Search Results for "lemley"

Show #208 — Prof. Mark Lemley on the US Supreme Court’s current patent cases — posted

At LONG last, after working on issues ranging from transparency in international trade and hydraulic fracturing to making sure that 3Ls have grades upon which to base their graduation, I am now going to begin a flurry of posts of this quarter’s shows. Thanks for your patience, and get ready for a barrage!

So let’s start with Show #208, April 8, my interview with four-time guest (thanks Mark!) Prof. Mark Lemley of Stanford Law School on this term’s United States Supreme Court intellectual property cases — and there are a banner number. This term’s cases have addressed some of the most vexing issues in patent law generally, ranging from claim construction to abstract ideas. We discussed the primary cases, as well as current legislative efforts to address patent trolls/non-practicing entities/patent assertion entities. As always, I greatly enjoyed my discussion with Mark.

[Ed. note: apparently the Facebook “like” box is currently broken. So like it some other way, if you’d like].


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblr

Shows 88 and 89 — Profs. Gary Small, Dan Burk and Mark Lemley — posted

I am pleased to post two new shows. The first, Show #88, May 27, is my interview with Prof. Gary Small of UCLA, co-author of iBrain: Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Modern Mind. Gary and his co-author Gigi Vorgan have written a fascinating account of the current research into the impact on the human brain caused by technology, particularly the Internet. The book is a very readable study of the research, as well as an optimistic assessment of where we are headed. Gary and I discuss much of the research, as well as his outlook on our likelihood of survival of the information onslaught. I hope that you enjoy the interview!

My second interview, Show #89, June 3 is with Profs. Dan Burk of U.C. Irvine School of Law and Mark Lemley of Stanford Law School, co-authors of The Patent Crisis and How the Courts Can Solve It. Dan and Mark (who is the first three-time repeat guest on Hearsay Culture) take an extended look at the state of empirical research into the basic question of whether the patent “system” (if such a system exists) is working. They take a middle ground between previous Hearsay Culture guests in ultimately suggesting (as the subtitle of the book states) that the courts currently have the “policy levers” to solve the most vexing problems with patent law. Dan and Mark are two of the leading intellectual property law scholars in the United States, and I very much enjoyed discussing their book with them.

On a scheduling note, Hearsay Culture will air new shows when KZSU-FM‘s summer quarter begins on July 1. You can find the schedule of outstanding upcoming guests here. Thanks for listening!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblr

Shows #61 and 62 — Profs. Bobbi Kwall and Mark Lemley — posted

Starting the quarter off with intellectual property law, I’m very excited to post the first two shows of this quarter: Show #61, my interview with Prof. Roberta “Bobbi” Kwall of DePaul University College of Law, and Show #62, my interview with Prof. Mark Lemley of Stanford Law School.

Bobbi and I focused on copyright, and particularly her forthcoming book on moral rights and personhood in copyright. A timely topic, given all that is currently happening in litigating fair use issues.

Mark and I focused on patents, and what best can be called an update from last year’s interview, and the discussion ranged from In re Bilski to what’s down the road for patent reform.

I enjoyed both interviews and hope that you do also!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblr

Show #29 — Prof. Mark Lemley — posted

Show #29, my interview with Prof. Mark Lemley of Stanford Law School is posted. Thanks again to Mark for taking time out of a very busy schedule to be on the show.

The timing of the show is great, given the flood of patent cases in the Supreme Court. As the show was aired on Wednesday, February 21, the day that Microsoft v. AT&T was argued, Mark offered his first-impression thoughts on the case based upon the summary of the argument found on the PatentlyO blog.

Patent law is (or should be) a concern to all interested in how technology is created, commercialized and disseminated. The incentive-based innovation system that United States intellectual property law conceives is built, in large measure, around the dual roles of copyright and patent. Trademark and trade secret law (the latter near-and-dear to my research) take second place (starting from a constitutional perspective). While I would challenge the assertion that trade secrecy deserves such a designation, simply by virtue that it is primarily a beast of state law, it gets less national attention (although trade secret litigation is a booming business).

So I’ve embarked upon a pitch to be concerned about where patent law is headed, although perhaps none is needed. Mark is an expert (and prolific writer) in this area; hence the focus. Enjoy!

Playlist for Show #29 (the challenge of finding patent music referred me somehow to jazz, a personal love — I will try to figure out an explanation):

(1) Motel (Diner au Motel)/Miles Davis/Ascenseur Pour L’échafaud
(2) My Favorite Things/Grant Green/Matador
(3) Monk’s Mood/Joe Lovano/I’m All for You
(4) Blues for Nina/Joe Pass/Joe Pass at the Montreux Jazz Festival 1975

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblr

shows #100 and 101 — William Patry and Larry Downes — posted

I am thrilled to post shows #100 and 101! After over three years of shows, a few thank yous are appropriate. While I get into an Oscar-type thank you speech on show #100, I thank my friends at KZSU-FM (especially Mark Lawrence and Kathryn Todd, as well as numerous DJs) and Stanford Law School (especially former Center for Internet and Society colleagues Lauren Gelman, Jennifer Granick and Larry Lessig, as well as Mark Lemley and Joe Neto) for their early, continuing and ongoing support! Of course, the show would not be what it is without great guests, and I thank all 101! Lastly, thanks much to my wonderful wife Heidi, who has been my staunchest supporter and friend, and without whom I would be far the poorer.

Show #100, October 28 is my interview with William Patry, Esq., Senior Copyright Counsel at Google, author of Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars. Bill has written a thorough and descriptive overview of the state of the battle over the contours of copyright. In the interview, we discuss his personal interactions with Jack Valenti, as well as his critique of the nature of language in the efforts to frame the issues from all sides. While we do not discuss the status of the book search settlement negotiations, we cover plenty of fertile ground and I greatly enjoyed his insights and our discussion (hopefully Bill will come back on after the settlement is complete!)

Show #101, November 4 is my interview with repeat guest Larry Downes, author of The Laws of Disruption. Larry’s book, written for a broad audience, shows how technology has outpaced law in a variety of areas. We discuss a wide range of topics in furtherance of understanding how we might react to various changes in technology and society. Larry’s book is eminently readable and I greatly enjoyed the show and discussion!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblr

Schedule Changes and Upcoming Audio

Long time listeners (that is, those who have listened to Hearsay Culture for over four months) know that schedule changes do occur. More often than not, it is because of my work/personal responsibilities, but on occasion it is for better reasons. The below is such a change.

Prof. Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago Law School just happens to be down the street from the law school at the Hoover Institution. So, I am fortunate to have the opportunity to interview Richard in-studio, which I will do this week. Thus, the schedule change.

Additionally, the show is now scheduled through May thanks to a great addition: Brad Stone of The New York Times and return guest Jennifer Granick will be on the show in May to discuss the state of technology. It promises to be a lively discussion.

Finally, I will be posting audio to shows 27 and 28 (my interviews with Prof. Richard Lanham and Julian Dibbell, respectively) by next week, at the latest.

Thanks to Richard, and all of my guests, for doing the show, and I look forward to a live discussion with Prof. Mark Lemley of Stanford Law School this coming Wednesday!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblr

Host

About Dave

David S. Levine is an Associate Professor of Law at Elon University School of Law and an Affiliate Scholar at the Center for Internet and Society (CIS) at Stanford Law School. For 2014-2017, Dave is a Visiting Fellow at Princeton University’s Center for Information Technology Policy.

Dave’s scholarship, which has been published in a variety of law reviews including Florida, North Carolina and Stanford Online, focuses on the operation of intellectual property law at the intersection of technology and public life, specifically information flows in the lawmaking and regulatory process and intellectual property law’s impact on public and private secrecy, transparency and accountability. He is an acknowledged leader in trade secret law advocacy, and has spoken about his work in numerous venues, from the American Political Science Association annual meeting to the Information Society Project at Yale Law School, and internationally. His current projects focus on information systems and access to robotics information.

Active in policy analysis, he has made presentations to the negotiators at several negotiating rounds for the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), testified before the Library of Congress, briefed the Senate Judiciary Committee staff on trade secret law, co-authored influential law professors’ letters regarding the TPP, Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), and was a member of the North Carolina Mining and Energy Commission’s Protection of Trade Secret and Proprietary Information Study Group that was tasked with writing the state’s hydraulic fracturing regulations. Having been interviewed and quoted in many media outlets, from NPR to the Los Angeles Times, Dave is a regular contributor to Slate, and blogs at American University Law School’s Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property blog infojustice.org and Princeton’s Center for Information Technology Policy blog freedomtotinker.com.

He was previously a resident fellow at CIS, legislative aide in the New York State Assembly, assistant corporation counsel for the City of New York and in private practice in Manhattan where he worked for entertainment industry clients. He holds a BS in industrial and labor relations from Cornell University and a JD from Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

Scholarship

Publications on Trade Secret Law

Trade Secrets and Climate Change: Uncovering Secret Solutions to the Problem of Greenhouse Gas EmissionsResearch Handbook on Intellectual Property and Climate Change, Chapter 17, (Edward Elgar, 2016) (with Sharon Sandeen).

Here Come the Trade Secret Trolls71 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. Online 230 (2015) (with Sharon Sandeen).

The People’s Trade Secrets?, 18 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 61 (2011) (invited to discuss article at Yale Law School’s Information Society Project and University of North Carolina’s Mary Junck Research Colloquium).

Secrecy and Unaccountability: Trade Secrets in Our Public Infrastructure, 59 Fl. L. Rev. 135 (2007) (to be republished in full in forthcoming volume entitled Trade Secrets and Undisclosed Information (Edward Elgar 2014), cited in articles published in the Cornell, Duke, Iowa, Northwestern, Notre Dame and Stanford Law Reviews and Yale Law Journal, and quoted in Elizabeth Rowe and Sharon Sandeen, Cases and Materials on Trade Secret Law (West 2012)).

The Impact of Trade Secrecy on Public Transparency, in The Law and Theory of Trade Secrecy: A Handbook of Contemporary Research, Rochelle C. Dreyfuss and Katherine J. Strandburg, eds., Edward Elgar Publishing (2011) (invited to contribute to book focused on current issues in trade secret law and theory).

What Can the Uniform Trade Secrets Act Learn From the Bayh-Dole Act?, 33 Hamline L. Rev. 615 (2010) (invited to contribute to symposium issue marking 30th anniversary of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act).

Publications on Cyberlaw, Information Systems and/or International IP Law

The Social Layer of Freedom of Information Law, 90 N. C. L. Rev. 1687 (2012) (invited symposium issue on social media and the law).

 Bring in the Nerds: Secrecy, National Security, and the Creation of International Intellectual Property Law, 30 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L. J. 105 (2012) (invited lead article for one of two panels at Spring 2012 symposium celebrating 30th anniversary of the Journal)

  • Annemarie Bridy, Copyright Policymaking as Procedural Democratic Process: A Discourse-Theoretical Perspective on ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA, 30 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L. J. 153 (2012) (responding to article).
  • Mary LaFrance, Graduated Response by Industry Compact: Piercing the Black Box, 30 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L. J. 165 (2012) (responding to article).

Intellectual Property Law Without Secrets, in The Law of the Future and the Future of Law: Volume II, Sam Muller, Stavros Zouridis, Morly Frishman and Laura Kistemaker, eds., Torkel Opsahl, The Hague (2012) (invited).

Don’t Break the Internet, 64 Stan. L. Rev. Online 34 (2011) (with Mark Lemley of Stanford Law School and David G. Post of Temple Law School; extensive media coverage and impact discussed in Yochai Benkler et al., Social Mobilization and the Networked Public Sphere: Mapping the SOPA-PIPA Debate at 28, 33 (July 2013)).

Transparency Soup: The ACTA Negotiating Process and “Black Box” Lawmaking, 26 Am. U. Intl. L. Rev. 811 (2011) (part of volume dedicated to analysis of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)).

Other Publications

What Can We Do on Monday to Improve Our Teaching?, 17 Chapman L. Rev 29 (2013) (invited symposium).

The Potentially Perilous Cease-and-Desist Letter, 16-3 N. Y. S. Bar Assoc. Entertainment, Arts and Sports L. J. 16 (Fall/Winter 2005).

When Money Kills: an Overview of the Status of Internet Gambling after September 11, 2001, 12-3 N. Y. S. Bar Assoc. Entertainment, Arts and Sports L. J. 61 (Fall/Winter 2001).

The “Deep Freeze” in the Lower Federal Court Confirmation Process, 3 Holy Cross J. of L. and Pub. Pol. 263 (1998).

 Media

In addition to his scholarship, Dave founded, hosts and produces a weekly technology and intellectual property law interview radio show entitled Hearsay Culture (that’s where you are now!) Hearsay Culture is heard on KZSU-FM (Stanford University), and can be found as a podcast on iTunes, CIS’ website, and the website for the show, hearsayculture.com (which is where you are now). Since its founding in May 2006, Hearsay Culture has received very favorable (and unsolicited) reviews on blogs and technology websites including ZDNet (“Some of the best discussion I’ve heard to date (and certainly recently) about the economics of intellectual property in the technological era . . .”), Concurring Opinions (listing the show as one of the author’s six favorite podcasts of 2007), and Technology Liberation Front (reviewing interview with Prof. Richard Epstein, and author noting that it is “one of [his] favorite podcasts”).

Additionally, in December 2008, Hearsay Culture was listed in the American Bar Association (“ABA”) Journal’s Blawg 100 of 2008, as one of the “top 100 best Web sites by lawyers, for lawyers.” Specifically, Hearsay Culture was selected by the editors as one of the top five in the new podcast category. Hearsay Culture was also listed as one of 10 podcasts that are “essential for legal professionals” in an October 10, 2008 article by Robert J. Ambrogi of Law Technology News entitled “Ten Legal Podcasts to Keep You Informed.”

Dave is a regular contributor to Slate, and blogs at American University Law School’s Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property blog infojustice.org and Princeton’s Center for Information Technology Policy blog freedomtotinker.com. Dave has been quoted in articles in newspapers including the Los Angeles Times and appeared on CNBC, spoken at many intellectual property and cyberlaw conferences, and testified before the Library of Congress’ National Recording Preservation Board.

More information can be found here.

Education and Professional Experience

After earning a bachelor of science degree from Cornell University’s New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations in 1994, Dave was the Legislative Aide for the Hon. Sandy Galef, New York State Assemblywoman; additionally, he was the volunteer Field Director for the New York State chapter of Concord Coalition, with which he remains involved. During law school, Dave was a summer extern for the Hon. Adlai S. Hardin, United States Bankruptcy Judge in the Southern District of New York.

Upon graduating from Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Dave practiced law in Manhattan as an associate in the litigation departments of Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf LLP (formerly Lane & Mittendorf LLP) and thereafter Pryor Cashman Sherman & Flynn LLP. At Pryor Cashman, Dave worked on a variety of cases in the intellectual property and technology litigation fields for several entertainment and fashion industry clients. Dave was also an Assistant Corporation Counsel for the New York City Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel. In the transition from practice to teaching, Dave was a Resident Fellow at CIS.

Contact

Dave can be reached at dave@hearsayculture.com.

Dave finds it a bit obnoxious to write in the third person, but finds it stranger still to keep saying “I” into the ether. Thus, Dave will choose, from these two bad options, the third person.