Comments on: Burying the Experimental Use Doctrine http://madisonian.net/2004/10/01/burying-the-experimental-use-doctrine/ a blog about law, tech, culture, and related things Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:59:42 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: AdamThomas http://madisonian.net/2004/10/01/burying-the-experimental-use-doctrine/comment-page-1/#comment-10 AdamThomas Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:49:15 +0000 /?p=36#comment-10 Three thoughts: [1] Madey complained of the lower court's, "overly broad version of the very narrow experimental use defense". I can't help but think this court made the same mistake by invoking an overly broad definition of "business purposes" when they include, "educating". The court begrudging recognizes ANY exemption when they opine, "Our precedent, to which we are bound, continues to recognize the judicially created experimental use defense, however, in a very limited form." [2] The court believed, "the district court attached too great a weight to the non-profit, educational status of Duke". The new (narrower) definition attaches no weight at all and places educational institutions in the same group as corporations. Admittedly, their differences are dwindling. The continued progression towards academic/corporate collaborative projects, such as the UC collaborations (http://sfbg.com/News/35/25/25foiuc.html and http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/messages/00-01/uc_institutes.07-20.htm) raise questions as to whether inquiry ends and profitable application begins. Although, the collaborations ended up less than profitable for the corporate concerns if I recall correctly. [3] Patent monopolies are greater in breadth than those of copyright, but it seems copyright will hold more educational fair use exceptions in this decision's wake. Three thoughts:
[1]
Madey complained of the lower court’s, “overly broad version of the very narrow experimental use defense”. I can’t help but think this court made the same mistake by invoking an overly broad definition of “business purposes” when they include, “educating”.

The court begrudging recognizes ANY exemption when they opine, “Our precedent, to which we are bound, continues to recognize the judicially created experimental use defense, however, in a very limited form.”

[2]
The court believed, “the district court attached too great a weight to the non-profit, educational status of Duke”. The new (narrower) definition attaches no weight at all and places educational institutions in the same group as corporations.

Admittedly, their differences are dwindling. The continued progression towards academic/corporate collaborative projects, such as the UC collaborations (http://sfbg.com/News/35/25/25foiuc.html
and http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/messages/00-01/uc_institutes.07-20.htm) raise questions as to whether inquiry ends and profitable application begins. Although, the collaborations ended up less than profitable for the corporate concerns if I recall correctly.

[3]
Patent monopolies are greater in breadth than those of copyright, but it seems copyright will hold more educational fair use exceptions in this decision’s wake.

]]> By: madisonian theory: on law, society, and technology » More on Experimental Use http://madisonian.net/2004/10/01/burying-the-experimental-use-doctrine/comment-page-1/#comment-9 madisonian theory: on law, society, and technology » More on Experimental Use Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=36#comment-9 [...] ss acts or the Federal Circuit takes up the question en banc, both of which seem doubtful, <a href="http://madisonian.net/archives/2004/10/01/burying-the-experimental-use-doctrine/">this battle is already lost</a>. [...] [...] ss acts or the Federal Circuit takes up the question en banc, both of which seem doubtful, this battle is already lost. [...]

]]>