A slightly delayed round-up of highlights from the second day of the 5th IP Scholars’ Conference, which the IPKat attended at the Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, New York:
*Sharon Sandeen (Hamline) investigating where the divergence took place in the US between trade secrecy and privacy.
*Neil Richards (Washington University School of Law) arguing against efforts to develop information privacy law (concerning the use and abuse of personal information) as a separate field of study from general privacy law.
*Mike Meurer (University of Boston) arguing that the classic patent race (in which two parties race to be the first to develop patentable technology in the hope of obtaining the patent, even where it economically irrational for them to do so), beloved of economists with an interest in IP, isn’t actually that common.
*Barton Beebe’s (Cardozo) statistical analysis of the factors used by the various US circuits in testing for confusion, aimed at finding out which factors are most important to the analysis of confusion in the US.
*Lisa P Ramsey (University of San Diego) arguing that, while advertising is worthwhile, a utilitarian analysis suggests that advertising should not be protected by copyright, patent or trade mark law.
*Devan Desai (Thomas Jefferson School of Law) arguing in favour of a clear rule for determining when trade marks have become generic.
*Kali Murray (Mississippi) on the politics of IP law.
*Ann Bartow (South Carolina) counselling reflection on the ways in which names for public spaces are chosen.
*Margaret Jane Radin (Stanford) on the interplay between patent construction and linguistics.
*Mark Lemley (Stanford) arguing that patents should be construed so that the meaning of a patent is fixed throughout its life at the date that the patent is applied for.
The IPKat is grateful to have had this stimulating opportunity to see what his colleagues on the other side of the pond are thinking.
Wednesday, 17 August 2005
Posted by Unknown at 00:21:00