The Categorical Imperative for Innovation and Patenting

The political theories of John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Montesquieu and others greatly influenced our Founders in the creation of our nation, as well as our patent system. In particular, Locke’s political philosophy included the maxim that a person’s property or fruit of their labors should be protected by their government. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, and others inculcated this viewpoint of a patent system into the fabric of our nascent nation. Indeed, the only “Right” mentioned within the text of the Constitution is the right to secure protections under patent and copyright. The other Rights, i.e., Freedom of Religion, Security in One’s Home from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures, etc., are set forth in the attached Bill of Rights.

Despite the clear language of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and other writings that the Lockean “natural rights” view governs, some academics try to decry this approach, and turn to other philosophies, such as John Stuart Mills’ Utilitarianism, to either bolster or undermine the usefulness of a patent system, usually undermine. Born thirty years after the creation of the United States (and nearly twenty years after the Constitution), Mill wrote extensively on individual liberty, freedom, logic and other issues, and is chiefly known for his principle of utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number. His maxims are many, including “Originality is the one thing that unoriginal minds cannot feel the use of.”

But there was another philosopher, contemporaneous with the Founders, that bears notice, Immanuel Kant, who had a different take on moral and political philosophy, including the Categorical Imperative. Kant spent his life trying to distill the issues of morality into a logical framework. Just as the natural scientists of the Enlightenment were forming logical arguments concerning the physical world, e.g., physics, natural science and other disciplines, Kant tried to do the same with human morality: systematize it.

In his Categorical Imperative, Kant simplifies a moral argument position for an individual by asking a question: if you thought that your position or Statement would be Universal, i.e., applicable to all people, it would have the stance of a Categorical Imperative and thus you must do it. For example, a Statement that I should try to save a person that is drowning can be considered a Categorical Imperative since this would be a betterment of humanity.

However, the proposition or Statement that it should be ok for me to steal another’s car is not a betterment at all. Applying this as a universal law would lead to societal chaos and possible collapse since thievery would reign, and anarchy would result. Since the entire purpose of government is the protection of people (and their possessions), this Statement fails, and you are NOT compelled to act in that manner. This Statement does not rise to the level of a categorical Imperative.

Intellectual property has been attacked of late on various grounds, including being less than property, and thus not entitled to the protections of the Constitution, despite the evidence to the contrary. This attitude is most recently, and most troublingly, exemplified by the U.S. Supreme Court in Oil States, where the Court equated patent rights to taxicab medallion rights. Freeriding is also being touted, subverting copyright law. Information must be free is the mantra.

As we shall see, applying Kantian logic entails first acknowledging some basic principles; that the people have a right to express themselves, that that expression (the fruits of their labor) has value and is theirs (unless consent is given otherwise), and that government is obligated to protect people and their property. Thus, an inventor or creator has a right in their own creation, which cannot be taken from them without their consent.

So, employing this canon, a proposed Categorical Imperative (CI) is the following Statement: creators should be protected against the unlawful taking of their creation by others. Applying this Statement to everyone, i.e., does the Statement hold water if everyone does this, leads to a yes determination. Whether a child, a book or a prototype, creations of all sorts should be protected, and this CI stands. This result also dovetails with the purpose of government: to protect the people and their possessions by providing laws to that effect, whether for the protection of tangible or intangible things.

However, a contrary proposal can be postulated: everyone should be able to use the creations of another without charge. Can this Statement rise to the level of a CI? This proposal, upon analysis would also lead to chaos. Hollywood, for example, unable to protect their films, television shows or any content, would either be out of business or have robust encryption and other trade secret protections, which would seriously undermine content distribution and consumer enjoyment. Likewise, inventors, unable to license or sell their innovations or make any money to cover R&D, would not bother to invent or also resort to strong trade secret. Why even create? This approach thus undermines and greatly hinders the distribution of ideas in a free society, which is contrary to the paradigm of the U.S. patent and copyright systems, which promotes dissemination. By allowing freeriding, innovation and creativity would be thwarted (or at least not encouraged) and trade secret protection would become the mainstay for society with the heightened distrust.

Also, allowing the free taking of ideas, content and valuable data, i.e., the fruits of individual intellectual endeavor, would disrupt capitalism in a radical way. The resulting more secretive approach in support of the above free-riding Statement would be akin to a Communist environment where the State owned everything and the citizen owned nothing, i.e., the people “consented” to this.

It is, accordingly, manifestly clear that no reasonable and supportable Categorical Imperative can be made for the unwarranted theft of property, whether tangible or intangible, apart from legitimate exigencies.

On the positive front, there is a Categorical Imperative that creators should be encouraged to create, which is imminently reasonable and supportable. Likewise, the statement set forth in the Constitution that Congress should pass laws “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” is supportive, as a Categorical Imperative, for the many reasons elucidated two centuries ago by Madison and others, and endorsed by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and later by Abraham Lincoln. A Categorical Imperative, universality, however, may be a stretch outside of the United States since other cultures may not treasure the progress of science and the useful arts and freedoms that we Americans do. Nonetheless, it is certainly a supportable proposition in the United States, and even a Categorical Imperative that we must do it!

Turning to issues facing us today, despite the categorical imperative nature of an intellectual property system, some powerful naysayers object to intellectual property per se, but on more fundamental grounds, pecuniary. A large amount of the condemnation of the intellectual property laws over the last decades has been from the big tech companies that would like to use new innovations for their own profit at the expense of the individual inventor. Ignoring the small entrepreneur or inventor is even de rigueur, i.e., most tech companies now have a “sue me” approach to patent infringement, which means openly taking patented technology knowing that a patentee is not likely to have the means to bring a costly litigation. To further undermine small inventors, the big tech companies, at the behest of Congress, instigated onerous administrative proceedings at the Patent Office, where the odds were stacked against patentees, proceedings often called “death squads” due to the very high percentage of patent invalidations.

Indeed, these patent-hostile, monopolistic companies lavishly fund lobbyists to further influence Congress on their behalf to diminish patents, thereby undermining the patent system and the value of patents, and increasing their profit margins with the freeriding. With all of the denunciation of the Chinese for freeloading our IP, we should perhaps look within first to make America great again. To add insult to grave injury these same companies have also supported numerous Supreme Court challenges to further undermine the patent and copyright systems. The recent appointment of Andrei Iancu as the new Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trdemark Office is a harbinger of a possible turning point toward a more positive patent system.

As a result of all of the big tech efforts to destabilize the patent system, the engine of innovation has suffered. To further harm the patent system, the press labels all inventors de facto trolls and thus unworthy. This demonization of inventors by the press has been profound. Gone are the days of an inventor being celebrated for building a better mouse trap or developing a nifty app. Now, even the Wright Brothers and Edison have been brought low, equated to trolls and not respected American innovators.

Immanuel Kant’s dream of systematizing morality is, of course, imprecise, but the meaning is quite clear and analogous to another famous maxim: do unto others as they would do unto you. Kant’s Categorical Imperative and the Bible extort us to be better people and form a better society. If, however, you feel that innovation is trivial and content should be free, then a Categorical Imperative for freeriding may be sane for you, but it fails at the societal level, i.e., universal application would undercut society. It is also wrong to steal. In the balance, society wants new ideas, new stories, new ways of doing things, and newness itself. All of this takes effort and expense, along with ingenuity and creativity, which should be strongly encouraged and not punished.

A Kantian Categorical Imperative to encourage, support and defend the creations protected by intellectual property is manifest. We should not be swayed by the arguments of corporate monoliths desirous of their own wellbeing and not society’s. In connection with his categorical imperative, Kant also believed that we should all “always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as a means to your end.” In other words, we should value and respect each human being and their contribution to the world. By deliberately or wantonly stealing patented technology from individual inventors, big tech companies treat them as a means to the corporate end, diminishing and dehumanizing the inventor.

Our Founders well knew that human beings create, and that the stuff of that creation has value. The patent and copyright clause, embodied within the Constitution itself, recognizes this need to encourage, facilitate and support the creativity embodied in us all.

 

 

Article also published today on IpWatchdog.com website

Oil States: a Very Slippery Slope

In a narrow but still huge decision today, Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group, the U.S. Supreme Court today relegated patents and challenges to them as more a public, as opposed to a private, right.  Justice Thomas wrote the opinion of the Court that under the “public-rights doctrine” great latitude is accorded  in allowing the adjudication of “public rights” by non-Article III adjudicators, e.g., political appointees.  The Court held that Article III federal judges (life appointment, more independent) are not needed in Inter Partes Review patent challenge proceedings at the USPTO, where a private challenger can seek the invalidation of a patent under the auspices of a USPTO Board, where the “judges” are subject to the Director and other political appointees that “adjudicate” the patent right.  This particular point was made manifest when a former Director allegedly sought to overturn Patent Board decisions not to her liking by appointing more judges to skew the judgment (panel stacking).

Also,  the majority, looking to history, viewed patents, particularly some patent challenges, as not being entitled, under the common law of the 18th century and beyond, to trials  by jury.   Indeed, the Court held that the Patent Clause in the Constitution, at the founding of the patent system, inherently included a contemplation for potential cancellation proceedings.  Even though Justice Gorsuch in his dissent seriously questioned this interpretation, the Court said that the “historical practice” of the courts over the last two centuries does not matter because under the “public-rights doctrine” the USPTO is perfectly ok today.  Thus, with this finding, patentees are also not entitled to jury trials under the Seventh Amendment since there is no private property taking involved.

In the decision, Justice Thomas sought to narrow the conclusion of the Court today to just the constitutionality of these IPR proceedings, and not extend this viewpoint to other contexts of patents, leaving the “private property” notion for some patent rights hanging.  In his dissent, Justice Gorsuch lucidly contested the majority’s viewpoints and the holding, considering it as dispensing “with constitutionally prescribed procedures” for expediency and a “retreat” from constitutional guarantees for citizens.  Indeed, the majority seemed to interpret the jurisprudence and the historical context quite differently than Justice Gorsuch, viewing the case as an administrative correction, as opposed to a patent case.   The injustice of this decision will have enormous ramifications.

However, as a practical matter, the Justices as a whole were perhaps loathe to invalidate IPR and the thousands of Board decisions made so far, and thus instead stretched the Administrative State to now include IPR patent rights, forfeiting the parties’ private patent rights.  As noted in the oral argument, this decision takes patent rights back to the days of supreme rulers, such as Elizabeth I, where the patent “monopoly” is entirely subject to the ruler’s whim, granting and taking, instead of a patent system for creating a protected and secured private property right.  Here, the government giveth and government can taketh away.  Patents are just franchises, like taxi medallions, under the view of the majority.  Our Founders shudder.

With only two Justices viewing patents as private instruments, Gorsuch and Roberts, this does not bode well for the future.  Congress needs to act to fix this.  However, with the insidious influence of the tech lobbyists to squelch private innovation and future technology challenges by any means, it is doubtful that Congress will step up.   Thus, in due course, when the next Court challenge accrues encroaching on patent rights, we will again be faced with a majority of the Justices deeming patents as another administrative right to be curtailed, instead of the special instruments they are for the private citizen to contribute to Society as a whole, as our Founders intended, by getting a short-term incentive to innovate.  Liberal IPR proceedings over the last few years, invalidating many valuable patents, have significantly undermined the importance and value of patents, the consequences for which are being felt by entrepreneurs, inventors and investors for future technologies.  Today’s decision perpetuates this injustice, much to the delight of our world competitors.

With the value of patents being diminished, and today’s decision is a further diminishment, innovation in America is suffering, the next cures for diseases are compromised, the next valuable app is being thwarted, and the American spirit of invention further quelled.  All because a majority of our Justices deem the patent system as something not deserving of constitutional protections, which is in direct conflict with the Court’s own history and jurisprudence.  The only good news of late is the appointment of Andrei Iancu as Director of the USPTO, who is changing the dialogue.  Hopefully, the Justices will consider patentees not as trolls, but as important keystones to our success as a nation.

The mystery and transcendence of pi

Today is National and World Pi Day because the numbers of the day (3-14) match the first three digits for pi or π, the Greek letter, 3.1415926535897… Although most people think that π is relegated to just geometry and trigonometry, the number pervades all of mathematics and the natural sciences, even statistics.

Several thousand years ago the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Chinese and the Ancient Greeks tried to make sense of the world through mathematics, an abstract way to envision and explain the operations of Nature, not as the activities of the gods. Over time geometry developed, which could explain much of the world. For example, Euclid and his various axioms were employed to describe much of the natural world. However, when it came to circles and non-linear lines, there remained a mystery among all the Ancients, which was π.

It had long been recognized (and still taught to reluctant students in high school geometry) that the ratio of the circumference of any circle to its diameter is a constant. The Ancients knew this, but the value of that constant eluded them. They realized, however, that there were approximations, e.g., the fractions 25/8, 22/7, 256/81, etc., that were close, and these fractions were employed for centuries as substitutes for pi.

Over two thousand years ago Archimedes carried this approximation technique to its logical limit, using techniques akin to calculus infinities approaches, and was able to obtain very close estimates of π to whatever tolerance was needed, e.g., through circumscribing and inscribing large numbers of polygons, e.g., an algorithm employing up to 96 such polygons for an accuracy between 3.1408 and 3.14285, about 99.9% accuracy. But, around the year 480 A.D., Chinese mathematician Zu Chongzhi used this approach with 12,288 polygons, and created a far more accurate fractional approximation, 355/113, roughly 99.99999% accurate, which was the best approximation for π for the next 800 years.

As a side note, through recent discoveries, Archimedes is also credited with understanding aspects of calculus long before Newton and Leibnitz, who developed differential and integral calculus just over three hundred years ago. Had the Roman soldier not killed Archimedes in the siege of Syracuse, our world may have been very different. But, I digress.

Clearly, these fractional representations of π were all approximations and not a pure answer, which galled the Ancients at their inability to solve the conundrum. Indeed, the purity in mathematics was at the heart of Euclidian geometry’s goals of solving problems. For example, in their effort to solve the π enigma, the Greeks were famous in their efforts to “square the circle,” i.e., geometrically constructing a square having the same area as a given circle, and asking whether Euclid’s axioms posit the existence of such a number. However, the Greeks and many others later could not do it, which had profound implications to Plato regarding the usefulness of Euclid’s theorems or even mathematics to actually describe the real world. In short, the quest was impossible. But why?

With Euclid and the pre-Socratics trying to explain the world in physical ways, e.g., Democritus postulating atoms in a very logical way 2,500 years ago, it is sad that the mystery of π seems to have derailed the very influential thinkers Socrates and Plato to fully trust mathematics. Accordingly, Plato looked to another realm to describe the world: using his forms or abstractions. For example, the concepts of a circle and π were perfect, idealized forms, but every attempt to depict them in the real world would, by definition, be imperfect. This philosophical view held sway until the Renaissance started new ways of thinking.

But, back to π. We now know that pi is both Irrational and Transcendental. An irrational number is defined as a number that is not a ratio of two whole numbers, i.e., fractions. This irrationality of pi is strongly suggested by Archimedes’ and others’ succession of better and better fractional approximations, without a final answer. Also, with computerization it has been found that the digits of pi have no pattern, and for several trillion digits pass the mathematical test of normality, i.e., all of the digits appear equally often in the series. The irrational nature of pi was formally proven in 1761.

A transcendent number is defined as a number that is not the root of any non-zero polynomial with rational coefficients, which is a modern way of saying you cannot square the circle.   The transcendence of π was proven in 1882. The staggering notion that the digits go on and on, without repeating or in any pattern to infinity, was (and remains) hard to grasp, the immensity of which was something well understood to Aristotle and others. Over a hundred years ago, however, mathematician George Cantor tackled the mathematical problem of infinity and actually demonstrated the nuances between infinities. π is also computed by various techniques, e.g., equations and trigonometric series, that have terms that go to infinity.

The use of the Greek letter π in this context dates from about three hundred years ago when the great mathematician Leonhard Euler started popularizing it. Mathematician William Jones in 1706 is accredited with being the first to symbolize the circle circumference-to-diameter ratio as π, which is also attributed to the Greek word for perimeter. Prior to computers, pi calculation was a laborious and very error-prone endeavor. With the advent of computing, the mere six or seven hundred digit manual calculations not too many decades ago have jumped to many trillions of digits.

Despite all of the mathematical rigor of the modern era, π remains a mystery, a constant that in a way is inconstant. Of course, there are many other such enigmatic irrational and transcendent numbers out there, e.g., e (2.71828182845…), but π is the oldest of these cosmic constants for us humans. On a related note, this is the 50th anniversary of Stanley Kubrik’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, an inscrutable movie that still contains innumerable mysteries. It is also the 20th anniversary of π, the movie, a psychological thriller about the irrationality of π and the human mind. In Star Trek, Mr. Spock crashed a hostile computer making it calculate pi precisely. π also pops up once and a while in TV shows, such as the Simpsons.

This magical number is everywhere, and is part of our lives – even if you hated high school geometry and math. Indeed, we are all still trying to understand the meanings of π.

 

Raymond Van Dyke is an intellectual property/patent attorney, educator and a science and technology enthusiast. He has a B.S. in mathematics/computer science and was admitted Pi Mu Epsilon, an honorary mathematics society, has an M.S. in Computer Science, and a J.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is the Chair of several organizations and teaches IP, technology law, the history of technology and IP. His website is:  www.rayvandyke.com.  A version of this article was published on ipwatchdog.com.

The Constitutional Foundations of IP – A Natural Rights Perspective

Despite the value of intellectual properties to the United States, there have been numerous efforts of late to curtail those rights, rights which were enacted by our Founders to encourage inventors and creators.  The Constitutionality of some of these rights is now in question, particularly now at the Supreme Court. Randolph May, writer of the recent book “The Constitutional Foundations of Intellectual Property,” will discuss this critical issue from the natural law perspective.  Raymond Van Dyke, IP practitioner and educator, will speak about the importance of IP to society then and now.

This Greater Washington, DC Licensing Executives Society Chapter event is on the evening of July 20, 2017 in Washington, DC.  Here is the event notice: http://www.lesusacanada.org/events/EventDetails.aspx?id=981094&group=160111

With the constitutionality of inter partes proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the USPTO now in question, the issue is quite pertinent, and the consequences quite serious to the patent system.

If in Washington, DC tonight, I hope that you can make it.

Ray, Greater Washington, DC Chapter Chair, LES

(202)378.3903  vandyke@acm.org

 

World IP Day 2017 Redux

MK4B2313

The celebration of World Intellectual Property Day at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office was held on April 26, 2017, where April 26th is the official anniversary date.

After the Chief Policy Officer of the USPTO, Shira Perlmutter, started the event, there where a number of distinguished speakers, including John Sandage, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Deputy Director General, Patent and Technology Sector, Joseph Ferretti, Vice President and Chief Counsel, Global Trademarks at PepsiCo, Inc. and President of the International Trademark Association (INTA),  Jeanine Hayes, Chief IP Officer of Nike, Inc., and Mario Bollini, Co-founder and Chief Technology Officer, Global Research Innovation and Technology, Inc. (GRIT).  Ms. Hayes demonstrated Nike’s commitment to improving lives with innovation, this year’s WIPD theme, with the latest in Nike technology.  Mr. Bollini then demonstrated his all-terrain Freedom Chair for the disabled.

it was a hard act to follow, but follow I did with my talk on the History of Innovation, with examples of important inventors that improved lives, such as Edison (the light bulb illuminating the night ), Morse (transmission of information faster than horses), various medical innovations, such as that of Raymond Damadian of Fonar (the creator of the magnetic resonance imager) and many other fascinating technologies.

I also talked about the origins of the intellectual property laws and the reasons we have them.  For patent and copyright, our Founders enshrined these rights into the Constitution itself – with the other “rights” set forth in the attachment, The Bill of Rights.  Also, our Founders in essence democratized the U.S. patent system, permitting anyone to file for and obtain a patent.  This was a big change from the systems on the Continent.  George Washington extolled the benefits of a patent system in the First Inaugural Address.  Also, Abraham Lincoln was an avid fan of the patent system and spoke at length about its advantages – equating the importance of the patent system to the founding of the United States.

The above speakers also spoke later at the Senate Hart building, and numerous Congressmen showed up, including Representative Goodlatte of Virginia, with whom I spoke about the importance of the patent system benefiting all Americans, whether individuals, small companies or large corporations.  We both strongly agreed that this was in America’s best interest.  Under his direction, the House of Representatives that day approved by a vote of 378-48 the Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act  (H.R. 1695), which would make the appointment of the Copyright Registrar a Presidential one (instead of the current Librarian of Congress) and for a term of ten years.

I should also add that Senator Coons of Delaware, a staunch supporter of the patent system, also spoke.  His strong advocacy of the patent system is quite welcome to the patent bar and all innovators relying on the patent system.

Celebrate World IP Day! April 26th

Every April 26th is World Intellectual Property Day (WIPD).  This commemorative day was created many years ago by the World IP Organization in Geneva.  As the Chair of the Washington, DC Chapter for the Licensing Executives Society (LES), I have been championing this day for many years at the Chapter.  The intellectual properties, i.e., patent, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets, are critically important in today’s economy, and I, as an intellectual property attorney, champion my clients in the protection of their various intellectual properties.

The celebration for this year, April 26, 2017, involves the use of Innovation for Improving Lives.

The United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) has graciously invited me to give a talk on this topic, technologies through history that improve lives and also the history of intellectual property.  My part of the program will begin at noon in the Madison Auditorium at the USPTO in Alexandria, Virginia.  I have today confirmed that the event is free and open to the public.

Earlier at 11 AM, however, a number of important people will be presenting, including the Chief Policy Officer of the USPTO, Shira Perlmutter, who will kick off the event. John Sandage, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Deputy Director General, Patent and Technology Sector, and Joseph Ferretti, Vice President and Chief Counsel, Global Trademarks at PepsiCo, Inc. and President of the International Trademark Association (INTA), will give opening remarks.

Beginning at about 11:15 a.m., two keynote speakers will address this year’s WIPD theme of Innovation: Improving Lives by showcasing technologies brought forward by their respective companies. Jeanine Hayes, Chief IP Officer of Nike, Inc., will present FlyEase technology. Mario Bollini, Co-founder and Chief Technology Officer, Global Research Innovation and Technology, Inc. (GRIT), will demonstrate the all-terrain Freedom Chair for the disabled.

For those in the area, I welcome you to attend.  As noted, the event is open to the public, but is also focused on the Examiner Corps training.  Nonetheless, the speakers and I will be entertaining to all!  Please feel free to email me at vandyke@acm.org if you have any questions.

Ray

Ray Van Dyke Teaches About IP in Montgomery County, Maryland

As noted, as Co-Chair of the Intellectual Property Section for the Bar Association of Montgomery County (BAMC), I am pleased to report that the IP Section is having a continuing series of presentations on the fundamentals of intellectual property law  at the Bar headquarters in Rockville, Maryland.  See: http://montbar.site-ym.com/?62

With the increasing value of intellectual property in today’s economy, as well as the ongoing controversies, non-IP professionals, whether attorneys, scientists, business people, and interested citizens, all want to better understand the workings of these legal principles and tools. The meetings have covered an overview of all IP rights, and two meetings about patents.

The next meeting, February 20, 2016, will address the current issues and controversies involving the remaining IP rights, i.e., copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets, along with a bit of antitrust.  For those who missed the talk about patents and would like to hear more, I am having a refresher on patents at 8:30 AM, with the talk about the other IP rights starting at 9 AM.

The BAMC is offering 3 hours of CLE for this event for those needing it.

As the speaker, I can say that the material will cover not only the law, but will include anecdotes about famous cases, putting the material into the context of the times.  My materials have been collected and coalesced over the last 16 years as part of an in-depth course I teach at SMU to engineers, business people, teachers, students and other interested parties.

If anyone has any questions about the course and these meetings, please do not hesitate to contact me.

For attendees, I require an RSVP so that I can gauge the audience and handle logistics. So, if learning a little about IP law is of interest, this series of presentations will do the trick. I look forward to meeting you there!

Ray Van Dyke, Co-Chair, Intellectual Property Section, BAMC

202.378.3903  vandyke@acm.org

Ray Van Dyke Teaches Course on Intellectual Property at SMU

Next week at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas, I reprise my course on intellectual property. Excerpts from the course description are set forth below and available online at  http://lyle.smu.edu/~matula/IPIT/

Dr. David Matula and I have taught the class since 2000, and I am honored to teach the class again on January 15 and 16, 2016. The Course is open to everyone and I hope to see those that can attend next week. Engineers, scientists, corporate and business people, faculty and students have praised the class, and 2016 will be no exception! My presentation includes all the basics on IP, current developments, and purposes of IP to our society (and the past).  For beginners, the class is a lively introduction to IP.  For those with some knowledge of IP, the materials offer a refresher with recent case law.

I hope to see you there!

Ray, vandyke@acm.org

COURSE DESCRIPTION

What is intellectual property? Why should I patent my innovation? How do I draft my claims?  This course will address the importance of technology and intellectual property in America, the fundamentals of patent, copyright, trademark and trade secrets for the lay person, and the real world application of those rights.

Fair use, open source, and alternatives will be described and interpreted.

Current developments and changes are also covered. In particular, the America Invents Act of 2011, the most monumental change to patent law since 1836, will also be discussed, and the significant effects on universities, small inventors and companies highlighted. Supreme Court, Legislation and other developments that affect these rights will also be covered in this popular and engaging presentation.

TOPICS TO BE COVERED BY THE COURSE INCLUDE:

  • History and Philosophy of Intellectual Property Rights and their role in the information age
  • Intellectual property’s impact on information system design and development
  • The inventor’s role in recognizing and protecting a patentable idea
  • Analysis of ground breaking industry patents
  • Impact of Emerging Technologies on Intellectual Property

DETAILS ON LOCATION AND CREDIT

Computer Science & Engineering Department

Bobby B. Lyle School of Engineering
Presents

 16th Annual Short Course on Intellectual Property and Information Technology

January 15 & 16, 2016:  Friday 9:am-5:pm, Saturday 9:am-1:pm

Palmer Conference Center for Engineering Leadership

Caruth Hall, Rm. 406

3145 Dyer Street, Dallas, TX  75205

Short course fee:  $200 (group rates available)

SMU Students:  Credit – one hour:  Register for CSE 5111/7111

Non-credit complimentary SMU student registration available (contact beth@lyle.smu.edu)

Any remaining questions? Contact me at vandyke@acm.org or visit my webpage at http://www.rayvandyke.com

Ray Van Dyke teaching a Class on Patent Law

 

As noted, as Co-Chair of the Intellectual Property Section for the Bar Association of Montgomery County (BAMC), I am pleased to report that the IP Section is having a continuing series of presentations on the fundamentals of intellectual property law  at the Bar headquarters in Rockville, Maryland.  See: http://montbar.site-ym.com/?62

With the increasing value of intellectual property in today’s economy, as well as the ongoing controversies, non-IP professionals, whether attorneys, scientists, business people, and interested citizens, all want to better understand the workings of these legal principles and tools. The first meeting was an overview of all IP rights.

The next meeting, December 1, 2015, will address the current issues and controversies involving patents, e.g., the so-called troll movement and ongoing legislative efforts in that regard.  At the last meeting, on November 11, 2015, the basics of patents were discussed, along with the historical and societal underminings of patents in society, partoicularly in the United States with the strong support of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and other Founders, as well as Abraham Lincoln, a President well-versed in technology and greatly appreciative of the American system of patent law and the advantages accorded.  Sadly, many of those advantages are being undermined by the rash of legislation, including the AIA.

Copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets will be covered in 2016.

As the speaker, I can say that the material will cover not only the law, but will include anecdotes about famous cases and inventors, putting the material into the context of the times.  My materials have been collected and coalesced over the last 16 years as part of an in-depth course I teach at SMU to engineers, business people, teachers, students and other interested parties.

If anyone has any questions about the course and these meetings, please do not hesitate to contact me.

For attendees, I require an RSVP so that I can gauge the audience and handle logistics. So, if learning a little about IP law is of interest, this series of presentations will do the trick. I look forward to meeting you there!

Ray Van Dyke, Co-Chair, Intellectual Property Section, BAMC

202.378.3903  vandyke@acm.org

Ray Van Dyke Teaches Course on Intellectual Property at SMU

Next week at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas, I reprise my course on intellectual property. Excerpts from the course description are set forth below and available online at  http://lyle.smu.edu/~matula/IPIT/

Dr. David Matula and I have taught the class since 2000, and I am honored to teach the class again on January 16 and 17, 2015. The Course is open to everyone and I hope to see those that can attend next week. Engineers, scientists, corporate and business people, faculty and students have praised the class, and 2015 will be no exception! My presentation includes all the basics on IP, current developments, and purposes of IP to our society (and the past).

I hope to see you there!

Ray, vandyke@acm.org

COURSE DESCRIPTION

What is intellectual property? Why should I patent my innovation? How do I draft my claims?  This course will address the importance of technology and intellectual property in America, the fundamentals of patent, copyright, trademark and trade secrets for the lay person, and the real world application of those rights.

Fair use, open source, and alternatives will be described and interpreted.

Current developments and changes are also covered. In particular, the America Invents Act of 2011, the most monumental change to patent law since 1836, will also be discussed, and the significant effects on universities, small inventors and companies highlighted. Supreme Court, Legislation and other developments that affect these rights will also be covered in this popular and engaging presentation.

TOPICS TO BE COVERED BY THE COURSE INCLUDE:

  • History and Philosophy of Intellectual Property Rights and their role in the information age
  • Intellectual property’s impact on information system design and development
  • The inventor’s role in recognizing a patentable idea
  • Analysis of ground breaking industry patents
  • Impact of Emerging Technologies on Intellectual Property

DETAILS ON LOCATION AND CREDIT

Computer Science & Engineering Department

Bobby B. Lyle School of Engineering
Presents

 15th Annual Short Course on Intellectual Property and Information Technology

January 16 & 17, 2015:  Friday 9:am-5:pm, Saturday 9:am-1:pm

Palmer Conference Center for Engineering Leadership

Caruth Hall, Rm. 406

3145 Dyer Street, Dallas, TX  75205

Short course fee:  $200 (group rates available)

SMU Students:  Credit – one hour:  Register for CSE 5111/7111

Non-credit complimentary SMU student registration available (contact beth@lyle.smu.edu)