Versus Prizes: Reframing the Debate, 81 U. CHI. L. REV. 999 (2014)
269. Richard A. Posner, Intellectual Property: The Law and Economics Approach, 19 J. ECON. PERSP. 57, 59 (2005)